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.