lowells SD received

[PriorityOne]

Yes.... they are bombarding you with jargon. They don't have an Agreement. Issue a request for confirmation under CPUTR 2008 to whoever is currently chasing you for payment and see if you can get them to put it into print.

 

By rec. delivery.

 

[slippers]

Yes that was my thinking until reading about the DCAs coming back with the jargon about the 2006 Act about CCAs and that case the judge passed on this basis of them not having to have the true origianl signed credit agreement.

If they have other eveidence the judges can rule in their favour. As you have stated if they where going to take me to court they would have by now unless they have come up with this new evidence and 2006 Act.

How do you know which debt falls under the 1974 or 2006 Act is it when the debt was taken out?

Because of this new info I think thats why they are now coming bcak at me after all this time.

 

Another, Lowell, chasing a debt of Barclaycard I sent for a CCA in 2008. Never heard anything. I cant find proof I sent it because I had all info on external hard drive that went corrupt. Lowell have sent a letter that Barclaycard have no knowledge of me requesting this and that if I want to request it to send a £1 cheque. Dont think so, for them to get my signature. Is it up to me to prove I sent for a CCA or shoudl I send for another one?

[slippers]

ok will do, thanks I shall just send it to Link as not sure who is chasing

 

Have you a link to the CPUTR 2008 info?

 

Does it not matter that they have copies of all other things I mentioned?

 

Do you know who First National are?

[PriorityOne]

A debt falls under CCA 1974 if it was taken out prior to April 2007. After that, it falls under CCA 2006 but CCA 2006 is not retrospective. This means that if it falls under CCA 1974.... then that's it. They're either playing with you or are being deliberately thick.

 

Re. the B/card account.... if you cannot prove a previous CCA request, then send another but just initial it; enclosing a PO for the £1 fee (no sig. required) and send by rec. delivery.

 

[Timmyrara]

Sorry for posting here as I am not sure how to post a thread!

 

My problem is slightly different. I am able to repay my loan with CFO (Currently owe £695) however I received a text message from them today thanking me for my rollover request and confirming that my loan payment will be deferred until next month. I have not made such a request and was fully expecting to repay my loan in full on the due date. I have sent numerous e-mails and web-messages to them and tried numerous times to contact them by phone but nobody ever gets back to me or answers the phone.

 

Has anybody else had issue like this with CFO and if so how did you (or have you) managed to cntact them.

 

Thanks for any help

[slippers]

Sorry not sure what to write for confrimation under CPUTR 2008.

Are there any template letters to adapt?

 

Am I just asking for confirmation of who is pursuing the debt and who the debt is owed to?

 

If they come back with it in writing of lets say Link is pursuing and the debt owed is now to them from original creditor MBNA, What would I reply to that because I think this is what they will come back with

[PriorityOne]

Sorry for posting here as I am not sure how to post a thread!

 

My problem is slightly different. I am able to repay my loan with CFO (Currently owe £695) however I received a text message from them today thanking me for my rollover request and confirming that my loan payment will be deferred until next month. I have not made such a request and was fully expecting to repay my loan in full on the due date. I have sent numerous e-mails and web-messages to them and tried numerous times to contact them by phone but nobody ever gets back to me or answers the phone.

 

Has anybody else had issue like this with CFO and if so how did you (or have you) managed to cntact them.

 

Thanks for any help

 

You need to contact them in writing only. it's best to start a thread of your own for further help to stop you getting lost in someone else's...

 

Sorry not sure what to write for confrimation under CPUTR 2008.

Are there any template letters to adapt?

The only template I did is in post 1 of the CPUTR thread.... You should be able to take what you need from this but if you would prefer todfraft your letter and post it up here first for checking, that's fine.

 

Am I just asking for confirmation of who is pursuing the debt and who the debt is owed to? No.... you are asking for confirmation that they hold any alleged Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to yourself under CPUTR (2008). They have to tell you.... or avoid the issue (again).... but they'll know that you know that they'd need it to to re-enforce through the courts. If they don't have anything, they can b*gger off.... but that comes later.... lol.

 

If they come back with it in writing of lets say Link is pursuing and the debt owed is now to them from original creditor MBNA, What would I reply to that because I think this is what they will come back with

 

Doesn't matter what else they come back... confirmation (or lack of) under CPUTR is all you need. The onus of proof is there's.

 

[slippers]

ok thanks for lal info in all your replies, is the template you did the one sent from solicitors I cant seem to find anything else

I cllicked on the signature link in one of your threads but ended up on that site to log in

 

sorry dont suppose you could send me the link to the template you did please

[PriorityOne]

Sorry... posted in error

[PriorityOne]

Here is a better version. I've made some changes, but please adapt further to your needs and remove anything that doesn't apply to your situation. Then head it up with the word COMPLAINT.... and send by rec. delivery.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your Ref: xxxxxx

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company. A legal request was made to xxxxxxxxx (by recorded delivery) under The Consumer Credit Act 1974 way back on xx/xx/xxxx. The only response received to date however has been a partly legible application form with no prescribed terms, APR and/or credit limit and with generic terms and conditions that were not part of any signature document pertaining to myself at all.

 

Despite numerous attempts to resolve this matter in light of the continued and complete absence of any enforceable documentation from any clients, agents, client’s clients, and/or client’s agents to date, I remain concerned over persistent attempts by various companies to continue pursuing payment on an unsubstantiated debt in defiance of Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidleines and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR), 2008. I can only assume that previous companies have either failed to inform you of the facts surrounding this matter or, that you have chosen to ignore them.

 

Should you or anyone acting on your behalf continue to harrass me for payment in the continued absence of any enforceable documentation from anyone at all and/or fail to confirm upon request whether you or anyone acting on your behalf currently hold or have ever held a properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement (Consumer Credit Act, 1974) in your/their possession under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008, then you and anyone acting on your behalf, will be falling foul of ss.5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7, your/their actions/activities will be added to existing complaints and your company and any others will be reported to the relevant authorities without any further notice.

 

Please therefore take note that this letter serves as a formal request under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR), 2008 for written confirmation as to whether your company or any other compaby acting on your behalf currently holds or has ever held a properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement in your/their possession pertaining to myself and if not, to kindly confirm so in writing.

 

At this point, I would also draw your attention to the content of the Data Protection Act 1998, the substance of which should clarify your current position, future conduct and direction regarding my personal data at this time.

 

Please note that any attempts by you or your clients/agents to try and secure a County Court Judgement will be vigorously defended on a number of grounds, including the continued absence of a properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement (Consumer Credit Act 1974; sec 127 (3)) and a number of other statutory breaches by yourselves and your clients/agents.

 

I trust that the content of this letter clarifies my current position and that of your company and your clients/agents and look forward to your considerd response in due course.

 

Yours faithfully,

[slippers]

its ok Now I am totally confused.

 

I recieved your reply with the letter template in my email link but on this thread it isnt here just your apology, strange but thanks very much

I shall adapt and send

[PriorityOne]

its ok Now I am totally confused.

 

I recieved your reply with the letter template in my email link but on this thread it isnt here just your apology, strange but thanks very much

I shall adapt and send

 

Sorry.... that was my fault. I was editing one of my own letters and pressed the button before I'd finished doing it.... so deleted it.

 

I've re-posted it now...

[slippers]

no worries, thanks

I presume I act dumb that I dont know that they are the same company? apart from First National

I have only ever had correspondance from Link so this must mean that they it hasnt been sold to anyone else to deal with apart from companies within companies if you know what I mean. does this make a difference to the letter and the CUPTR? Sorry not really understanding this too well am I

[PriorityOne]

no worries, thanks

I presume I act dumb that I dont know that they are the same company? apart from First National

I have only ever had correspondance from Link so this must mean that they it hasnt been sold to anyone else to deal with apart from companies within companies if you know what I mean. does this make a difference to the letter and the CUPTR? Sorry not really understanding this too well am I

 

It makes no difference if you play dumb or not to be honest.... just as long as you know what's what. DCAs do this kind of thing quite a lot and by the end of it, usually have themselves in a knot over the amount of clients and agents involved. CPUTR is to stop any company from making misleading statements about having docs. that they don't..... whoever they claim to be.

 

[slippers]

ok thanks, keep you posted

[slippers]

Hi Priority One again. Following your last reply regarding Link I sent them one of your Complaint letters under CPUTR. They sent a letter stating it would take them a while to look into my complaint. They have now finally answered and stated that they do not agree with my complaint and that they have not broken any rules under the FSA Sent copies of the same they sent before, part application, letters from me, statements etc. They also said to go for advice from all the bodies and that if they dont hear from me within a certain time they will close their files, by this they mean the complaint file. Where do I go from here because it seems I have waisted my time sending that letter because all they have done is re issue the same as before?

Link continue to harass my husband with phone calls for a debt they still havent produce a true CCA only part of an application again, they have had all the letters - harrassment etc shoudl I send the complaint one for this? although they will probably just re issue the same as with mine.

Another, Lowell still havent produce a CCA because I stated I requested it from Barclaycard. Lowell asked BC,no knowledge of it. Lowell keep sending a letter that they want to help and to reduce the lump sum if I pay or offereing me to pay a certain amount until finished. Send them the complaint letter?

Only another 2 and half years for them to become statute barred, I think if they had something I would have neem taken to court by now wouldnt I. What do you think?

Thanks

[PriorityOne]

Hi Priority One again. Following your last reply regarding Link I sent them one of your Complaint letters under CPUTR. They sent a letter stating it would take them a while to look into my complaint. They have now finally answered and stated that they do not agree with my complaint and that they have not broken any rules under the FSA ... who mentioned them?... lolol!! Sent copies of the same they sent before, part application, letters from me, statements etc. They also said to go for advice from all the bodies and that if they dont hear from me within a certain time they will close their files, by this they mean the complaint file. Where do I go from here because it seems I have waisted my time sending that letter because all they have done is re issue the same as before? They had to issue you with a response of some sort.... Hope fully this will be the last you hear from them, so do nothing. Just file it away.

Link continue to harass my husband with phone calls for a debt they still havent produce a true CCA only part of an application again, they have had all the letters - harrassment etc shoudl I send the complaint one for this? although they will probably just re issue the same as with mine. If it's just phone calls and nothing else, don't bother. Wait 'til you get something else in writing.

 

Another, Lowell still havent produce a CCA because I stated I requested it from Barclaycard. Lowell asked BC,no knowledge of it. Lowell keep sending a letter that they want to help and to reduce the lump sum if I pay or offereing me to pay a certain amount until finished. Send them the complaint letter? Sounds like they're desperate; offering to reduce and so on. A complaint would do no harm; no CCA, no pay...

Only another 2 and half years for them to become statute barred, I think if they had something I would have neem taken to court by now wouldnt I. What do you think?

Thanks

 

Pretty much, yes..... although some get a bit twitchy just before the stat. barred status kicks in. You're doing well though.....

[slippers]

Pretty much, yes..... although some get a bit twitchy just before the stat. barred status kicks in. You're doing well though.....

Hi Priority One, I did nothing from my last post on here in October 2011. Pretty much the same is happening as in that post now 6 months later. Not sure whether to carry on doing nothing or respond but not quite sure how I would respond having sent all letters earlier, but phone calls are starting to get on my nerves now. Any suggestions?

[PriorityOne]

Ignore it..... they seem to be trying to wear you down. When the phone calls come, just place the handset down somwhere and let it cost them to listen to fresh air. Have you had any more in writing?

[slippers]

Thanks for your reply Priority One.

Good idea with the phone advice.

No I havent had anymore letters from Link they just phone making out its a friend or a business matter do they really think we are that stupid? but have had from Lowell offering help and discounts and then the latest is to pass it to another debt collector if I dont contact them with a plan to pay:dance: ha ha here we go starting the process all again or I might just ignore the new DC. seeing as I believe thay are not supposed to pass it on if its in dispute are they?

[slippers]

Hi Priority One, Hope you still look here now and then.

Well Lowell have finally reared their ugly heads again after nearly 5 years but this time a woman and man with proof of who they were came to my door and served me a demand from BW Legal solicitors? Are they legite? or just another department of Lowell?

Can they do this, arent they tresspassing?

I sent a CCA request to capquest in 2008 for a debt of the same amount owing to Barclaycard that Lowell keep pestering me for through different debt collection agencies. They sent my postal order back that was made out to HL Legal for £1 and stated they were no longer dealing with it and was closed on their systems. I then sent a postal order made out to Lowell Financial Ltd requesting a CCA. Still nothing. Since then over the years I have had 20 letters from Lowelland Lowell Portfolio 1 , 3 from Red (Lowell), 1 H Legal, 4 Hamptons Legal, 2 Debt Managers Ltd, 1 Russell +Aitken and 1 from Scott Call Debt recovery services. All these letters relate to the same amount and the same account with Lowell for Barclaycard.

They have had between them all all the letters CCA, Prove It, No Knowledge of debt etc and that a CCA request has been made and I have receievd nothing so no payments will be made to anyone.

The last letter was from Lowells litigation department Hamptons Legal stating I left them no choice and threatening taking me to court. This was end 2012.

I chose to ignore them because after 5 years it becomes a bit annoying and thought they would eventually give up.

This letter and demand from bwlegal has a 13 digit number on where all the other letters for the same amount relating to Barclacard have a 16 digit number on. Also the first 4 numbers are the same then a number is missing and then the next 9 numbers are the same but then at the end 3 numbers are missing. Sorry hope you understand that. Basically they have got all the account number wrong from all the previous letters.

I dont want to write to them and state this with the number I have on all the other letters from Lowell incase they say it was a typing error.

Im not even sure if the demand is a true statuary demand from the courts as it seems like parts of it but then details typed under the word demand.

It states I have 18 days to have the demand set aside or otherwise deal with this demand as set out in the notes within 21 days after its service on you ,you could be made bankrupt.

Does this mean that if I contact bwlegal I dont have to write to the court to set it aside?

Also what type of letter should I write to bw legal?

Should I put copies of all correspondance or just the post office receipt of sending a CCA request to Capquest and their reply and also the post office receipt for a postal order for £1 made out to Lowell? The reply from CapQuest has the 16 digit account number on though that Lowell and bwlegal seemed to have missed numbers out of this time.

Hope you get this or if anyone else can advise before my 18 days are up as I dont understand what to do with the demand.

[debt4get]

rather than me trawl through the thread how much is the debt for? if it is a true stat demand you need to apply to the court to get it set aside, do NOT leave it and hope for the best....

[slippers]

ok yes sorry rather a long thread, put it to P1 cos he/she has helped me out before.

Downloaded forms and rang the court to see if I could post them and I can to my surprise.

 

Is there anywhere I can look for guidance on filling the form in?

Unsure what to put for title and is it the name and address I put first of who issued the Stat Demand?

 

Basically Capquest sent back postal order and no longer dealing with it.

Lowell been chasing a debt since 2008 for same amount of just over 4000.

Lowell have a wrong original account number for a credit card because it only has 13 numbers were as far as I know all credit cards have 16 numbers.

I also have postal reciepts for the postal orders and posting them to HL Legal and Barclays Bank for Barclaycard.

Not sure what to put on affidavit though for it to have the legal jargon on or just put what I have stated here?

Any advice appreciated Thanks

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

So you have been served with aq Statutory Demand and yes they can do this!!

 

If the debt is over £750.00 this is the lead in to a Bankruptcy Petition, read the instruction on the SD you will need to get the SD set aside.

[debt4get]

The defendant is disputing the alleged account

 

The account has been in dispute since XXXXX. (outline the dispute and make references to any telephone conversations if you don't know the exact dates then say 'on or around the (date)' Also make reference to any copies of letters that were exchanged at the time.

 

The defendant believes that the claimants use of a statutory demand is trite law and merely a tactic to frighten the defendant into paying and thereby frivolous, malicious and a gross abuse of the process. I believe the claimant will not turn up to court to defend this demand and it is the defendants contention that use of the insolvency laws as a debt collection tool is an abuse of the Insolvency Rules.

 

The claimant has failed to provide a copy of the agreement despite a legal request made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (attachment 1 (will be your CCA request))

 

 

SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

 

The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation……

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6))

Citation

1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007.

Interpretation

2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

Commencement

3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007.

(2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007.

Transitional Provisions

4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007.

 

5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in—

(a)

sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act;

(b)

section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and

©

section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act,

in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007.

 

REFERENCE TO CASE LAW

 

1. As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that:
   ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest[.’
   

 

SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40

 

THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT

 

 

 

The claimant has failed to provide any copies of any valid default notices as required under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

The claimant has failed to provide any deeds or notices of assignment.

 

The claimant has failed to provide any statements for the duration of the agreement (as in Phoenix vs Kotecha)

 

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

• Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been provided
  

 

• It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant
  

 

• Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)
  

 

• Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  

 

• Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119
  

 

The claimant has failed to provide any details of any potentially missold insurance that may have been added to the agreement.

 

The defendant avers that some debts are made up entirely of charges and / or potentially missold personal protection insurance.

 

It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

 

The defendant also wishes to make known the statutes in the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regualtions 2008, and believes that the alleged creditor is in multiple breach of statute

 

Offences relating to unfair commercial practices. A trader is guilty of an offence if he engages in a commercial practice which is a misleading action under regulation 5 otherwise than by reason of the commercial practice satisfying the condition in regulation 5(3)(b).

 

Which clearly state...

 

Misleading actions

 

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if—

(b)it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct,

 

Interpretation2.—(1) In these Regulations—“average consumer” shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (6);“business” includes a trade, craft or profession;“code of conduct” means an agreement or set of rules (which is not imposed by legal or administrative requirements), which defines the behaviour of traders who undertake to be bound by it in relation to one or more commercial practices or business sectors;“code owner” means a trader or a body responsible for—(a)the formulation and revision of a code of conduct; or(b)monitoring compliance with the code by those who have undertaken to be bound by it;

 

“trader” means any person who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes relating to his business, and anyone acting in the name of or on behalf of a trade

 

The defendant refers to the Code Of Conduct stated by the Credit Service Association of which Lowells are a member -

The code of conduct clearly states

 

q) Where a debt or the sum owed is disputed, as

soon as is practicable, supply information to the

debtor in support of the claim. Where no

information has been supplied by the creditor,

obtain the required support, or failing that cease

collection action.

 

b) Adhere to all relevant requirements under the

Consumer Credit Act 2006 and any other

relevant legislation.

 

3 UNFAIR OR IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

 

e. When seeking to recover a debt, failing to take appropriate steps with a view to ensuring that available data/information to inform the pursuit and recovery of a debt is accurate and adequate, such that the debtor and the (amount of the) debt can be correctly identified from that data/information

 

• a person being pursued for an incorrect amount.

 

f. failing to ensure that an accurate and adequate history of the debt is passed between parties, as appropriate and necessary

 

n. making undue, excessive or otherwise inappropriate use of statutory demands when pursuing arrears or debts

 

 

 

a) Conduct its business lawfully, comply with

all relevant UK legislation, regulation

and judicial decisions and trade fairly and

responsibly.

c)

Comply with this Code of Practice and

follow any guidance notes issued by the

Board of the Association

.

Comply with

debt collection Guidance as

Published by the Office of Fair Trading

In light of the above evidence, the defendant gracefully requests the Judge dismisses the demand and orders the claimant to pay my full costs + compensation (either in the standard or in the indemnity) in light of the distress and upset this has caused myself and my family.

 

In support of this I quote –

 

Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch)

 

 

 

hope this gives some idea of what you could put...

So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collectionwhere there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner). Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).

I believe the facts herewith in this form are true.