Could anyone from the site team let me know if there's a way to edit posts? I've noticed I've got identifying info on the post at 11.13 today. I was stressed and rushing and must have posted the non-redacted version in. I have reported it in case there's no way to edit myself...

done

You could email a copy to the Lowell Sols...dont leave it to the day.

If I post it tomorrow, it could be there on Friday? Or better to email do you think?

Either...as long as you have proof they got it:wink:

If they had not sent their WS five days late, I would have had more time to get my skeleton argument together after all. Hopefully that will count for something if it comes down to them complaining about dates.

Did you think it was alright in the end? Felt very rushed and stressed, wish I had had more time.

Well its wasn't a typical skeleton argument...more like a supplemental as I have already stated...but as long as you addressed and countered all the new evidence thrown up in their WS it should suffice.

I guess I can only hope so.

I have no real idea of what a skeleton argument should be. I only had time to read one previous thread which you advised on and I thought it was quite similar in style and content. But obviously one thread is insufficient research, this is what I mean about being rushed. Oh well.

Is it too late for the Tomlin Order now?

Have they offered a Tomlin ?

Yes, a while back. See post 73 from me on this thread. At post 80 you advised..

'Its really your choice if you can deal with the hassle and taking a gamble...but from past experience Lowell Cat claims are very rarely proceeded to trial and normally end up discontinued after exchange of statements and disclosures ...but we cant guarantee molly.

Probably prudent to decide if they pay the hearing fee and they actually serve you with their statement/evidence.'

Well they only served the documents last Friday (postmarked the day before).

Found out that they paid the hearing fee yesterday.

The Tomlin thing itself had a 14 day expiration on it which will obviously have long since lapsed.

It was for £2k at £20 pcm repayments.

My earlier question then... is it too late for that now or should I be considering accepting their offer?

Thanks to all for help & support today.

can you scan up the exhibits from their WS please...

cca at post 17 says signed online 07/08/2013

POC says opened 31/01/2010

urh>> which is correct?..

theres no transactions prior to 2013 on the statements and then why didn't you use it for 3yrs..

.you had several Shop Direct accounts under differing trading names they used.

.have they used the info from another account as fake documents for this claim..check the account number on the POC..does it match ALL the docs in the WS they sent esp the agreement.

dx

I will scan up docs right now but in the meantime, I've checked the date on the agreement they've exhibited and it's the same as the one posted up above. However, the very statement says opened 2010?

theres no transactions prior to 2013 on the statements and then why didn't you use it for 3yrs..

NB if you recall the beginning of this, it is my partners account and all this happened long before we ever met. However it was my bright idea avoid mindlessly paying DCs once it got to that stage. And now here we are... I will have to ask him if he recalls. The statement says it only includes transactions for the last 6 years, which I assume is why it goes back only to 2013?

.you had several Shop Direct accounts under differing trading names they used..

As above, I don't know. I don't think so though, he's never mentioned this. Will check and update if I'm wrong.

.

have they used the info from another account as fake documents for this claim..check the account number on the POC..does it match ALL the docs in the WS they sent esp the agreement.

Will double check everything this morning. I have previously checked account numbers and not noticed anything amiss. However the discrepancy with dates as above had escaped me. I'll get on it and update...

Here's their first exhibit (CH1).

Contains credit agreement, t&cs and 'all about your very' document.

Credit agreement 'signed' 07/08/2013.

I have checked this against the copy provided by Shop Direct themselves in response to SAR (same date) and the CCA request I sent them back in 2016 when this all first came to light. From that we got a letter which stated the account was opened in Jan 2010 however the accompanying agreement also has the date 07/08/2013.

As to what has been sent by Lowell in response to CCA and CPR, both of these are also showing the date 07/08/2013.

I am kicking myself for missing this beforehand.... or have I inadvertently done myself a favour, in that it will be too late for them to go back and change the dates on this clearly fabricated paperwork so they match up? Crossing my fingers it's the latter...

One question. I can't see account numbers anywhere on this agreement. Have I missed them or is that normal?

Will get on with the rest of the exhibits now...

Exhibit CH2 is the statement I uploaded yesterday, repeated here for ease of reference. Account number matches that on the claim form. States date opened 31/01/2010.

Last one.

Exhibit CH3 is the screen shot DN. It's the same as previous copies we've received and the stated account number matches.

Exhibit CH4 is the reconstituted NoA and another letter introducing lowell. These account numbers match up too.

Exhibit CH5 is various other letters. The first one of which states that the account was taken out on 30/01/2010. Well, there are no credit agreements, reconstituted or otherwise that reflect that date. I've been through everything now and I'm quite sure.

So, in summary:

Particulars of claim, very statement and letters referring to the alleged debt including those from Shop Direct themselves all state the account was taken out on 30/01/2010.

However, the reconstituted agreement provided at numerous stages along the way (CCA from Shop Direct, SAR from Shop Direct, CCA from Lowell, CPR from Lowell, Disclosures with the WS) all show 07/08/13 as the date it was 'signed'.

Claimants WS.pdf

Does not necessarily have to have the account number on a reconstituted version but in Carey the judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):

1. Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

2. Name and address of the debtor

3. Name and address of the creditor

4. Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.

Andy

In a further unrelated update, our court date has been postponed due to overbooking. So it will no longer be on Monday, they've said most likely December. Don't know whether that is good or bad news at this point

name showing on letter in both letter uploads

hidden

so m'lud

why didn't I use the account for 3 years and didnt signup online for 3yrs even though the original creditor says I opened it in 2010...

your thread here

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470156-Initial-advice-on-partner-s-unsecured-debts

has some hidden documents that you upload without redaction

i'm gonna do those and pop them up.

edit they are here in post 17 upload

God, I really am **** at this redacting / uploading business. Will correct my errors, AGAIN!

But the gist of things as it stands, (I think) is that thanks to Dx's eye for the detail which is considerably keener than my own, things are looking brighter?

It would seem that judging from the paperwork they have presented that either :

a) my partner took out the account in 2010 but there is no credit agreement to document the terms or indeed make any debt enforceable

OR

b) he took out an account in 2013 (as per the agreement which has been reproduced many times) but there is no evidence as to purchases made / payments / balance etc etc.

In likelihood, the account is from 2010 and the 2013 agreement has been copied from elsewhere?

In any case, the procedure hasn't been correctly followed for NoA and DN either.

Have I got that right?

In light of the delay to the trial date, I have not sent my skeleton argument to Lowell today.

I assume that was the right thing to do?

Can do so nearer the new date, which is still TBC.

As it stands, the dates discrepancy is not highlighted anywhere on my WS or skeleton argument.

Am I right in thinking that ideally we would not bring this to their attention prior to the trial date because what is stopping them simply fabricating a new document?

Evidently they have not noticed that the dates don't match.

If so is this something we will have a chance to bring up on the day?

Or should I be thinking about some further supplementary WS / addition to skeleton argument in light of the extra time available and this new development?

Thanks so much as always, for your patience with my questions.

I wish I could buy you all a drink.

if we take it in a nutshell, the POC take out date of the agreement [2010] is wrong, they could simply say this was an admin error

but why send a CCA return stating the correct take out date [2013] and then issue a claim some months later using the wrong date?

puzzles me.

if we take it in a nutshell, the POC take out date of the agreement [2010] is wrong, they could simply say this was an admin error

but why send a CCA return stating the correct take out date [2013] and then issue a claim some months later using the wrong date?

 

puzzles me.

The 2010 date appears on other documents also though - the statements from very most significantly so, as well as various letters. In fact there is nothing, apart from the reconstituted credit agreement, that uses the 2013 date.

See check things carefully:whoo:

That sounds good.

Hello and Happy New Year!

So the new trial date is next wednesday, 23rd.

As things were left, I had sent the skeleton argument to the court, but not to Lowell.

AFTER I sent it, Dx pointed out the discrepancy in dates on the various documents described in the post above, so this is NOT highlighted in the skeleton argument.

What is best to do?

1) send the SA as is to Lowell and be prepared to point out to the judge on the day the discrepancy in dates

2) update the SA and send new copies to both court & Lowell with discrepancy pointed out.

I am leaning towards 1) as 2) surely gives them the chance to claim admin error and produce 'the correct' document?

Or is the another option that I'm missing?

Thanks in advance to all.

Sorry to keep asking...

today is my last opportunity to post something for arrival 3 days in advance so would really appreciate some guidance on the above if anyone can help.

pers I would not be tipping lowells off

so send skeleton argument as is or not bother even to do that?