Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
    • Gosh mate I've woke up this morning with half the worry I had last night when going to sleep!.  I can't believe how much this forum has helped me over the years and I don't  have the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards you guys -  Now that I've slept on it I feel ready to reject this company and my plan is to make them an offer to accept payments to date as full and final settlement - I will I think write them a letter once my review is completed or maybe just send it now whilst they are reviewing explaining my kids are unwell for which reason I'm struggling to survive and if I can politely request for them to accept payment to date as a full and final - I'll mention I don't have any cash or anyone to borrow from to offer a full or even part amount of the remaining balance of the iva and therfore am unable to make a offer of payment.   If they agree to at least even put my offer to the creditors then I feel it's better I hang in there and that way I won't have to deal with any possibilities of more defaults and ccjs    Right now the only adverse effects on my credit report are the iva that is now 3 years old and 2 Ccj one coming of this July and one thus October.    But I am worried new action will begin and new defaults and Ccj may start to appear because I've paying into an agreement im under the impression the 6 year rules starts again so yes I have lost of mixed feelings about this but I'm not going to lie you guys have put some life back into my breath this week as for the last 3 years I've felt caged like an animal and this morning I feel freer I can't explain how much but certainly my soul feel lighter today thanks to yin because I'm now viewing this review totally different to I do yesterday thanks to you guys 
    • Court name UNKNOWN Case number ********** Amount N/A Confirmed by Insolvency Service Date issued May 2021 Type Voluntary Arrangement Notes If you have questions about voluntary arrangements you should speak to the Insolvency Service.     I started this in 2021. So it's been about 3 years I've been paying. 
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.
  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd / Capital One


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3835 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

Hi Yog.

 

The site team will advise best, but a debt becomes Statue Barred after 6 years in England or 5 years in Scotland if not payments or written acknowledgement has been made. This means that after sending an SB letter all they can do is bluster (unless they somehow prove that you have sent in a written acknowledgement or have made a payment).

 

Some companies will write back and accept the the debt is SB'ed and that will be the end of it. Some don't and carry on writing. The guidelines strangely say that until the "debtor" writes to say that the debt is SB'ed they can continue their normal collection activity, and can still chase the "debt" even after the SB letter but cannot threaten court action. Its a strange world.

 

Writing an SB letter gives you the best chance of them going away forever. The Brigadier drafts some very good letters (I think its part of his day to day job), it would be worth your while asking him to draft one for you or find one on this forum and adapt it to your needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

I have sent Scotcall the following letter:

 

 

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

 

 

 

Date: xxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Your reference: xxxxxxx

Creditor Reference: xxxxxxx

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with Capquest Ltd and has been since xxxxxxx.

 

Not only is this a breach of OFT Collection Guidelines, but is also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Frankly I am surprised that I need to remind a firm of Debt Collectors about the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Capquest and the original creditor were unable to provide documents relating to the account, which meet the strict requirements of the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), and relevant regulations made under that Act.

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to yourselves or any other party.

 

As Capquest are in default and have also committed a criminal act, by failing to provide an adequate response to my Consumer Credit Act request, and have also, by passing personal data connected with the account to a third party (ie yourselves), breached s10 Data Protection Act, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are hopefully aware, whilst the matter remains in default, for the reasons outlined, enforcement action is NOT permitted, and under s127 CCA this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the original creditor for resolution of any alleged defaults or breaches, as Scotcall cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities in relation to the matter. This issue was similarly pointed out to Lowell Financial, who presumably have re-sold the alleged debt to Scotcall.

 

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish, either explicitly or implicitly, to make an appointment with you or your "representative".

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission, such as the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

If Scotcall etc choose to ignore my dispute and do attempt enforcement, then I will respond with appropriate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards Authority, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office and Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Please ensure that all correspondence is in writing, dated and signed by a responsible person.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

UPDATE: Lowell have now replied, having put Scotcall back in their box. This is six months after I sent the above letter.

 

They have basically said the account is on hold until I explain to them what the nature of the dispute with the original creditor is. What to do now? As I have referred in letters to the account being in dispute with the OC, does that count as acknowledging the debt? I could do with knowing what "acknowledgement" means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acknowledgement could be a payment or a written and signed statement (eg in a letter) that you accept liability for the debt. I would have thought that stating that the debt is in dispute would not constitute acknowledgement. It would probably come down to the wording. For example that you are disputing £100 of the debt would probably be acknowledgement of the remainder. However, simply stating that the debt or the whole debt is in dispute wouldn't be acknowledgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard debt collection letters seeking payment DO NOT COUNT as RELEVANT CONTACT from a DCA or creditor.

 

OFT GUIDANCE ON DEBT COLLECTION 2003/2006/updated Nov.2012.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yog if you look in the library you will find a template

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Just thought I would add that I sent the following to Lowell...

 

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by me. I do not admit or acknowledge liability for this debt.

 

I would further point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on a simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would also point out that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) say in their Debt Collection Guidance on Statute Barred Debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”. As you state in your letter of xxxxx that "there is no contract between Lowell Portfolio and [myself]. The agreement that effectively makes me liable for the debt is between [myself] and capital One", and I have not heard from Capital One within the aforementioned period, I believe the OFT statement to be pertinent in this case.

 

No payments with regard to this alleged debt have been made within the past six years, nor have I acknowledged any liability for said debt within that period.

 

Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period then, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred" could amount to harassment contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR)

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...