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

PirateAndy

Well I've added and changed some bits in the defence. This one assumes I get no reply from the CCA, CPR or SAR by the time I submit.

Para 14 is floating as of now as if I do get a response I will offer extension with the knowledge that they will not likely respond before I submit (I have about a week left before the dealine. Though I plan to submit next monday).

In The County Court

Claim No.:  #########

Between

Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd (Claimant)

and

######### (Defendant)

 

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant received the claim M2CD84AM from the Civil National Business Centre County Court on 15/10/2025.

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

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 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 Limitation 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.On 30/10/2025 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Ltd which requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreements and Notice of Assignment.

11.Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Ltd has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.

12.On 30/10/2025 the Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreements to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd pursuant to section 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

 

13.The Claimant has failed to comply with s77 (1) and s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s77 (4) and s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

 

14.The Defendant has asked the Claimant if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but they have declined.

 

15.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.

 

16.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for the Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

 

17.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

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

PirateAndy

And to update:

I sent the requests well over a month ago with absolutely no reply from Mortimer and Clarke or Cabot. The only response I obtained was from NatWest with all of the info for me and my accounts they hold in the SAR.

So since they have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the various consumer credit legislation then they seem to not be able to continue their case... is that correct?

fatbelly

I would expect you to get a Directions Questionnaire, which you must complete and return.

That scuppers their last chance to get summary judgement.

Then the Claimant will have to consider whether they want to proceed with a hearing

You may then get a notice of discontinuation, unless they feel lucky.

What's showing on MCOL?

ManyWays

I agree with @fatbelly. You must not assume this is all sorted.

SPM87

they will likely pull out of this claim imo. This is an attempt to sneak in a CCJ by default (no response to the claim)

Also it is my understanding that reconstituted copies satisfy the request itself, it does NOT mean it satisfies anything in terms of proof of ownership of debt. I believe in the court room it must be the original copy, something many wont admit to. 

The challenge is the more evidence displayed = less chance of success in court and can be at a judges discretion  

ManyWays

The  court case typically cited as a precedent for a reconstituted copy being acceptable is Carey v HSBC (2009), https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

(If you are trying to say that the reconstituted copy is a true copy but it does not prove that the debt collector has validly purchased the debt, that is a different argument, and producing the original agreement with a wet ink signature would not do that either.)

PirateAndy

fatbelly said:

I would expect you to get a Directions Questionnaire, which you must complete and return.

That scuppers their last chance to get summary judgement.

Then the Claimant will have to consider whether they want to proceed with a hearing

You may then get a notice of discontinuation, unless they feel lucky.

What's showing on MCOL?

Full update list from MCOL:

• A claim was issued against you on 15/10/2025
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 18/10/2025 at 09:03:26
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 20/10/2025 at 01:05:43
• Your defence was submitted on 10/11/2025 at 08:19:39
• Your defence was received on 10/11/2025 at 12:05:11

And that's it. That's the last update.

I should also point out that ever since this claim was filed Cabot/Mortimer have been calling almost on a bi-weekly basis. Something I thought was essentially illegal once court proceedings have been undertaken. Does that not constitute harassment?

PirateAndy

SPM87 said:

they will likely pull out of this claim imo. This is an attempt to sneak in a CCJ by default (no response to the claim)

Also it is my understanding that reconstituted copies satisfy the request itself, it does NOT mean it satisfies anything in terms of proof of ownership of debt. I believe in the court room it must be the original copy, something many wont admit to. 

The challenge is the more evidence displayed = less chance of success in court and can be at a judges discretion  

Well it is now nearing the end of December and I've not heard anything from MCOL or via email about proceeding with the claim. Neither have I had any word of discontinuance however. 

The last update from MCOL was them receiving my defence on 10th Nov. Now at the bottom of the screen there is mention of "set aside application" - isn't that a way of getting this done and dusted with the court?

Or do I just leave it as is in perpetuity?

ManyWays

A defended court case will often take a lot more than 6 months to go through, sometimes over a year, nothing happens fast, especially over Christmas.

I suggest you wait for the Directions Questionnaire that @fatbelly mentioned. Just take this step by step and check MCOL once a week. 

BUT I repeat what I said before, that Legal Beagles is your best place to ask for help with points along the court journey. 

A set aside is only where there has already been a judgment; here there hasn't.

You could apply for a strike out or a summary judgment, but these are high hurdles where you have to argue that there are no reasonable grounds to bring the case or there has been a serious abuse of process. Many judges prefer a weak case to go to trial and if you annoy a judge too much with a weak application, its possible you may get a costs order (although you do get some leeway as a litigant in person in the county court.)

fatbelly

PirateAndy said:

SP

Well it is now nearing the end of December and I've not heard anything from MCOL or via email about proceeding with the claim. Neither have I had any word of discontinuance however. 

The last update from MCOL was them receiving my defence on 10th Nov. Now at the bottom of the screen there is mention of "set aside application" - isn't that a way of getting this done and dusted with the court?

Or do I just leave it as is in perpetuity?

That sounds odd. You only set aside a judgement, and it would be you that applied for it