Lowell/Hampton Statutory Demand *** WON + COSTS ***

[HighFly]

No probs You gave me a gut-twisting minute of self-doubt there !

 

It's reassuring to know though, that so many people with a wealth of experience are looking on.

 

Rgds

[sam614]

good luck for tomorrow.

 

doubt they will even show.

 

SAM

[ODC]

This time tomorrow you will be a couple of hundred quid richer thanks to the Leeds Losers

[skegleg]

good luck for tomorrow, watch out losers;)

[sploits]

Subbing as I'm dying to know what the outcome was. I hope the leeds losers got shot down in flames

 

Sploits

[HighFly]

Well, what a pleasant experience.

 

Needless to say, How-Lowell-Can-They-Go failed to turn up or submit anything.

 

Very, very pleasant Judge, who had plenty of good advice.

 

He advised that DCAs had recently started getting more aggressive in seeing through their SDs, and that any judgement he made wouldn't guarantee the end of it, even if if was statute barred. I replied that as long as today reminded them of their obligations to operate within the law, then I would be happy. :::sweet, innocent smile:::

 

He ordered to have the SD set aside ***RESULT!!!***

 

On seeing my application for costs, he remarked "You like your costs, don't you!" to which I replied "One week ago, I hadn't even heard of the Statute of Limitations. Vexatious litigation requires a robust defence, and I've chosen to do it all by myself."

 

He duly awarded me full costs of £266, payable before 4pm, Thursday August 20th. ***RESULT!!!***

 

This is the statement I made today; credit has to be given to the many, many threads and posts I have read on here to compile it:

 

This Application to have said Statutory Demand set-aside is made on the grounds that the alleged debt is statute barred, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

 

Notwithstanding that, furthermore, the Claimant has failed to follow correct procedure by:

• Not sending a notice of default

• Not sending a letter of Notice of Assignment

• Not providing any proof by way of a Credit Agreement

• Failing to serve the notice in an appropriate manner, by serving it on my neighbour.

 

Under further investigation of the Insolvency practice directions, the process for serving a Statutory Demand is set out in CPR PD INSOLV 11.4 .

 

The creditor is under obligation to take reasonable steps to bring the demand to the debtor’s attention and if, practicable, personal service should take place. Where this is not possible, the creditor is allowed to serve the demand either via post or through a letterbox, but it is expected that the following steps have taken place first:

• One personal visit to each of the debtor’s known residencies and places of business

• If it is not possible to serve the Statutory Demand during the visit(s), a letter should be sent to the debtor making her/him aware of the visit(s) have taken place and purpose of the visit(s). The letter should also state that another visit will be made for the same purpose and specify the date, time and place. At least two business days’ notice must be given. The letter should also state that if the time and place are inconvenient, the debtor should name a reasonable alternative. The letter can also state that if the debtor fails to keep the appointment, the demand will be posted/inserted through a letterbox and, if a bankruptcy petition is presented, the court will be requested to accept this as a service of demand. Copies of the letter should be sent to all known addresses of the debtor.

If the creditor presents a bankruptcy petition to the court, an affidavit has to be sworn giving details of service of the Statutory Demand. If a demand was not served personally and no written acknowledgement of service has been received from the debtor, the creditor must set out the steps it has taken to ensure the demand has been served on the debtor. H.M. Investigations’ letter stated they would be returning on July 31st to personally serve the Demand. This they did not do. If the court is not satisfied that the creditor has carried out their obligations, it can refuse to issue a petition. Lowell and H.M. Investigations have failed to appropriately serve the Statutory Demand by handing it to a neighbour.

 

I am concerned that a Debt Collection Agency has abused the purpose of Statutory Demands in order to aid debt collection, indeed even statute barred debt collection.

 

I notified Lowell of the fact this alleged debt is Statute Barred, exhibit letter A.

I also wrote to them advising them that their process of service was flawed, exhibit letter B, but that for the sake of thoroughness, I was requesting a copy of the Credit Agreement.

 

I have received no response to either letter.

 

Using Statutory Demands as a debt collection tool for an alleged debt which is clearly statute barred is an abuse of process and a waste of both the Court’s time and my time.

 

WRT the abuse of process, if Lowell knew the debt was statute barred but then proceeded to issue this Statutory Demand, they surely issued it solely for the purpose of aiding illegal debt collection rather than for its actual purpose.

 

If I may suggest to the Court, they acted vexatiously and knowingly vexatious, if they were indeed the Creditor due to a Deed of Assignment. Conversely, If they do not possess a Deed of Assignment for the Court to view, then surely they do not have the right to either purchase the alleged debt or pursue someone for it.

 

In the light of no information having come from Lowell as to the Debt, in my opinion it is unlikely that they ever actually had any legal right to pursue the debt despite its statute barred status, and were simply intent on harassing and bullying me into submission. .

Edited September 3, 2009 by HighFly
Date error. Tic Toc Tic Toc

[42man]

Fantastic news HF....very well done, even better when you get a good judge. Make sure they pay your costs too, if not then it will be bailiff time !!! I'd also urge you please to report them to the OFT as well.....

[42man]

I was surprised at what the judge said with regard to your position....they will struggle to enforce your alleged debt....and if they do they will lose AGAIN....

[HighFly]

Subbing as I'm dying to know what the outcome was. I hope the leeds losers got shot down in flames

 

Sploits

 

Glad I didn't let you down !!!!

[HighFly]

I was surprised at what the judge said with regard to your position....they will struggle to enforce your alleged debt....and if they do they will lose AGAIN....

 

To me, it smacks of a desperate company resorting to even more desperate tactics. I think this is what he was referring to. I wouldn't be surprised to see them turning even nastier and, my new favourite word, VEXATIOUS !

 

Definition: Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary.

Alternative Definition: Almost any legal action used by a DCA to extort money out of the frail, vulnerable, or less informed.

[ODC]

Now you know why they are called the LEEDS LOSERS Poor old Jimmy C will have to buy his own round in the club this weekend.

[babybear39]

Excellent news HighFly very well done

 

 

[Dorabell]

well done HF:D

[skegleg]

well done so pleased for you !!!!

[lilly white]

we are all very proud of you. well done the day is yours.

 

Thank you for the report

[PGH7447]

good job well done

[sploits]

Glad I didn't let you down !!!!

 

Nope you never let me down. Well done on a fantastic result against the leeds idiots, you shot them down in flames well and truely

 

Sploits

[Stephan56]

Wel done and a great result.

 

Can you just clarify what was meant when the judge said that no matter what his ruling, that may not be the end of it? Is that because he was ruling ONLY on the issue of the SD and the process under which it was issued - and NOT the issue of the debt itself being statute barred?

 

If that was the case, fair enough. However, if the debt was clearly statute barred, surely not a great "leap" for the judge to (i) rule it is statue barred and (ii) use that as a reaon to impose a swinging penalty on them for wasting the court's time.

 

Using any part of the court process to try to collect a Statute barred debt should, in my view, be a criminal offence and fines and license revocations the appropriate penalty for DCAs who do this.

[HighFly]

Stephan

 

I think the inferrence was that this shower of *edit* will continue with their attempts to extract money from me, irrespective of the judgement, which was merely to set aside their Statutory Demand.

 

 

 

 

I think he ruled to have it set aside on the multiple grounds I submitted:

• Inappropriate service
  
• No previous communication from them by way of Default notice, Notice of Assigment or Credit Agreement
  
• Statute Barred.
  

He asked if I had evidence it was statute barred, to which I explained that I didn't even acknowledge the debt was mine.

He then asked again whether the debt was mine, statute barred or not, to which I said I'd had no credit cards or loans for at least 6 1/2 years, and by default I therefore had no paperwork to support the alleged debt, and wouldn't if it wasn't mine in the first place.

 

However, if the debt was clearly statute barred, surely not a great "leap" for the judge to (i) rule it is statue barred and (ii) use that as a reaon to impose a swinging penalty on them for wasting the court's time.

 

I have no paperwork whatsoever relevant to this alleged debt. Without any evidence from Lowells with a date on it showing it was statute barred, any leap would have been a leap of faith; therefore, I don't believe the Judge had sufficient information and evidence to make such a call.

 

Perversely, there was a small part of me hoping the Judge would defer the case to a full hearing. I believe then there would have been ample and ideal opportunity for the Court to come down on Lowell like a tonne of bricks.

 

On reflection, on the basis that Lowlife didn't attend and they didn't submit any evidence to prove their claim and entitlement, the Judge had no option but to set aside, and I gave him various grounds on which to base his ruling.

 

That in itself doesn't prevent Lowlife starting all over again, but in anticipation, a complaint has been lodged with the OFT, and I'm getting myself prepared for launching a harrassment suit if they get any clever ideas to come after me again.

 

HighFly - Riding High : Lowlife - Down and Hopefully Out

Edited August 7, 2009 by 42man

[mr.ton]

Well, what a pleasant experience.Needless to say, How-Lowell-Can-They-Go failed to turn up or submit anything.

 

Proof that they are full of garbage when they send out their threatograms.

Great result, well done.

Id love to see them get done for contempt of court or something like that

[Stephan56]

HighFly

 

Thanks for the clarification on this. I agree on the facts you presented that was all the judge could do.

 

That said, I think the judicial system could do itself a great favour by using its powers to "draw a line" under situations like this once and for all.

 

In this case (assuming, say, the debt AS yours, but statute barred) the judge could have (i) made an injunction saying they could never contact you again re this (or sell on to someone else to contact you) and/or somehow fine or penalise them for wasting the court's time.

 

This way it is "over" but Scum1 could sell on debt to an (unknowing/unthinking) Scum2 who could start the process all over again.

 

On a wider point, it just staggers me that "society" allows DCAs to operate. We all agree they serve NO SOCIAL FUNCTION. Debtors (who are also voters) hate them, regulators must find them a real "pain" given the number of complaints they generate, they cause distress and suffering (extra costs to NHS for treating people stressed re debt?).

 

What SHOULD happen is that if the CC company closes its file on the debt, that is it, and the debtor can walk away and free to "start his life again."

 

Of course, if the CC companies could not sell on debts, they would keep them longer (but maybe not as they have Balance Sheet pressures to write off old debt).

 

The "utopia" would be to end the "market" for consumer debt. On that point, interesting there is "market" where consumer debt is freely traded, and a "market price" for that debt (10p in the £1 or less) BUT the only people who cannot participate in that market are the debtors themselves! Seems like an (illegal) cartel etc???

 

Again, well done on your victory.

[mr.ton]

If the government really wanted to get rid of DCA's then they would.

However - New Labour takes pleasure out of terrorising the public in whatever way it can, so i supect they encourage them more so than anything.

[mr.ton]

Hello guest

[lilly white]

man the moon and prove it.

 

The pedant: refuting - Times Online

 

high fly i was going to send this you before you went to court however i did not belive you needed it however it was not to you prove it was sb but to them

[master woody]

Firstly well done on your result.

 

I just have a quick question regarding SD if it all went wrong in court, would the court give you time to try and raise the funds say from family and friends to pay off the debt or at this stage are you made bankrupt ?