Any news from PT or UK26 yet???

[havinastella]

Sorry to hear about your loss Dave.

 

Keep your head up.

 

JOgs

[mr.ton]

We have guests *BB waves*

 

Sadly we also have many who are so screwed up with hatred towards DCA's that they will potentially be taken for a mug

[The GodMother]

What is a Part 36 Offer?

 

A party to litigation i.e. a civil dispute or a business dispute which is before the Courts in the UK, that party, whether a claimant or defendant may make a Part 36 Offer under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) to apply pressure to the other party to settle the dispute early than what otherwise might be the case. A Part 36 Offer is made by one a party to settle the litigation before a hearing and decision by a judge.

Thus, a Part 36 Offer may result in a court dispute settling at an earlier stage which often benefits one or even all parties to the dispute, and provides a tool for the weaker party in litigation to apply pressure to their adversary. Such offers must be in writing and structured in the manner prescribed by Part 36 of the CPR. Imagining lowells as the weaker party

 

Why Make a Part 36 Offer in the Course of Litigation?

 

 

For parties to litigation, there are various reasons to consider making a Part 36 settlement offer. For example:

• A strategic and well structured Part 36 Offer may mean that the parties more quickly obtain a satisfactory result in the litigation.
  

• A Part 36 Offer places pressure on the other party to the litigation (the party to whom the offer is made) to seriously consider the strength of their case, whether they are prepared to settle, or whether they are prepared to risk a costs penalty if the matter goes to hearing and they do not ultimately do better than the offer put to them. For example, if a Claimant with a strong claim makes a Part 36 Offer to a Defendant to settle for 85% of the total claim, a pragmatic Defendant may jump at the chance to settle on this basis in view of the risk that if the claim was heard by a Judge an order would be made for payment of the full amount of the claim.
  

• Parties are highly likely to save legal costs in the longer term through a quicker settlement of the litigation.
  

• Exploring settlement prior to hearing can often be advantageous to both parties. At this stage parties can still negotiate towards a compromise suited to their commercial needs, rather than have an “all or nothing” result imposed on them by the Judge or decision maker at a final hearing.
  

The effectiveness of a Part 36 Offer lies in its ability to place pressure on the party receiving the offer who will know that, if they do not accept your Part 36 offer and fail to beat your Part 36 offer at the hearing, the Court is likely to order that they make a considerably larger contribution to your legal costs than they would otherwise have had to make.

 

 

Thanks for this it clears up a question i had.

[babybear39]

So sorry for your loss UK26. As suggested take 'you' time to deal with all this. We're here if you need us

[sam614]

We have guests *BB waves*

 

 

no doubt having a great laugh at all the bitching.

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[havinastella]

That PART 36 looks like a tasty tool!

[dannyboy660]

We have guests *BB waves*

 

 

Dannyboy waves back, logs out, and continues reading as a guest while he's at work......

[babybear39]

That PART 36 looks like a tasty tool!

 

Doesn't it just

[The GodMother]

oh i wonder where i can use that in the future.

[mr.ton]

I am sorry for the loss as well i must add.

Also if this case is genuine then fair enough/my apologies etc...

But it is my duty to warn people on here against the potential "other side" of all this - no matter how many people i may fall out with in the process

[sosumi]

Dannyboy waves back, logs out, and continues reading as a guest while he's at work......

sosumi logs in, waves, then logs out to eat soup.

(sorry about your loss UK)

hugs to everyone xx

[UK26]

this case was genuine and i'm sure Paul can confirm this.

 

The problem we have, is the Agreement NOT to disclose case information.

 

If we post any more documents or any info which can caulse Lowells loss, I personally will be hit with a costs bill of around £4,000 from Lowell which they would then make me bankrupt.

 

both Paul and I learnt a thing or two yesterday and this can help with many other cases that people have on here.

 

Refund of Donations

I am a UK Individual who by no fault of my own was made redundant from my place of work.

 

The case was costing a lot of money to keep going and the donations kindly made by the members of CAG helped the case to keep going.

 

The total costs of running the case came to near £500 - £440 of this was by way of donations.

 

I promised everyone that should I get a clear win that I would return all the donations by way of set of against the damages and costs awarded to me.

 

However, due to the Part 36 offer of settlement, there was NO costs or damages awarded.

 

Therefore, it is with deep regret that I am not able to offer a refund at this moment in time. However, I do have another case going at the moment, which should I be able to enter judgement on 20/04/2009 I might be able to offer a refund via using the money awarded from the next case.

 

If I get this sum of money awarded, then I will issue a full refund to everyone

 

I think this is fair

[Kraken1]

err. I think I have missed something here...

 

I thought that this was on the small claims track? If so cpr 27.2(e) states that part 36 does not apply. Even if it did then under 36.14 (2)(a) the losing party is at risk of the penalty rate costs and interests from the date the the p36 offer expired.

 

Rule 36.14 (4) states:

 

In considering whether it would be unjust to make the orders referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) above, the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case including –

(a) the terms of any Part 36 offer;

(b) the stage in the proceedings when any Part 36 offer was made, including in particular how long before the trial started the offer was made...

 

So unless I have the wrong end of the stick somewhere (quite possible) then I can't see the relevance of a p36 offer made just before trial. There are no real adverse consequences.

 

As I see it, UK lost and this is likely to insulate dcas against claims of this nature in the future, they have experience now of applying pressure and a legally advised consumer settling or discontinuing. At best the status quo has not changed. If the judge made comment that was entered into record and if a transcript can be obtained then this is nice, but it is still only the small claims track.

 

The value of this as a precedent for defending claims seems to be questionable as the case was settled, by the sounds of it by way of a consent or tomlin order.

 

I hope I'm proved wrong.

 

There is however no shame in taking litigation as far as you can and then deciding whether to go on. It is sound litigation practice, and good advice, to settle a claim on acceptable terms if you can. Only a fool demands his day in court come what may. Or a rich person. Or a rich fool. Likely to be a rich fool, to be honest. Credit to UK and PT for reading the cards and settling where appropriate; this is the difference between a good and a ropey litigator. Principle has no place in litigation unfortunately. Principals might though...

 

As an aside - I'd urge caggers to exercise caution before throwing out p36 offers left and right - the costs consequences, if they apply, cut both ways. Also the use of one when it is not appropriate demonstrates you are an amateur and not to be feared.

[pt2537]

Kraken

 

the issue rose out of what was classed as unreasonable conduct, which has the potential to leave you open to costs, as the judge agreed with the point too,

 

this was the problem

[UK26]

Right guys, i must be off now, got to go and see the family

 

Will be back later this evening

 

All the best

 

Dave (UK26)

[heliosfa]

Well done UK26 & PT. Despite it not being a complete victory, it is still a victory none the less!

 

As for donaitions, I have been off site for most of this it seems but I would gladly have donated and would not be expecting a refund.

 

I think what some people are forgetting is that this site is here to help OTHER people. By assisting with funding for this case, they have helped someone who was in need and have also "enhanced" the experience and knowledge of one of the Site Team who, from my experience, gives lots of good, solid and sound advice to as many people as he can. This in itself is good for CAG as a whole and shouldn't be shunned. I don't see PT, or UK26, disappearing any time soon.

 

AS for people screaming about not hearing anything, Part 36 offers are not something to be ignored as has already been said. Also, as PT was acting in a PROFESSIONAL capacity, there is counsel-client priveledge. BReach of this priveledge can have consequences for counsel that breach this.

 

Well done UK and PT.

 

I am also sorry for your loss UK, and you should be taking some you time.

 

Thanks,

H

[cymruambyth]

UK, I'm sorry for the loss of your family member which must have added to the pressure you were under.

Congratulation on reaching a satisfactory conclusion. When I donated it was not because I expected a 'flashing lights' success but because I believed your actions would in the long run benefit CAG. I still believe this and feel that although details cannot be released, knowledge gained will help many members.

I hope that neither you nor pt are disheartened by some of the posts and that you will both continue to help other members on the site.

Thank you to everyone who put forward many interesting arguments on UK's thread before it had to close.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I suspect that the very fact that the terms of the Part 36 Agreement included not disclosing anything that might cause Lowell loss tells us a great deal, as does the way that Lowell felt the need to direct so many resources toward the case.

 

A question does arise; does a Part 36 Agreement preclude one of the parties disclosing, to the relevant authorities, acts which may have been unlawful or contrary to regulatory rules, especially where the other party has effectively admitted to such acts?

[volvodriver]

So yet again the legal system works against the small guy. The big guys flout the law left, right and centre, and then use their deep pockets to deprive the small guy of his opportunity for redress.

 

I said once before that the system makes me ashamed to be British, here we go again.

 

I just hope that the fault lines in the establishment witnessed by the powers that be's inability to keep the fraudulent expenses of their own out of the public view will be the start of the reform of our stinking democracy.

[patrickq1]

i for one am very pleased that donations have been made and i for one if i could afford would make donations when and where possible...good for pt and uk well done at least i think in the long run we will all benefit from this experiance as for pinky you seem to want to make an issue with confidentiality you cannot make one and really see no point in you continued conversation on this particular thread just dedicate yourself to what you enjoy doing HELPING OTHERS this is where your talents lie dissapointed you are but life is a bitch at times and so can we be on bad days ....so nuff said in time we will get information and that alone is worth its weight in gold

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

I suspect that the very fact that the terms of the Part 36 Agreement included not disclosing anything that might cause Lowell loss tells us a great deal, as does the way that Lowell felt the need to direct so many resources toward the case.

 

A question does arise; does a Part 36 Agreement preclude one of the parties disclosing, to the relevant authorities, acts which may have been unlawful or contrary to regulatory rules, especially where the other party has effectively admitted to such acts?

does a Part 36 Agreement preclude one of the parties disclosing, to the relevant authorities, acts which may have been unlawful or contrary to regulatory rules

as i see it any unlawful act must be acted upon,no clause or confidentiallity can interfere in an unlawful act unless it concerns matters of safety against the state.... but any unlawful act must be reported to the relevant authorities

imo

patrickq1

[yourbank]

I picked up hardly any of the thread but I think we all need to realise that the whole point of any action by an individual against a company is to achieve the result that is amicable and acceptable to them. For UK the terms were acceptable and I am sure the help provided by PT was fantastic as can be seen across the forums here. Good result UK26 and great work PT2537.

Sometimes with things such as this, you have to take time to sit back and work out what you can and cannot divulge. In time, as PT has said things will emerge but as UK has said, someone close to them has passed away. I'm not sure posting on CAG is really foremost in their mind today. Keep the chin up UK26 and post what you feel you can and when you feel you can.

Edited May 19, 2009 by 42man

[patrickq1]

I suspect that the very fact that the terms of the Part 36 Agreement included not disclosing anything that might cause Lowell loss tells us a great deal, as does the way that Lowell felt the need to direct so many resources toward the case.

 

A question does arise; does a Part 36 Agreement preclude one of the parties disclosing, to the relevant authorities, acts which may have been unlawful or contrary to regulatory rules, especially where the other party has effectively admitted to such acts?

does a Part 36 Agreement preclude one of the parties disclosing, to the relevant authorities, acts which may have been unlawful or contrary to regulatory rules

Damages in competition law litigation

Parties to unlawful agreements. Following Crehan it is clear that damages are

.... In practice, therefore, whilst many parties may have good claims against

... The legislative scheme of the Competition Act does envisage civil actions by

.... may have been the subject of an adverse decision of a public authority in

...

http://www.ligue.org/files/amsterdam_rapport2agb.doc

 

JEWEL COMPANIES, INC., a New York corporation, and Jewel ...

Jewel argued that while shareholder approval may have been a pre-condition ....

To the contrary, California's regulatory scheme for negotiated merger ... that

the provision is intended to extend the board's authority to act on behalf ....

of the Jewel-Pay Less merger agreement precluded Pay Less' board of directors

...

http://altlaw.org/cite/741+F.2d+1555

 

LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND WHEREAS NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES as ...

The prepayment shall take effect only if cheques have been cleared and proceeds

thereof ... authority to appoint one or more third parties as the Bank may

select and to ... the Borrower) and disclose all necessary or relevant

information ... of any act or default on the part of the Borrower in respect of

the Loan ...

http://www.online.citibank.co.in/portal/citiin/forms/readycash/personal_Loan_t&c.pdf

 

 

hope this helps scarlet ok

patrickq1

[dannyboy660]

I feel it's now my duty to cheer people up a bit.....

 

 

LOWELL FINANCIAL LTD Holding Company Lowell Finance Ltd

Ultimate Holding Company LOWELL GROUP LTD

Trading Address ENTERPRISE HOUSE,1 APEX VIEW,LEEDS,LS11 9BH

12 out of 100 Very High Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed although they tend to be less severe.

Credit Limit GBP 0Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time.

 

 

Summary of CCJ's/Scottish Decrees

There are 4 exact unsatisfied CCJs totalling GBP 5508 in the last 72 months

Details of most recent CCJ's/Scottish Decrees

07/04/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 100 was made in NORTHAMPTON court (Case No. 9QT34632 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

06/04/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 4858 was made in WOOLWICH court (Case No. 9WO00198 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd & jointly with Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

27/03/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 500 was made in BOURNEMOUTH court (Case No. 9BH00754 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd, Po Box 172, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9WS

24/03/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 50 was made in NORTHAMPTON court (Case No. 9QT26536 ) against Lowell Financial, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

 

Financial SummaryTurnoverTurnover increased by more than 104% in the period. Turnover totalled GBP 12,490,849,units for the period.

Operating LossTotalled GBP -2,675,070,units In the period prior a loss of GBP 2,851,984 was achieved. Pre Tax

The subject made a loss of GBP 3,960,061,units compared with a loss of GBP 3,730,370 in the previous period.

Working Capital The company's working capital deficiency increased in the period and now stands at GBP 16,016,915,units

Tangible Net WorthNet worth reduced by 3,960,061 during the period and now stands at GBP -14,564,690,units

Fixed Assets The subjects fixed assets reduced during the period by GBP 162,382 to GBP 1,452,225,units and are now 48% of total assets compared with 48% in the previous period

Long Term Liabilities Long term liabilities are now 0% of total assets compared with 0% in the previous period

 

Historic Update DetailsDateHistoric update detailsfrom March 200315 May 2009CCJ Event - 8658 -> 5508 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

15 May 2009CCJ Event - 5 -> 4 (No. unsatisfied)

14 May 2009CCJ Event - 5508 -> 8658 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

14 May 2009CCJ Event - 4 -> 5 (No. unsatisfied)

11 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 5408 -> 5508 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

11 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 3 -> 4 (No. unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 2 -> 3 (No. unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 550 -> 5408 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009Risk Score Changed - 52 -> 1210 Apr 2009Credit Limit Changed - 18800.00 -> 0.00

10 Apr 2009Internally Instigated Recalculation - 2 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 1 -> 2 (No. unsatisfied)

2 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 50 -> 550 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

2 Apr 2009Credit Limit Changed - 18900.00 -> 18800.0031 Mar 2009CCJ Event - 0 -> 1 (No. unsatisfied)

31 Mar 2009CCJ Event - 0 -> 50 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

7 Jun 2008New Accounts Analysed - 200708317 Jun 2008Credit Limit Changed - 15500.00 -> 18900.00

16 May 2008New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added"

18 Apr 2008Director/Secretary Resigned -??????????(Removed) ON 03/04/2008 AS DIRECTOR

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

27 Jul 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) -

18 Jul 2007Risk Score Changed - 37 -> 5218 Jul 2007Credit Limit Changed - 3300.00 -> 15500.00

18 Jul 2007New Accounts Analysed - 20060831

17 May 2007Risk Score Changed - 34 -> 3716 May 2007CCJ Event - 2 -> 0 (No. unsatisfied)

16 May 2007CCJ Event - 880 -> 0 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

9 May 2007CCJ Event - 2 -> 1 (No. unsatisfied)

9 May 2007CCJ Event - 880 -> 550 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

9 May 2007Risk Score Changed - 43 -> 34

9 May 2007Credit Limit Changed - 6600.00 -> 3300.00

9 Apr 2007Risk Score Changed - 39 -> 43

9 Apr 2007Credit Limit Changed - 3300.00 -> 6600.00

24 Mar 2007CCJ Event - 00001 -> 00002 (No. unsatisfied)

24 Mar 2007CCJ Event - 550 -> 880 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

 

 

Suffice to say they have a less than perfect record and are undoubtedly getting rich at everyone elses's expense.

 

Mods, if you are unhappy with this information being divulged here, feel free to edit or delete this post.

 

Most, if not all of this information is already in the public domain.

[2Grumpy]

To me it looks like there isn't much that UK & PT can say about this case

 

However, in the future, because of the knowledge that they have gained, they may be able to advise people using that knowledge, to the advantage of the cagger (and the detriment of Lowells).

 

That's what you have to look forwards to.