that's good

they are learning these fleecers lie they have documents and are now putting them to strict proof

hold till the very last minute [you can email the court]

as soon as you get anything from them scan it straight up here but use PDF please

read upload

Sorry, I will use pdf next time.

I wasn’t sure if it was good or bad, it’s all a little daunting.

It would appear the court has dispensed with its normal process in issuing the n157 Notice of allocation with directions and out the claimant to strict proof before it goes to allocation.No doubt the claimant will simply disclose what they have already disclosed to you.

You have been ordered that on compliance form the claimant..you will submit a further particularised defence....given that you already have and know what they may disclose you should make a start on that defence in good time.

Andy

I am not sure how to prepare a defence further than what i have sent them already. I put on the defence that I haven't entered into an agreement with the claimant (though I acknowledged I did with Vanquis) - my defence below;

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

(1) The Defendant notes the opening sentence referring to an agreement between him and Vanquis. The Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis. The Defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the Claimant refers, having failed to adequately particularise its claim.

(2) The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the required payments due. This is denied.

(3) The Claimant alleges the agreement was later assigned to them on 04/08/2013 and notice has been given to the Defendant. This is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from assignor or assignee pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 s136.

(4) The Claimant alleges “repeated requests for payment”. This is denied.

The Defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant or interest pursuant to the County Courts Act 1984.

The Defendant is unaware of what account or contract the Claimant refers to, nor having received any default notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) Put to strict proof to show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and

(b) Put to strict proof to show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed; and

© Put to strict proof to show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

(d) Put to strict proof to provide an original assignment in writing signed by the assignor at time of alleged assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

(e) On receipt of this claim the Defendant requested by way of CPR31.14 and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for within the 14 day period by way of signed for letter. To date they have failed to comply with the section 78 request and remain in default with regards to the CPR31.14 request.

As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected the Claimant prove the allegation the money is owed.

On the alternative, if 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 1925 and Section 82a of the Consumer Credit Agreement Act 1974.

By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Do I just set the same out again on the statement they refer to? I'm reading around at the moment trying to get an idea of what a "statement of facts which, if true, amount in law to a defence to the claim".

Now you have to particularise it ...look at what the claimant has sent you and start making notes on its deficiencies ...The Agreement.....Notice of Assignment.....Default Notice....Charges/penalties/interest etc etc.

ok thank you. can i post it up before submitting it to them so i am on the right track with it please?

Sure..its only what we would expect

Yesterday I received a pack from Lowell Solicitors with the same documents that were sent before. Only it now includes a copy of a default notice. I guess they forgot to put it in before.

The letter from them advises me to contact them in view of the evidence.

Should I make contact or stick to the plan as above?

I’ve also noticed that on the claim form the date in which they claim it was sold to them is incorrect on the notice of assignment.

On the claim form it states it was sold to them on 04/08/2013 yet on the notice of assignment it states 08/04/2013 and the notice is dated 11/04/2014.

Strikes me as a little odd that the notice of assignment took almost 8 months to be sent out.

Should I stick to my guns and keep going as planned and stop feeling sorry for myself as someone put it earlier. No offence taken.

Its your choice.....still submit your defence

Thank you. I am going to stick to my guns and stand firm, i've nothing to lose now.

Please find below my first attempt at the statement requested. I have been looking around the site this morning and found a rough draft of one from a similar case live at present.

I would be grateful if someone would look it over and see if i make any sense at all.

I am the defendant in this case. Lowell Portfolio I Limited have issued a claim against me for an alleged credit card agreement between myself and Vanquis Bank.

I also make this statement knowing that anything I believe to be false or misleading may lead to prosecution.

It is my understanding that the ‘Claimant’ is an ‘Assignee’ of defunct or disputed debts which they purchase on mass at a hugely reduced figure. It is suggested after doing a little research into how Debt Management Companies work and also having spoken to a previous employee of a large national company that the debts purchased are at a figure of pennies in the pound, in a particular case I am privy too, 10 pence in the pound on a £3.5k debt.

The debt has already been written off by the original creditor as a capitol loss and it is suspected that a taxable claim may have been made as taxable income. From a few minutes research I have discovered that the claimant then issues bulk claims through the Court against people to maximise profit.

As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act this applies to the new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debt or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with the Consumer Credit Agreement requirements, such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information.

The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the Consumer Credit Agreement cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.

The claim made relates to an old Vanquis Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank.

The defendant accepts that in the past he has had financial dealings with Vanquis Bank, however, the defendant does not recall any agreement with the Claimant and is unaware of what debt the claimant refers, having failed to adequately particularise its claim.

As a result of this claim the defendant sent by way of recorded post to the Claimant on 31/01/18, a request for copies of the Consumer Credit Agreement, the Default Notice and original signed Notice of Assignment from the original creditor, Vanquis Bank. This was not complied with, instead a letter explaining they were “requesting” the documents from the original creditor was received with a further “request for payment”.

I wish to express serious concern that the claimant has made a claim through the Legal system without actually having paperwork and proof of ownership to do so. I believe the claimant is misleading the court in the hope that the claim is not questioned, and it is won by default at the very start of the claim.

As a result of not receiving the requested paperwork and proof of ownership, pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 s136 the defendant doubts the authenticity of the claim and the claimant.

The claim form documents that the “agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 04/08/2013 and notice given to the defendant” yet the Notice of Assignment received, documents it as “08 April, 2013 your account was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd”.

The Notice of Assignment is dated “11 April 2014” which is a year after the debt was sold to the claimant, this raises serious doubt with regards to the authenticity of this document. I state the reason for this being that the original creditor is unlikely to have issued a Notice of Assignment a year after the debt was sold to the claimant, a genuine Notice of Assignment was requested which has not been produced.

The claimant has documented in their own words on the claim form that “notice was given to the defendant” – however, that statement appears to be inaccurate given that the date on the notice is a year later and would therefore be impossible.

The defendant believes this document is a poorly typed up forgery that is intended to mislead the court. The inconsistencies with the dates and the timescales of it being issued are suspect.

On the 14 February 2018 the claimant sent a letter which documented it as “please find enclosed Notice of Assignment as requested”. This document is not a notice of assignment, it is a document that is “Introducing Lowell” as a “specialist debt purchaser who buys accounts”. The defendant believes this to be another attempt to mislead the defendant by misrepresenting it as a formal and legal Notice of Assignment (insert exhibit ref here).

The defendant also believes that the Notice of Assignment date (11 April 2014) was used from the very letter the claimant suggested was the actual Notice of Assignment sent by them on the 14 February 2018 and is indeed a forgery.

Further to the suspect notice of assignment, the claimants solicitors sent a letter dated “28 March 2017” in reference to this claim that states;

“We have requested the documents in support of this claim from our Client and we will forward these onto you upon receipt. Whilst we endeavour to provide evidence of the debt as soon as possible, you will appreciate this is dependent upon receipt of the information from the original creditor”.

Sir / Madam, with respect, for a claim being made in court that is for money, the claimant would be expected to have the “evidence” before such claim is made and this implies that they do not and never did have a genuine notice of assignment or indeed a right to make claim. This again is concerning and appears on the basis of it to be misleading the defendant into paying a debt to which he has not entered into with the claimant.

Further, the fact the letter is also dated “28 March 2017” suggests, given the inaccuracies so far that this is a mass typed document sent as a standard response. It does not appear to be a professionally typed and sent document by a company of solicitors whereby a far higher standard of professionalism would be expected.

The claimant, at the request and order of Judge Anson sent copies of the Notice of Assignment (insert here exhibit ref), copy of Default Notice and copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement.

The Default Notice appears to be a reconstituted document and by the claimants solicitors own words in another letter sent as “without prejudice save as to costs” dated “19 April 2018” they clearly state “Please find enclosed a copy of the Credit Agreement, Statement and the Default Notice provided by Vanquis along with a copy of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment and letter of claim”. The claimant has admitted that the Notice of Assignment is not genuine and the discrepancies pointed out earlier in this statement show it to be fraudulent and intended to mislead the defendant and the court.

In actual fact, what was received was the Notice of Default, not a Default Notice and a copy of statement of account from the original creditor. This statement clearly documents a “repayment option plan” which was never requested or known to have been applied to the account and has just made the defendant aware of charges that equate to £521.04 over the lifetime of the agreement with the original creditor to which are part of this claim”.

This is to be reclaimed as it was never requested and is believed to be a form of Mis-Sold or indeed, Mis-Applied Payment Protection Insurance.

The defendant wishes to point out that the default amount is “£2239.13”, yet the claimant has made claim for £2463.43 plus costs and interest totalling £2845.50.

The defendant wishes to know how the claimant has made claim for additional monies on top of the actual default balance. This appears to be another inconsistency with their claim.

The “copy of agreement” appears to be nothing more than a computer screen capture and until a true copy of the executed Credit Agreement that complies in full with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is supplied the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt.

I ask respectfully, that you strike out this claim and the Claimant be responsible for all costs incurred, given the errors and lack of evidence, respect and attention the claimant has shown towards the Court, Pre-Action Protocol the Civil Procedure Rules and also the Defendant.

be honest with you = keep it simple (excuse the pun)

a judge I cannot see wading through paragraph after paragraph in mass defence

if you referring to letter etc state so attached item 1/9 refers they brief description?

many a DJ has frowned on such and to be honest I know they have not read any case defences as they show gross non knowledge until challenged aon a paragraph so try and keep it simple sure others will comment also?

Thats a witness statement...not a particularised defence....It one of my drafts:-)

OOpppss

Sorry, I maybe misunderstood. I've just looked at the order and it said "statement of case" so I thought witness statement. I'll have a look again - keeping it simple Old Cogger....

Thats fine then...not a partularised defence...statement of case/witness statement...one and the same.

Before I leave for home, is what I have put OK in the Witness statement (as in, does it make sense). I'll work on tidying it and keeping it simple at home as my friend has lent me a laptop. If you get a chance to reply and let me know before 3pm that would be amazing. Thankyou.

I would remove the points i have marked in Blue and lose all the " ...... "

It requires headers and a statement of truth ...dated.

Hi, I’ve just received a letter that refers the case back to mediation. It didn’t go well last time.

A hearing date has been set if it fails. I don’t think going to mediation is likely to help given I’m saying that I don’t owe Lowell a penny.

Just after your thoughts on it?

Just concentrate on the hearing date

I've just realised that the hearing date is whilst I am away with my children and grandchildren on a holiday. Would a letter to the court suffice to explain this with proof of it being pre-booked and should I send a copy to Lowell?

Also, I'm getting a little nervous about this now, more so as I can't be there. I've just read this thread, is any of this remotely accurate and if so, can I use any of what is here, such as the "deed of assignment" / "novation of assignment"....

I never knew any of those existed until now, is it too late to request the deed of assignment to get them to prove they own the debt fully and all the responsibilities they have to undertake as part of it? Or has that ship sailed and I need to rely on the judge to make them prove it?

Thx, Ed

Please refer to the forum rules re posting links to unapproved external links.

Regards

Andy

With respect, perhaps I should have read the rules but my post was a spur of the moment post about whether or not that link was even accurate.

I understand that the rules must be followed but I would have preferred an answer to my question rather than a rule book being thrown at me for what is a genuine honest mistake brought about by doing some research.

Sorry to have bothered you.

No bother at all.... I will give you an answer......most of what is stated on that link and what you are referring to is gobbledygook so ignore.

Thank you.

yep stay away from the freeman of the land twaddle SM

its a route to disaster

stay focussed on CAG.

we've seem several cases here whereby a hearing had to be postponed.

its not a big deal

when's the date i'm sure we can help draft something