Gia
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Gia
-
Ty Andy
-
Yes, certainly going now for the breaches, and credit file trashing. We had one brilliant judge who was very knowledgeable on the CCA etc.
-
Went to court this morning. The Judge was not impressed with Lowell. Said they failed to provide evidence of assignment of the debt, told them their CCA response did not comply with the CCA 1974 and their "agreement" failed to contain all the terms and conditions at the time the account was taken out. He said the agreement had been varied and as such they should have provided the original agreement. Lowell flatly refused to disclose whether this signed agreement they produced was a true copy or a reconstituted copy. To which they were informed they were in breach of CONC guidelines in relation to misleading creditors, as the Judge's belief was that the agreement was reconstituted. The Judge was concerned that the "signed agreement" was fraudulent as he was happy that it was not my sons signature based on official documents containing his real signature that we produced in court. He also agreed it was most likely statute barred too. The case was dismissed, we were awarded costs, and told we should take the matter of the fraudulent signature, and breach of CONC guidelines to the appropriate bodies for Lowell's / Carter to be dealt with.
-
We have to submit witness statement / paperwork to Lowells and the courts by 18th march. Please can someone guide me to a template / layout of a witness statement that I can adapt?
-
Thank you Andy, I will now just wait to hear from the court. I just hope the judge does not get annoyed by the failure to let the claimant know about the statute barred status. Do not want to get a rollicking for wasting the courts time, when notifying the claimant may have stopped the court proceedings.
-
No Andy because we were not sure at the time of doing the defence if it was 100% statute barred. Now we know for sure it is.
-
Just had a call about booking an appointment for mediation. When asked if we would be willing to negotiate a payment plan via mediation we said no. They asked why not and we informed them that we would not be able to agree to any payment on the account when we have the mediation appt, as Lowell are in default of a CCA request, and because a SARN to the original creditor has provided us with paperwork proving the account was statute barred before court proceedings were issued. They then decided that mediation was pointless in this case and said they would inform the court of this, and inform the court that the debt is statute barred. They also said I should inform the claimant that the account was statute barred before they issued the claim, as this may end the matter. So do you agree it is now time to let Lowells / Carter know? or wait for a hearing date from the court and submit the evidence with the witness statement?
-
Ok, thank you.
-
We have received the DQ today. It has to be returned to the court and BC/Lowell by 15 January. Should I tick no to mediation and state my reason as being, I would be unable to make any agreement with the claimant as the account was statute barred before they issued the proceedings.
-
Thank you
-
Just a bit of an update, and could use some advice on what to do next. I have been clearing out old files and lo and behold I came across a file on Shop Direct concerning this account. I sent a SARN to them in 2008 when we discovered the existence of this account and disputed it. The paperwork from the SARN confirms that only one order was ever placed with them when the account was opened and it was not delivered to our address. Paperwork also confirms they held no signed agreement only an online application with a tick box for signature. They also confirmed that no payment has ever been made on the account since it was opened and I can now prove without doubt that this account as well as being fraudulent is well and truly statute barred. In light of the above should I notify Lowell / Carter/ The Court of this as it is an absolute defence, maybe even ask the Court if I can submit an amended defence and supply them with the evidence. Make complaints to the regulatory bodies about Lowell issuing proceedings on a statute barred debt, then issue our own proceedings against Shop Direct / Lowell for the damage to my son's credit files?
-
Lowell have received my defence and responded with their " we are continuing with the claim letter." I have also received a response from BC the same one others on here have had, which asks that we agree a full and final settlement, and a Tomlin Order to sign. So tempted to respond to both Lowell and BC declining their kind offer as they have not proved ownership of the account, and remind them they are in default of the CCA request and that they will need to produce it in court, along with statements of account which will show the last date any payment was made. Which could prove the account to be statute barred. Might also be a good idea to tell them we want to go to court, so when the debt is proved to be someone else's we will be asking for costs as litigant in person and sending them court papers for compensation for his credit file trashing.
-
I need to get the defence in this weekend, so will the following suffice? POC 1.The claimants claim is for the sum of £493.14 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the defendant and Shop Direct under account reference xxxxxxxxxxx. 2. And assigned to the claimant on 27/02/2009 notice of which has been given to the defendant. 3. The claim includes statutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of 0.51) from the date of the assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year amounting to £30.22. Defence 1. Paragraph 1 is neither admitted or denied with regards to the defendant entering into an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim (‘the Agreement’) the Claimant has yet to disclose any such agreement. 2. 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. 3. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 by first class post on October 31st 2014. The defendant has received no reply to the request. Furthermore, a request was made pursuant to the CCA 1974 section 78 on 31st October 2014 by first class post and as at this date the claimant has failed to comply and is therefore in default of the said request: Therefore with the court's permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; © show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the claimant relief. 4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5, it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 5. 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. 5. 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. Should I also add that its highly likely the account is statute barred and put them to strict proof that its not ???
-
Ok I have a few days to file the defence so will wait for now.
-
The default began on 15/12/08 I believe it is highly unlikely that a default would have been issued on 15/12/08 if any payment had been made in late October 08. If I am right for a default to have been issued in December 08 at least three payments would have to have been in arrears, making any last payment made (if any were) September 2008. I believe the account was statute barred before the court claim was issued on 24/10/14. I get where your going with the credit file trashing, but my son is fed up of all of it, and just wants it over and done with asap. If I do a statute barred defence, can I also deny knowledge of the account and mention their CCA request default, that I made to see the signature on it?
-
Well no response to the CCA request, so they are now in default. I will go with a statute barred defence, as the default is due to drop off on 15/12/14 and for it to have been defaulted it would have to have been a minimum of 3 months in arrears I believe. Therefore, making it statute barred now.
-
Wonga not removing affected loans from credit files
Gia replied to Gia's topic in Wonga and associated companies
Yes, he is doing that. One credit file even shows it as still defaulted. -
A friend received an email that their loan was being written off as per their new lending criteria. They received the following info in their email : What happens next We will automatically clear any outstanding debt you have with us and your balance will be set to zero. This will be done by the end of October 2014. You do not need to do anything. We are working with the relevant credit reference agencies to remove records relating to this loan from your credit report. We expect this will take between three to four weeks to be completed. This will be done automatically and there is no further action required from you. When he checked his credit file today the loan has not been removed but marked settled. This is not what their email says, it clearly say's records should be removed. Anyone else have the same problem?
-
No response to CCA request as yet. Court papers dated the 24 October so got some time before defence is due in.
-
yes, the original default would have been put by Shop Direct. It changed to Lowell after they purchased it in 2009. My son was not even 18 when that account was opened with Shop Direct.
-
My son just checked his credit report and this account was opened on 10/11/07 the default date is 15/12/08. His credit record is perfect but for this default on this account that is not even his. Lowell are going to pay big time for ruining his otherwise impeccable credit record for 6 years CCA request was sent yesterday I hope they are able to provide statements of accounts and signed delivery slips.
-
Irresponsible Lending by Provident ???
Gia replied to Gia's topic in Provident and associated companies.
Yes, I keep forgetting I have the OFT firmly stuck in my mind lol. -
Irresponsible Lending by Provident ???
Gia replied to Gia's topic in Provident and associated companies.
Excellent idea, I will do this today -
Irresponsible Lending by Provident ???
Gia replied to Gia's topic in Provident and associated companies.
Well I wrote to his local office told them of his problems and that the agent could not possibly have been unaware of this. I informed them I was reporting the matter to the OFT and the FOS if not resolved to my satisfaction, and that the account is in dispute and no payments will be made. They replied with a slip for him to sign that allows them to address all communication about the account to me; which has been signed and returned. In the meantime a manager visited his home (my letter stated no home visits allowed, but at this point they had not received my letter. Cough.. Cough...) The manager appeared very nervous and said he does not have to pay if he does not want to, but if he wanted to pay something now or in the future they would not refuse. I told him its in dispute, subject to complaint and no payments will ever be made, and showed him the door. He receives the odd arrears letter which gets ignored. However, I am still awaiting a response to the complaint from them, if not received within 8 weeks its off to the authorities above. -
Thanks
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS