Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lowell claim form - old studio debt***Claim Discontinued***


bloodline67
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1703 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I’ve just received a claim form out of the blue from Lowell’s for an old studio catalogue debt,

I have received the normal threat letters from them months ago but as far as I’m aware not a letter confirming that they are taking me to court.

Can they do this?

 

I’m also wondering if they are doing this as the debt may be statute barred or is just about to become barred.

 

The original agreement was started August 2012 and defaulted March 2014, but I’m unsure when the last payment was.

 

Also just to check do I respond as normal to the claim form?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please fill this out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of the Claimant ?Lowell portfolio ltd

 

Date of issue18 jan 2018

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1. the defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account in reference xxxxxxxxx on xx/09/2012 (‘the agreement’).

2. In breach of the agreement, the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the agreement was terminated.

3. The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on xx/09/2015 and written notice given to the defendant.

4. Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of £350 remains due and outstanding.

 

And the claimant claims

a) the said sum of £350

b) interest pursuant to s69 count courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.076 but limited to one year, being £27

c) costs

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?Not that I’m aware only normal threat letters

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?No

 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?N/A

 

What is the total value of the claim?£461

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Catalogue

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?After

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?Yes

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debit purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Probably, can’t remember

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not sure

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Not that I’m aware

Why did you cease payments?Couldn’t afford them

 

What was the date of your last payment?Not sure

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No

Link to post
Share on other sites

you would need to have not paid this within 6yrs,

does your credit file not state payments?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what did they say?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed to speak to someone at studio, as the account has been inactive for so long they no longer have the date of the last payment or even what the balance was when the account defaulted. I though companies had to keep that information for a certain length of time.

So what do I do now ?

And I’m getting worried that time is running out to get the claim form off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the OC has no records that means its last payment/transaction was outside of 6yrs and as per guidelines they don't have to keep the info.

 

pers id follow this:

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CCA Request running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

 

………..

 

 

then if you like go back in and file this defence:

 

E&W

....

 

 

The following defence is all you need if it is SB

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).

 

2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC] or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

..

..ends..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically your up the creek...thats why its imperative to do the research before submitting a statute barred defence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically your up the creek...thats why its imperative to do the research before submitting a statute barred defence.

That’s what I thought, so if I don’t get the information back on time what should I do?

Also what’s the latest date I can submit my defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no harm in ring shop dorect again

sometimes a different operator has differing skills

defence filing date is already explained in post 14.

 

if you find out its not SB'd then you file our std holding/no paperwork defence in most claimform threads here already in the very same forum

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

how to calc your defence filing date is in post 14.

 

did you ring SD again to see if another operator can give you the info.

 

you could always remind them that under the prevention of fraud act

and

the data protection act

they MUST keep data for atleast 6yrs

speak to a supervisor if you need too

it would be far better if you could file the SB defence.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, tried ringing the SD again but got the same answer, no information.

 

Received two letters from Lowell, first one acknowledging they’ve received my letter and they are requesting further information from the original creditors, good luck with that.

 

The second letter states I’ve failed to respond to the court claim with either a proposal or a reason why it’s disputed.

If I don’t contact them by the 19th they will ask the court to enter a CCJ against me.

I thought I had more time then that?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Defence is not due until Tues 19th Feb 4.00pm...you have acknowledged service and stated you intend to defend all ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defence is not due until Tues 19th Feb 4.00pm...you have acknowledged service and stated you intend to defend all ?

 

Yes I have acknowledged service and stated to defend all.

 

I better sort out my defence then if it’s due by Tuesday, though I thought I had longer. Must have got my dates wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 days from and including the date on the claim form

 

Date of issue 18 Jan 2018

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve found this defence in another post which is very similar to my case, if I tweak this for my details would it be ok?

 

Particulars....

 

1.The defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account under reference ***** on 08.11.2008.

 

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the agreement was terminated. The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 28.06.2017 and written notice given to the defendant.

 

3.Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of £440.6 remains due and outstanding.

 

And the claimant claims the said sum of £440.66 interest pursuant s69 count courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue accruing at a daily rate of 0.097 but limited to one year being £35.25

Costs

 

Defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had an agreement in the past with Studio but do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.

 

Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the alleged statement of its particulars.

 

I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 28/06/2017.

 

On the 06/12/2018 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. The claimant responded with a letter dated 13/12/2018 enclosing a copy of an assignment. Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated 23/08/2017 introducing Lowell and saying that Express Gifts have sold the account to Lowell.

 

On the 13/12/2018 Lowell have sent a letter stating they have asked for a copy of the agreement and statement and will contact once a response received. To date 27/12/2018 no agreement and statement have been received.

 

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/agreement/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that 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 and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...