Received court claim for a statute barred debt (Cabot / Mortimer & Clarke)

PirateAndy

So I received court claim documentation for a defaulted debt from around 9-10 years ago. Mortimer and Clarke "solicitors" have recently started hounding me about it and sent the claim through the other week on behalf of Cabot Financial.

I have never paid a penny to Cabot Financial towards this nor ever admitted liability on the debt. They have the cheek to demand interest on the defaulted sum from 10/10/2022 (which is when I assume they obtained the debt from either Natwest or another debt collector who sold it on)... But my credit file clearly shows no defaults or missed payments from 2019 to present. I know the defaults were around 2016 at the latest as I was going through a bad patch at the time.

As far as I'm aware they are statute barred under all criteria I've researched.

I've already started the 12 steps help info and filed an AOC with MCOL

I am wanting to just check that what I've written in my defence letter is OK and if I've either missed anything important or need to remove anything dumb from it before submission:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  ############

Between

Cabot Financial Ltd (Claimant)

- and -

########## (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim ######### from the Civil National Business Centre County Court on 18/10/2025.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied.

3. This claim appears to be for a Credit agreements regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4. It is admitted that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with NatWest Bank for provision of credit.

5. The Claimants Particulars of Claim state the agreements were entered into between 28/06/2004 and 02/09/2015. Over ten years ago as of the issue date of this claim on 15/10/2025.

6. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position with regards the claim. No dates as to when these defaults occurred is given. No information is provided as to when any default notice was issued, if ever. No evidence of original documentation with regards to the agreements in question are provided or referenced.

7. The Defendant contends the alleged debt is statute barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 in that no payment or acknowledgment has been made for over 6 years.

8. The Claimants statement of case states that the accounts were assigned from NatWest Bank to Cabot Financial Ltd but fails to state when this occurred. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

9. It is denied that NatWest Bank served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

10. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

11. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

12. No such defaults or missed payments appear on the Defendants credit file for the full six-year period between 2019 and 2025. Providing evidence that any default must have been prior to this, and therefore would be statute barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

Statement of Truth

I believe the that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Thanks in advance for any help with telling Cabot Financial and M&C to F right off.

ManyWays

Did they send you a Letter Before Action/Claim? 

PirateAndy

ManyWays said:

Did they send you a Letter Before Action/Claim? 

 Nothing that states those words. I do have a letter threatening court action from 11th July of this year.

But nothing that says specifically Letter Before Action/Claim.

ManyWays

Did that letter have some forms attached, one headed Reply Form?

PirateAndy

ManyWays said:

Did that letter have some forms attached, one headed Reply Form?

Seems it did looking at it.

PirateAndy

I should also say that just this morning I've also sent a CCA request to the claimant and a CPR request to the solicitor. Requesting evidence of the original documentation proving the debt is mine (i.e. the original signed agreements or copies thereof).

I'm pretty sure that they will not have these documents since the debts are at least 10 years old. As I have been researching things, as I understand it, they will need these to prove in court the debt is mine and therefore enforceable.

If not, as I understand it, they will not be able to bring this to court... Am I right?

Grumpelstiltskin

Your big problem is you didn't complete the form that was included with the letter you received in the summer. At that point if you had sent the completed form back and asked for  further information and proof of the debt if Cabot couldn't produce it there would be no court hearing.

ManyWays

I know it's annoying to be told you made a mistake, but for the sake of everyone else reading this, people must NOT ignore a Letter before Action/Claim, which may not have that exact heading, but will have a Reply Form attached.

That is your chance to head off any court case if the debt is statute barred or the creditor cannot produce the CCA agreement (if one is relevant). By ignoring this, you now have to go through the much more painful and uncertain process of defending the court case. 

The Legal Beagles is your best place to ask for help with drafting your defence and for other points along the court journey. 

sourcrates

I do agree it would have been better all round to have avoided this going to court, but that is by the by, and we are where we are now.

I think the defence (posted above) is good, one thing I would say is that the court doesn't expect you to have legal knowledge or training, as you are a layman, your defence should reflect that, keep it simple and to the point.

Its quite possible once they are aware of your defence, they may throw in the towel, and not pursue this any further.

fatbelly

That looks a lot like the Legal Beagles template to me

Two points

Please quote Limitation Act. There is no s on it

To show something is statute barred you have to identify the cause of action (default date in this case) and show no acknowledgement for a 6 year period after this. Your para 9 would be better to state when the default was

Also para 12 is not evidence and better omitted (that's three points)

PirateAndy

fatbelly said:

That looks a lot like the Legal Beagles template to me

Two points

Please quote Limitation Act. There is no s on it

To show something is statute barred you have to identify the cause of action (default date in this case) and show no acknowledgement for a 6 year period after this. Your para 9 would be better to state when the default was

Also para 12 is not evidence and better omitted (that's three points)

Thanks for the feedback. I took out the S and removed para 12. 

As for Para 9... I can't remember when the defaults were specifically but I do know they were circa 2016.