A game of Cluedo

Reply in Latin

A quick trip to Beagleland can be quite entertaining, sometimes you just have to laugh!

Google translationHere, a new poster is asking about a claim, and they do receive a response, only trouble is, it’s not in English! It’s in Latin: Cabot County Court Statute Barred Debt. A few LB members enjoy using this dead language in their signatures, probably because they think it makes them look scholarly,  literate and well educated. Fair enough, however, when someone asks a question, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to answer it in the language most commonly used in this country?

Cryptic clue

Rather than a translation, the OP gets a cryptic clue: a link to Google where, at first glance, the meaning is not that clear. This is exactly what comes up when you go to that link, hardly obvious, is it? It’s all in the context of the Law of Torts and you can see negligence and personal injury mentioned on the page. The OP has received a money claim for a statute barred debt. They must have been wondering how any of that would apply to his claim.

TypoThe OP then asks for an explanation and mistypes one word, yet it’s still quite obvious that they are referring to “definition”, especially when you see it in context. Still his question is answered with an open question.

What’s going on here?

To recap:

  1. The OP has received a claim, they are understandably nervous and stressed out.
  2. They receive a response in Latin.
  3. A cryptic clue follows
  4. His request for clarification is met with “????”

Helpful answers

After all this, they are told they are not experts, and that the court cannot give you a CCJ for a SBd debt. Actually, they can! The court doesn’t know whether the debt is SBd or not, SBd is a procedural defence. That means you have to write down on your defence form that the debt is SBd.

When the OP asks how he would defend, they referred to a green box at the top of the thread and told to “adapt to suit”. Yet another cryptic clue! For a start, there aren’t any green boxes, just green text links. There is one to an example defence, but it’s not the statute barred defence. When he asks for another clue, this time he is met with “cccc”, whatever that means. The answers refer only to the proof of posting but nothing to do with his original question regarding what he was looking for in the non-existent green boxes at the top.

Sir NemesisEnter Sir Nemesis

This goes on for a while, then, 25 posts later, Sir Nemesis makes a triumphant entrance and quickly pastes up his Words of Wisdom. Even though this issue has been debated to exhaustion, he is STILL going on about the default dates on credit files. Cabot & Co. can say whatever they want, DEFAULT DATES ON CREDIT FILES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LIMITATION. Nothing whatsoever. The Limitation Act 1980 refers to the cause of action, since when is reporting to the CRAs the cause of any action? The cause of action would be missing a payment, not making an entry on the credit database. Maybe if we have this in bold, red, all caps he will be able to read it and finally absorb it.

Fortunately another poster stepped in to suggest a full defence including reference to the CCA and assignment issues as a fallback plan in case the account turns out not to be statute barred after all. Not one to relinquish attention, Sir Nemesis bangs on about underhand tricks by Cabot denying receipt of a CCA request. Isn’t that the reason whey they are sent recorded delivery, so they can be tracked on the Royal Mail site?


  1. BillK says:

    I consider Charity to be a b100dy intelligent guy with a wicked sense of humour, and I wonder if he may have been winding Nem up a bit, as Nem is clearly nowhere near as intelligent and has no sense of humour – or sense of much else, it would appear. But whatever Chas’s intentions, the thing didn’t speak for itself and the OP suffered as a result of his use of a bit of authentic ‘Olde Worlde forumspeak’ – which also appears to have gone right over Nem’s head, as he resorts to one of his own chosen topics.

    I guess the suggested fallback plan that relies on a CCA s.77-79 request and assignment procedure is also one of Nem’s chosen topics – but alas he still founders. Sure, they used to deny receipt of these, and they used to cobble forgeries together, but after a few nasty scrapes they have abandoned these tactics. Nevertheless, considering the fact that a CCA request still only costs £1, it is still a cheap and effective exercise and sending it by Recorded or ‘Signed For’ should be considered an essential part of that exercise. Even a humble freebie Proof of Posting certificate is better than nowt.

    I can’t see Nem tolerating Chas’s presence in LB for very much longer, but I doubt if Chas will give Nem any just cause for complaint – so it may be interesting to see just how the two of them get along.

    “Ludum bonum, ludum bonum !” [Brucius Forsythium] – “Good game, good game !”

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Correspondence does get lost in the post, not very frequently but it happens. When you send a CCA request, if you have a copy of the letter and the receipt for the postal order, you could establish that, on the balance of probabilities, you did send the request, after all, I can’t think of any other reason for anyone to buy a £1 PO in this day and age, and it does cost you £1.50. Proof of posting will make the balance tip further in your favour and this is enough when you are just dealing with a creditor.

      However, when non-compliance with ss.77/79 of the CCA is all that’s standing in the way between you and a nasty CCJ, you really need to use recorded delivery. We need to look at WHO has a duty here. The defendant doesn’t have a duty to send a CCA request in response to a claim, so it’s not a question of establishing that they sent it. The CREDITOR has a duty to respond to a CCA request and cannot enforce the debt until he does. That means the defendant has to establish that the request was received by the creditor and not complied with if that’s what they are relying on, and most of those “no documents” defences hinge almost exclusively on this fact.

      Non compliance with a request under the CPR is a procedural issue that does not prevent enforcement. The defendant would have to enforce their request with an unless order in order to get somewhere with this, which is only worth doing with large claims.

      As for Chas, let’s not forget he was away from LB for a couple of years and during this time, a new kid joined the pack and quickly became well established as Top Dog. Chas may not be aware that this Top Dog is a pretender, not unless he knew something about his background like some of us do.

      His hesitation and his saying “I’m not an expert” may well because he doesn’t want to tread on Top Dog’s toes if he’s yet to find out that he isn’t even a dog at all but a nanobot with very few pre-programmed tracks to draw upon. That happened to other people in the days when Eloise was regarded as top authority in employment matters; anyone posting on the employment threads had to be careful and slowly stick their toes in the water one at a time, to avoid being eaten alive by a sea monster.

  2. revenge says:

    Whilst winding up each other on a thread is not really helping the OP find the solution of correct advice and then I suppose the OP will have to go to the LBComare site to find an actual solicitor to take on the case. Sad state of affairs when everyone should be pulling together to help. Or maybe this is what the site owners want now.

  3. grimreaper says:

    Whilst much concentrates on the debt/consumer issues here just take a look at this:-


    This is a classic example of how NOT to do things. None of the real facts have been established. Quotes about “the LPA”, which LPA is it? Much is said about the carer so is the LPA just the one for health and welfare or is the second one in place for financial matters. The solicitor, who is he or she and what input did they have to the will, and why have they been instructed and then allowed to walk away? There are all the questions about this “Estate Planner”. All of this and much more needed to be established at the outset guiding the OP to give the fullest account he felt able to do. He is at the moment being guided to lose the lot in one foul swoop. And it may well not be either the alleged beneficiary/executor or the cancer charity it may well be the Crown in Chancery. At that point write it off unless the estate is huge. No advice on the rights of executors to protect the OP. Frankly it makes me sick. I wish i had not bothered to have a look around there.

    And is this “openlaw15” just 15 years of age doing O-levels? Because thats what he/she comes over as.

    • Legaleaglet says:

      At least Enaid told him he was being unhelpful, not that he was deterred in the slightest. He seemed to be copying and pasting straight off his text book.

  4. BillK says:

    LOL – I think Enaid might be pulled up by Ame there – the ailing Legal Beagles forum cannot afford to lose such quality contributors as OpenLaw15 !!! Law students all seem to think that a little knowledge of the law is all that is needed, but fail to realise that the power of knowledge is the ability to put it into practice. Knowing the law is one thing, but putting it into practice effectively is a totally different ball-game. Ain’t that right, Kate ?

    Great explanation of the difference ‘twixt Proof of Posting and Proof of Delivery, LE – along with reasons for each. FWIW, I tend to use ‘Signed For,’ which I think is cheaper than Recorded Delivery because it isn’t tracked throughout the journey – but you get the signature on delivery, which is the aim. I think it adds about £1.80 to the cost of a CCA request.

    Chas is normally very polite, but often with a humorous twist, which I doubt if Nem will appreciate. If we liken Nem to Dad’s Army’s Capt. Mainwaring, then Chas could well be Sgt. Wilson – played by the impeccable John Le Mesurier.

    As revenge observes, nobody seems to be pulling together in Legal Beagles to help the posters – it’s every man for himself. I can only assume that – either the site owners made a huge and irreversible mistake by ejecting so many core contributors – or that they knew exactly what they were doing by letting LB wither away as it is doing now, in order to generate fodder for LBcompare.

    The way it is going at present, LBcompare is going to be known as the site that couldn’t give a $h1t about those in need of advice – as opposed to the site that helps them find it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *