Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

JimBrain

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About JimBrain

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Update: I've had no correspondence since early February and nothing since I made CCA request. However, over the past week, Lowell's "lawyers" BW Legal have been calling every day on my mobile leaving messages for me to call them. I'm not sure if they are hoping I have not retained the paperwork from our previous correspondence or simply enjoy headbutting concrete structures. I've blocked their number.
  2. SB, up until yesterday morning (5th March) I've had nothing through, although their last letter was dated 4th February but didn't actually arrive till the 9th. Not sure if that is through use of snail mail or a deliberate tactic to try to reduce the effective time I have to respond. The 4th was actually the 21st and final day for a response under the SD (no working days caveats for us plebs), so a question I would ask is did they jump the gun sending a letter with this date? In any case I'm not sure if their assertion that I haven't denied the SD is something they would seriously claim or a just tactic to make me think my reply had been lost in post - even though they must know I know it was signed for via special delivery - or are just ploughing on relentlessly with threats and intimidation in the hope I'll capitulate. They might also be betraying their lack of knowledge of the Scottish legal system by sending this letter "without prejudice" thinking that it cannot be produced in court thereby giving themselves a licence to harass me with impunity. I certainly hope so. So to date, they have possibly jumped the gun re following up the SD, wrongly thinking their "without prejudice" letter cannot be produced in court - wrongly asserted that I have not denied the SD despite documentary evidence to the contrary - whilst ironically ignoring my own CCA request. That’s good going. On the point of CCA request - I had a browse of the net prior to sending the follow up letter and I found a thread elsewhere where someone was claiming that a CCA request could be viewed as acknowledgement of debt as it is designed for information purposes rather than proving existence of debt therefore only a genuine debtor would make such a request. The consensus was that this is not so and not something to be concerned about, however being ultra careful I added the words “where such an agreement exists” to the sentence that in essence says you are obliged to provide all relevant documents in the template that was kindly provided by maroondev. Don’t know if you would view this as overly cautious but hopefully it couldn’t do any harm. I’ll report back if and when I hear from them again. Happy to help as I have received more than my fair share of assitance here.
  3. Is there a template you could recommend? Found this one after a search but seems a bit over the top? Also based on an English case http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/DCA:_Non-Compliance_of_CCA_Request
  4. Yes there is a named person dealing with the account at their end and I suppose there is the risk of making it personal if you go overboard with the cutting replies. I do think I should gently remind them I did indeed return the denial slip though. But I will stick to factual statements on the basis less is more and a low profile is better than stirring it up. The balance to be struck is to let them know they will be strongly opposed if they insist on pursuing this. I will be sending failure to comply letter registered post on Monday
  5. Thanks again for comments and support. Today is the 12th working day since they received the denial slip and CCA request. I have received nothing re the CCA request, only the aforementioned "without prejudice" attempt to squeeze payment out of me. What would you recommend as the next step? I'm thinking I should send them (BW Legal) a letter in the next few days. Something along the lines of "I received your letter of 4th Feb. I was surprised and disappointed that you did not acknowledge receipt of the denial slip and accompanying CCA request which were signed for at your office on 31st Jan in line with your request for all correspondence on the matter to be directed to yourself. Return of the denial slip is sufficient to prevent sequestration petition on the basis of apparent insolvency" Then something about them being in breach of CCA having ignored my request? They threatened to send sequestration petition 14 days from issue of the last letter which is Friday 28th Feb.
  6. I have retained the receipt for postage and have printed the proof of delivery with scanned signature. I have scanned copies of the SD and denial slips that were returned and a Word version of the CCA Letter. Does this mean that in the event they go ahead with the Sequestration Petition, all I need to do is produce this evidence and it is dismissed, albeit they can then go back to the court? I think I will wait till the time for them to respond to the CCA request lapses before responding to them. After all, someone once said, never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake!
  7. UPDATE I returned the denial slip by special delivery on 30th January with a note in the explanation to say I do not acknowledge liability for the alleged debt and have requested they provide a valid credit agreement under CCA to confirm this. I left both 3 and 4 options intact (I deny that I owe you the sum demanded, I deny that I owe you the sum demanded immediately). In the same envelope I sent a CCA letter. This was received and signed for at BW Legal on 31st January. I sent the documents to BW Legal marked Lowell Portfolio 1 c/o BW Legal. This morning I got a letter through from BW Legal dated 4th February. It says "On 14 January 2014 you were served with a Statutory Demand dated 13 December 2013 [it wasn't it was dated 16 December 2013 - if that's in any way relevant]. However you have not paid the amount demanded or contacted us to agree a suitable payment arrangement within the 21 days allowed by the Statutory Demand, nor have you applied to set-aside the Statutory Demand. As a result of your failure to resolve the matter, we will shortly be submtting a Sequestration Petition to your local Sheriffs Court. If a Sequestration Petition is issued, a hearing date will be set and you will be served with the Sequestration Petition. If you do not pay the Petition debt in full or we do not come to a settlement agreement, we may seek a Sequestration Order against you at the hearing" It then goes on to describe what happens if the Sequestration Order is granted. It then makes a "without prejudice offer" allowing me to pay them either £19K in full settlement or £6K + £1.7K per month till the full amount is settled - for an alleged debt they have not proven I owe! £1.7K is more than my total monthly earnings and I don't imagine many people who are subject of SDs have a spare £19K lying around. What planet are these people on? It ends: "This offer is made on a without prejudice basis. A without prejudice offer means this offer is a genuine attempt to settle the dispute and it cannot be put before the Court. Please call XXXX XXXXX on 0113 XXXX XXXX ext XXXXX as soon as possible to agree the best solution. If we fail to receive a response from you in 14 days from the date of this letter, we will send a Sequestration Petition to Court to be issued" Needless to say this letter ignores both my denial of the debt and the CCA request. Not sure if this is blind stubbornness, administrative incompetence or given that it is dated 4th February - the 22nd day following the service of the SD - an autobot special. The numbers in the offer certainly seem too exact (to the 23p) to have been calculated by a human but you never know. All of their correspondence so far - other than the SD itself - doesn't even acknowledge disputing the debt as an option, it's merely a cause of agreeing what and when to pay them in their eyes. Initially I was minded to send them a letter pointing out I have not failed to respond - the denial slip and CCA request were signed for - and refer to the the CCA request as per the following:. Please note that until such times as a legally enforceable, original Consumer Credit Agreement can be produced and a copy sent to me by return, then this letter is not an acknowledgement of debt and this account will remain in an unenforceable state protected in line with s.127 (CCA1974). Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request will be brought before the court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless. However on reflection would I be better off letting them hang themselves by their own petard as the clock is ticking on the CCA request and why bring this to their attention? I'm not entirely sure what they mean by set aside? I thought this was an English term? And in the absence of a court hearing how am I supposed to do so? A red herring I expect. 14 days from the date of the letter is 28th February. Assuming a valid CCA agreement is not forthcoming could anyone offer any advice as to next step please?
  8. They included an "Explanation of denial" section on the denial slip. I wrote a couple of sentences saying I have no knowledge of the terms and no liability for the agreement quoted and I have submitted a CCA request to the alleged creditor to confirm this. Do you think this is a good idea or giving them something to twist and I'd be better to ignore the explanation? I've been advised that the explanation of denial is not a mandatory part of the denial.
  9. UPDATE I received a letter from BW Legal on Monday 27th Jan (dated 23rd Jan). I am going to send denial slip along with CCA request tomorrow by special delivery. The SD states that BW have sole responsibility for the account and all communication should be addressed to them only. Does this mean I should send the CCA letter to BW or Lowell, or even both? The latest letter begins by stating I was personally served the SD on 14th Jan then asks me to contact someone at their office to discuss the matter so a settlement can be reached. It then says "If we fail to receive a response from you by 4 February 2014, we will send a Sequestration Petition to Court to be issued" The denial and CCA should prevent the immediate risk of this if not just stringing it out for a while. It then says if a sequestration petition is issued a hearing date will be set, I will be served with the petition and If I don't pay up or reach a settlement "we may seek a sequestration order against you at the hearing" It then goes on to outline what will happen to my finances if I'm sequestrated. Then finishes with "In order to avoid us submitting a Sequestration Petition to Court, please contact us before 4 February 2014 to arrange a payment solution" My initial reaction was that they mean business here but on reading over a few times it says they WILL send a petition to court if I don't respond. Clearly I am going to respond, just not in the way they would like. There are three separate references to reaching a settlement arrangement so perhaps they are not as keen to go to court as at first seems. Or perhaps they are just being a caring sharing DCA and offering to negotiate out of the kindness of their hearts. PS - I am going to leave both options "[i DENY] (3) That I owe you the sum demanded & (4) That I have to pay you the sum demanded immediately" intact on the denial slip. I am still not 100% clear on the connotations
  10. Thanks dx. Lowell actually called my mobile today. Didn't pick up and blocked the number.
  11. Thanks dx. I got mixed up between the CCA request and prove it letter, I thought they were the same thing. Thanks for the link It says that I should send to the OWNER of the debt so I should send to Lowell not BW Legal? I don't have any contact details for Lowell but I guess I might be able to find a contact on line.
  12. Thanks for the advice folks and I understand the caveats attached. Some more info: The SD has a cover letter from BW which lays out all sorts of dire consequences if I am sequestrated (yawn). But it ends with a request to contact them as there is still time to come to an acceptable payment arrangement. I have no intention of doing this. So perhaps they will not follow through but I am still inclined to deny and send them a prove it letter. Do you think this would give them the impression that I have assets to protect if I did so? If in the perhaps unlikely event that they raise proceedings will it not harm my case that I did not challenge the SD? The way I was looking at it was if I deny or not, the next legal step they can take is sequestration, so denial and a prove it letter at least gives them something to think about and perhaps makes their life a bit more difficult and strings things out a bit longer? Their SD and cover letter is dated 16th December and appears to me to be intentionally worded to confuse the reader as to whether this is the date of service i.e. the 3 week clock starts ticking from this date. I have the docquet signed by the SO from last Tuesday so don't need to worry on that score but seems a bit underhand To consolidate my paranoia - on the Denial slip, the wording of the instruction is - *Delete if applicable (3) and (4). Only delete (3) if you accept that you owe the whole of the sum demanded, but retain (4) if you are denying that you have to pay that sum immediately OK - but what do I do if I deny owing them anything at all?? (3) That I owe you the sum demanded (4) That I owe you the sum demanded immediately There are no further options. Logically deleting 3 and 4 doesn't seem right as it would appear to be a denial of nothing. I certainly don't want to just delete 3 as I don't accept owing them any sum Deleting 4 only seems suspiciously like it is intended to be interpreted as accepting liability for part of the debt. Or am I being paranoid? Could anyone offer advice please? In addition, there is also attached a page entitled "EXPLANATION OF DENIAL" Subheaded - "If you deny the debt referred to in the attached Statutory Demand, or any part thereof, please state your explanation for such denial in full:-" Am I obliged to complete this? I was thinking a simple "I do not acknowledge or recognise liability for any part of the sum quoted or any agreement claimed by the pursuer" Might actually be useful to include this given my paranoia about the "delete if applicable/not applicable" (delete if applicable itself is such a non-intuitive choice of words). Information re the debt on the SD is listed as: Original Creditor: LTSB Account Agreement no: XXXXXXXXX Agreement type: Unsecured loan Default notice date: June 2010 Debt due: 23K Notice of Assignment: July 2013 I'll try to scan to get you a better look
  13. Thank you everyone for your help so far. I can't describe how much weight has lifted from my shoulders from getting some clarity around the situation. My guess would be that Lowell have taken a punt on me capitulating in the face of a scarey legal document with much scarey talk of demand for payment and sequestration, delivered by a scarey sounding sheriff officer, and offering to negotiate with them for a payment plan. Even half the balance would be 11.5K for not a lot of work. Or alternatively that I will do nothing and they can then move to sequestration, which would be a waste of their time, but they don't know that. It was scarey enough to spook me, give me a few sleepless nights and come to this site for advice. I think I will get a hold of my credit files to see if there is a default that matches the information in their papers. I will wait a week or so and return the denial slip. It has a box to state my reason for doing so. Would something along the lines of "I do not acknowledge or accept liability for this debt on the basis that I did not enter/do not recognise responsibility for the credit agreement quoted" be sufficient? Could anyone suggest something more appropriate? I will at the same time send the prove it CCA letter with my £1 My situation is such that having discussed with the SO, sequestration is not the terrifying prospect if at first seemed. I am fortunate in that being separated from my wife she moved out of the marital home to live in the town she grew up by mutual agreement. Therefore in the worst case scenario where the home was lost she would receive her half of the equity - something in itself that makes the sale of our home even more unlikely - but would not have to go looking for a new place to live. That would be my problem but not an insurmountable one. In any case - although I'm not an estate agent or surveyor - I simply cannot envisage there being the level of equity needed, if any at all, that would be required to justify the sale of the home in the next 3 or 4 years. I could live with 1 year of frugality under a trustee to remove any cloud over my future. I'm not living the high life as it is. The alternative is to undertake to pay Lowell thousands of pounds over several years. I think the balance of risk is in my favour. Hopefully the denial and CCA prove it letter will be enough to show Lowell they are onto a loser though.
  14. I picked up papers from Walker Love today. It seems the situation is not quite as critical as I had feared. I was presented with a Statutory Demand for Payment for 23K The Sheriff Officer seemed quite helpful. There was an initial conversation where he asked if this was a debt I recognised and could it be a mortgage even though it says personal loan. I said no idea what it is and the amount is not realistically payable even if I did so can we cut to the chase of what Lowell are after please. After this he assured me was independent in the matter and was quite helpful to be honest in terms of advice. I have 3 weeks to return a denial slip, after which the ball goes back in Lowell's solictors BW Legal's court. They can decide to negotiate with me, pursue sequestration proceedings or take a long walk off a short pier, preferably the latter. The Sheriff advised that following this route, sequestration would be the only course of action open to them through the courts. As far as I am concerned this would be a waste of everyone's time, my home is jointly owned, has negative equity and I don't have a car or any significant assets. This computer is about the only saleable asset greater than £50 They could perhaps squeeze a nominal amount out of me for 12 months which would be lucky to be 10% of the total. The document BW Legal have provided in respect of the demand looks like a screenshot of the debt from a database with Lloyds TSB personal loan, June 2010 as date of default, my name and an account number. Can I send the prove it letter as part of the denial slip, or send a denial slip and supplementary prove it letter? Or another course of action?
×
×
  • Create New...