Thanks Andyorch for all your help!

I was thinking send the info to the ICO regarding the personal information sent in error to me - also sending it to the person who it is adressed to with a note and this website to help

Ok update time!! Just came home to a letter from Lowell with a Notice of Discontinuance with "discontinues all of this claim" ticked so think thats a win Thanks for all the help will be hitting the donate button later today!

Couple of things - first of all just been sorting the paperwork that I am taking to court in a couple of weeks - noticed that Lowell has also sent me another persons details in some of the paperwork! Secondly and if this is in the wrong section I am sorry - given I like to know my "enemy" before going to places like this have been doing some digging into Lowell, specifically the Portfolio side which seems to be based in Europe (according to their website for investors)..... question would be a) due to the falling pound agains the euro they are now "cashing in" these debts given how old they are to protect investors would this be "proof" of them just buying debt for profit? I mean we all know that is their business focus but given the timings would this lend weight to the arguemnt and b) is it worth an FOI request to Ministry of Justice to see how much of the increase in CCJ's (30% ish) in first half of 2017 was due to this company? Again in my case pointless as cant produce evidence this late in the day, but maybe could be of use to people in an early position, or at least highlight the situation?

Here it is Statement.pdf

No there is still no breakdown and the document is completely different to the witness statement-this is a copy from 02 but it is not a standard mobile phone bill looks like internal statement of that makes sense - pc is back working again so will redact and PDF it for you to have a look at

Ok they have paid the fee so looks like will be heading to court on the 15th Sept - They actually paid quite early!

Ok slight update - have just received an email from Lowell with a statement......not what I asked for and as after the date could not be used anyway I assume? The statement is basically a copy of the statement of account from 02 and has no break down - will redact it and upload later but to be fair not a lot to it

Just checked and the document has been signed for this morning at Lowell (with a smiley face as a signature......very official) so all filed on time - no letter from Lowell with the missing second page arrived today so I assume not going to appear anytime soon roll on 13th and the check to see if it was paid

Thanks Andyorch all amended and sent off to Lowell by special "get there by 12 tomorrow" post and dropped the other copy into the court stamped for today. All I have to do now is wait till couple of weeks to see if they actually pay for the case. Thanks again for all you help!!!

That's brilliant thank you

Ok having looked at a few more of the other defences I have seen on the site have added a bit more. I, xxxxxxx WILL SAY as follows: Introduction: 1. I am a litigant in person. I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence dated 21st March 2017 and in response to the claimants claim dated 17th February 2017 which was submitted through County Court Bulk Centre. 2. The facts contained in this statement are known to me based on the information held and are true to the best of my belief. 3. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. Response to the claimants statement: 4. In regards to the request under CPR31.14 dated 21st February 2017, this was to confirm the debt was the defendants as all correspondence received so far has been under the name of xxxx and not xxxxx which is the defendants name as seen by a copy of the defendants driving license attached as CS1. 5. In regards to Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 12, the evidence supplied in SJI1 is not sufficient to show the ownership of the debt. It has no identifying details (Name, address, Account Number) and therefore lacks the details needed to prove this. 6. In regards to evidence SJI2 and Paragraph 12, the letter (unbranded) allegedly from O2 states that a full breakdown of costs is included however this has not been produced as evidence in the witness statement from the Claimant. The letter in SJI2 states on paragraph 1 of this letter - "Details of what that amount is for are on the other side of this letter" – this second part of the letter, evidenced within the claimants Witness statement is missing. The claimant was contact via phone and email on 01/08/2017 asking for this information and this email is attached as evidence hereto as “CS2”. As per CPR Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed: Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract; and (b) show proof the Defendant was sent default notice and termination notice/demand notices; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; and (d) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Without the complete document listed in SJI1 or SJI2 and given the submitted issue with the name, as shown hereto at “CS1” the Defendant suggests this has not been met. 7. The Claimant suggests that the defendant has admitted entering into a contract in Paragraph 15. While the defendant has acknowledged that he has, in the past, had an account with O2, at no time has the defendant admitted entering into this particular contact as the surnames are not correct on any of the paperwork supplied nor on the claim itself. As the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim, due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act. 8. In regards to the alleged upgrade on 7th October 2011 stated in Paragraph 16 - there has been no documentation supplied in regards to this allegation in their claim - there should be a signed form for example if conducted in store. This, if supplied, would prove one way or another, the debt as the signature on the contract would be the same as the driving license supplied in (CS1). 9. Notwithstanding the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge that is made up of the entire balance if the remaining contract is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service. 10. As such the claimant has not provided an accurate break down of how the amount alleged to be owed has been calculated. Nor has the claimant supplied evidence that the debt is the defendants. 11. The defendant respectfully submits that the claim has not proven ownership and therefore the claim should be struck out.

Ok sorry lots of double posts.......Also will check if they have paid yet the fee (Not due till 18th August but will keep an eye out for it)

Ok this is what I am going with.... I, xxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx will say the following: Introduction: 1. I am a litigant in person. 2. The facts contained in this statement are known to me based on the information held and are true to the best of my belief. Response to the claimants statement: 3. In regards to the request under CPR31.14 this was to confirm the debt was the defendants as all correspondence received so far has been under the name of "yyyyy" and not "xxxxxxx" which is the defendants name as seen by a copy of the defendants driving license attached as CS1. 4 The evidence supplied in SJI1 is not sufficient to show ownership of the debt. It has no identifying details (Name, address, Account Number). 5. In regards to evidence SJI2 the letter (unbranded) allegedly from O2 states that a full breakdown of costs is included however this has not been produced as evidence in the witness statement from the Claimant. The letter in SJI2 states on paragraph 1 of this letter "Details of what that amount is for are on the other side of this letter" - this part of the letter evidenced within the claimants Witness statement is missing. As per CPR Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed: Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract; and (b) show proof the Defendant was sent default notice and termination notice/demand notices; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; and (d) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Without the complete document listed in SJI1 or SJI2 and given the submitted issue with the name, as shown in CS1 the Defendant suggests this benchmark has not been met. 6. The Claimant suggests that the defendant has admitted entering into a contract in Paragraph 15. While the defendant has acknowledged that he has, in the past, had an account with O2, at no time has the defendant admitted entering into this particular contact as the surnames are not correct on any of the paperwork supplied nor on the claim itself. As the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim, due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act. 7. In regards to the alleged upgrade on 7th October 2011 there has been no documentation supplied in regards to this in there claim - there should be a signed form for example if conducted in store. This, if supplied, would prove one way or another the debt as the signature on the contract would be the same as the driving license supplied in (CS1). 8. Notwithstanding the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge that is made up of the entire balance if the remaining contract is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service. 9. As such the claimant has not provided an accurate break down of how the amount alleged to be owed has been calculated. Nor has the claiment supplied evidence that the debt is the defendants. 10. The defendant respectfully submits that the claim has not proven ownership and therefore the claim should be struck out.

Will post up another draft of what I am Sending to Lowell tonight so I can send it off special delivery to them tomorrow for the 3rd - nothing as of yet via email in regards to the missing page but don't want to miss the deadline