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

[HighFly]

I am so relieved to have found this forum, and hope I might be able to benefit from members' experiences and advice; I am sure there are many similar posts.

 

I have been medically retired from work for 5 years. At the time of retirement, I cut up all my credit cards, as my financial outlook was bleak and I was in no fit state to face the consequences of running up additional debt. To my best knowledge, I satisfied all my obligations.

 

In June last year, I started getting those calls and letters, advising me that I had outstanding debts on not one, but TWO cards issued by the Co-operative Bank.

 

Regarding it as bogus, I returned everything to sender.

 

Over the past few weeks, Hamptons Legal have started writing, all of which I have returned to sender.

 

Today, someone was looking down on me favourably. I was sick in bed when someone knocked on my door. I have dogs, and they went crazy. I would normally go and see who it was, but today I was unable to get downstairs, and being as it was 1pm in the afternoon, I presumed it would be one of those nuisance utility salespeople.

 

My neighbour has a key, and has just been in with 2 letters. Apparently a man parked outside my house, knocked on the door, drove away, then turned around and parked outside my house for nearly 2 hours. She challenged him, told him I was on holiday as she didn't like the look of him, and she told him she was my neighbour and was taking in my mail. He gave her the letters.

 

One is from H.M. Investigations LTD., which states:

 

"I have been directed to serve you with a Statutory Demand issued under the Insolvency Act 1986. The creditor is Lowell Portfolio 1 Limited.

 

I have already attended your address without meeting with you.

 

I have to inform you I will attend at your address as above on xxxx at xxxx for the purpose of serving you personally with such Statutory Demand.

 

It is my duty to inform you that should you fail to attend the above appointment or any other made in lieu thereof, substituted service of the said Statutory Demand shall be deemed to have been effected by insertion thriough your letterbox in a plain envelope at your address at xxxx."

 

The other is from Hamptons Legal, which is service of a Statutory Demand for payment of the debt. In it, they threaten should I not respond, they will be presenting a Bankruptcy Petition against me.

 

Attached is Form 6.1, Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Debt for Liquidated Sum Payable Immediately.

 

In the details section, it states Lowell's took on the account in June 2008, but nowhere is there evidence of this, or any documentation to suggest these debts are indeed mine.

 

It has knocked me sick to the stomach and I don't know where to turn to or how to deal with it. I cannot afford a solicitor and my medical pension makes me ineligible for any aid.

 

How do I proceed from here? My fear is that in my medical state, they will find it easy to bully and confuse me.

 

I have spoken to no-one on the phone, and I have not written any correspondence, nor have I agreed to any appointment for this man to call at my house.

 

I am not sure this debt is mine, but if it was, it is probably atleast 6 years old from before I was diagnosed.

 

Many, many thanks for any guidance.

[HighFly]

Thank you for the speed and usefulness of your feedback.

 

Is the Statutory Demand left today a legal and legitimate document? It says I must act within 18 days to comply or have it set aside at the local County Court.

[HighFly]

The service is suspect but I have to look in to that...

 

Can you scan and post (removing personal info) the SD you received please?

 

My printer for some reason will print but not scan at the moment

 

Thank you all for the valuable input.

 

Excuse me if I am sounding a bit naiive and slow, but am I correct in summising my best course of action to be:

 

1. Send the statute barred letter, unsigned

 

2. Don't answer the door to the guy when he returns

 

3. Fill out forms 6.4 and 6.5 (just printed them) and take them to County Court. In light of the fact I don't know if this is my debt, do I deny it, based on the fact they haven't furnished me with evidence, or do I accept it may be mine but believe it is statute barred, or is there a more appropriate way?

 

4. Complain to the OFT for their tactics and the fact they will have staked-out and visited my property twice, uninvited.

 

One other thought, if it is indeed my debt, and isn't yet six years, am I forfeiting the statute barred option by sending them the SB letter and communicating with them? Without any paperwork or evidence, I don't want to do something impulsively which may be turn out to be prejudicial against me or my position.

Edited July 28, 2009 by HighFly

[HighFly]

Thanks Mr. Ton

 

Hi Lilly White. You need to know; I'm happy to answer.

 

WHEN DID YOU LAST PAY OR HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH THIS DEBT

 

My last involvement with the Co-Operative Bank was well before I became ill 5 years ago and, as far as I recall, before I met my partner of 6 1/2 years. Whether "this debt" is mine, I have no idea. Suffice to say, until these letters and calls started, my conscience was clear that I had no outstanding debt with the Co-Op.

 

what are they.

 

CREDIT CARDS

 

LOANS

 

HP

 

OVERDRAFT.

 

 

I had a credit card which, at the time, they had recently upgraded to gold.

 

HOW OLD ARE THEY

 

Are you referring to how long did I possess the card, or how old is this "debt"?

 

I had the card for over 10 years. As I have had zero involvement with the Co-Op for over 5 years since, if this debt is proven to be mine, then it is atleast that old.

 

ANY CHARGES PPI

 

It is so long ago, I don't recall. I doubt I paid PPI though.

[HighFly]

Thanks to all. I think I'm beginning to get a picture of what I need to do.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

My priority is to submit the application to get it SD set aside, using lilly white's defence above.

 

I should refrain from contacting Lowells at all in the meanwhile; does a request for a copy of the CCA constitute acceptance of service?

[HighFly]

Sam

 

I've PM-ed you

[HighFly]

As ready as I'll ever be, thanks.

 

I'll post any news.

[HighFly]

Quick update.

 

Dealt with a very helpful guy at the local CC.

 

All submitted, but was shocked when he said he had set the hearing for next Friday, August 6th.

 

Noticing my reaction, he whispered "This lot aren't very quick; best way to fight them is to get it scheduled for as soon as possible. They may not even turn up."

 

I wonder if they will even send the paperwork out tonight, or whether it will be Monday evening before it goes.

 

Thanks again for the responses and the sheer quality of the advice you have all given; I'm truly grateful.

 

Can someone advise, is there a way to change the title of this thread to something more appropriate, so I can keep coming back to it with updates?

[HighFly]

Thanks Crusher

[HighFly]

Well, despite the threatening letter of "a further visit this Friday" to personally serve, the slug from H.M. Investigations didn't turn up.

 

The more I read the original paperwork, the more I'm convinced it was all a scare tactic; why would he need to come back to serve personally when he did that on his first visit by putting it through my letterbox?

 

Having received the SD. though, I had to act and apply get it set aside and request costs, so let's see what next Friday brings at Court.

 

I hate to admit it, but I'm beginning to get a perverse sense of pleasure from all this; is it CAG-itis?

[HighFly]

Hi 42man

 

Yes, Affadavit sworn in, hearing this Friday (I feel fast-tracked!!).

 

Have sent Lowell two unsigned letters, recorded delivery; one advising them that even if the debt is mine (which is denied), it is statute barred, and the other one a CCA request, as typed below:

 

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd

Enterprise House

1 Apex View

Leeds

LS11 9BH

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Acc/Ref Nos XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 24 July 2009, delivered to my neighbour’s house by H. M. Investigations Ltd. regarding the accounts with the above reference numbers, which you claim is owed by me.

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY.

 

Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

The Office of Fair Trading does state under 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”.

 

The last payment, if any, of this alleged debt, which is denied, was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are not 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 section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

 

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.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

and

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd

Enterprise House

1 Apex View

Leeds

LS11 9BH

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Acc/Ref Nos XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

 

You have served a Statutory Demand issued under the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the process of service is considered flawed and the claim is denied on grounds of both liability and the Statute of Limitations Act 1980, section 5, for the sake of thoroughness it is requested you supply paperwork pertinent to the case.

 

This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply.

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

I enclose a postal order in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee. Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

 

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee.

 

Yours faithfully

 

I have today submitted my claim for costs to the County Court and by recorded delivery to Lowell also. It's a reasonable £226, but have requested they consider the 2/3rds cost of legal representation option, had I chosen to be represented, to be considered; nothing fought, nothing gained, and this is war now, afterall........

 

Lowell/Hamptons haven't contacted the Court yet, and again, the Registrar said he wouldn't be surprised if they didn't turn up at all.

 

Have I forgotten anything else I need to do?

As it is a pretty simple (to me anyway) case of statute barred, is there any other preparation or paperwork I need for Friday?

Thx

[HighFly]

Yes Baby, almost verbatim, but with different figures.

 

I also added

"I understand a claim can reasonably be argued for two thirds of what it would have cost, had I appointed legal representation.

 

I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs."

 

I don't like bullies. Like I said, it's war now; nothing ventured, nothing gained.....

Edited August 4, 2009 by HighFly

[HighFly]

Hearing to set aside tomorrow (Thurday 6th), 2.15pm.

Court have heard nothing (yet) from How-Lowell-Can-They-Go.

[HighFly]

Thanks BB.

Did have a heart-stopping moment this morning when I looked at my calendar and saw today was Wednesday the 5th.

 

"But they said Court was FRIDAY the 6th..."

 

A calamity closely avoided !!

[HighFly]

ODC

 

The more the merrier.

 

You may have missed my comments earlier that, by deduction, these debts, if at all mine, must be atleast 6 1/2 years old.

 

Quote from earlier:

 

My last involvement with the Co-Operative Bank was well before I became ill 5 years ago and, as far as I recall, before I met my (current) partner of 6 1/2 years.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[HighFly]

Hello guest

 

There were 6 guests at one point reading this thread earlier

[HighFly]

I've been looking over my credit file, regarding this case.

 

Lowell have accessed my credit file 9 times this year, unrecorded.

 

What concerns me is that both these accounts are showing up as in default.

 

Name: MR

Address:

Date of birth:

Company name: LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Account type: Credit card / Store card

Started: 02/01/1996

Default Balance: £2,567

Current Balance: £2,567

 

Defaulted On: 18/11/2004

File Updated for the Period to: 01/03/2009

Status history:

[] brackets indicate most recent months status [ 8 ] What's this?

Note: A defaulted account is removed from your report after six years whether or not you have paid the debt in full. If you have paid some of the debt off, the balance should show how much you still owe.

 

.....................................................

 

Name:

Address:

Date of birth:

Company name: LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Account type: Credit card / Store card

Started: 22/04/1993

Default Balance: £2,783

Current Balance: £2,783

 

Defaulted On: 25/11/2004

File Updated for the Period to: 01/03/2009

Status history:

[] brackets indicate most recent months status [ 8 ]

 

Note: A defaulted account is removed from your report after six years whether or not you have paid the debt in full. If you have paid some of the debt off, the balance should show how much you still owe.

 

I have CCA'd them, but have received nothing yet; tic toc tic toc.......

 

How they were defaulted in 2004 is a mystery, as I've had no involvement with Co-Op (cards issuer) since before 2002.

 

If they can't find any agreements, I presume they both go into dispute....?

 

The SD has been set aside (no cheque yet though, grrr). Tic Toc Tic Toc....

 

What do I have to do though to get these records removed from my file?

 

Thanks in advance

 

HF

 

As an aside, it seems all that is said about CRAs divulging info is true; since accessing my file, I've had a demand from Wescot and one from Rockwell for 2 other alleged amounts, neither of which are on my credit file, and for which I have no records.

 

Bring it on......

[HighFly]

Just an update with, well, nothing to tell.

 

Lowell have 49 hours and fifty minutes left to pay costs (by 4pm, Thursday August 20th).

 

Tic Toc Tic Toc.

 

The CCA request letter I sent was dated August 1st, posted (recorded) on the 3rd, delivered on the 4th. When did the clock start ticking on that, and what is the deadline date therefore?

 

Tic Toc Tic Toc.

 

I'd like to hit the ground running with this if either of the deadlines is missed. I'd appreciate some pointers as to what I should be preparing for next.

 

Many thanks

 

HF

[HighFly]

Fabulous Sam, thanks.

 

Must have been a temp glitch with the site.

 

Loading up with armour as I type...

 

28 hours and 50 minutes...tic toc tic toc......

[HighFly]

Complaint gone in to the OFT, and part 2 ready to go if they miss tomorrow on either count.

 

Tic toc tic toc