Lowells/Hamptons Stat Demand Help Req. Urgently Pls / **SET ASIDE _ SUCCESSFUL**

[DebShe271]

Apologies this is a long post! Please could anyone advise me on my Set Aside wording below?

 

Here is a brief Summary of my case for reference

 

1. Rec'd letter from company called London House 31/3/10 stating that an SD was to be served on me and that they would call back a week later. No creditor info.

 

2. 1 week later (7/4/10) and at the time stated, a letter was put through my door from Hamptons with a SD demanding payment for 2 debts totalling £3700, credit card/catalogue. Neither of these are listed on my credit file and I believe to date back to approx. 5.5 years ago. Neither of which I have any paperwork for.

 

3. Called Lowells who are listed as creditors on the SD, they would not put me through to the named person on the SD, said that money was owed & that I had to pay a large payment of £1000 within 1 week and subsequently £100 p.m. via direct debit, otherwise they would make be bankrupt, bullied me into giving debit card details and bank details, stated that the court I would have to go to was in Hertfordshire as being the nearest one dealing with bankruptcy, I live in Kent.

 

4. Since found this site cancelled my debit card and have carried out other advice as kindly given.

 

5. Have sent 2 CCA requests to Lowells and a SAR to each creditor today. Have never received any default notices etc. from them as they state on the SD. They also state on the SD that they have requested payment verbally, have never spoke to them on the phone or in person.

 

Do I need to include below that I totally dispute the debt???

 

My set aside wording is as follows:

 

The alleged creditor would not allow me to speak directly to the named person on the Statutory Demand and therefore I consider this an abuse of process.

The alleged creditor stated that I had to attend court in a different county to where I live, they did not give details of a nearby bankruptcy court to where I live (of which there is one) and therefore I consider this an abuse of process.

The alleged creditor has not provided a valid notice of assignment.

The alleged creditor has not provided a legible copy of the agreement that contains the prescribed terms and is executed.

The alleged creditor has not provided any compliant default notice as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The alleged creditor has not provided any statements for the duration of the account (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of excessive charges).

The alleged creditor has not provided any proof that the alleged debt has been securitised under English law.

Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act a formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to Lowell Portfolio Ltd via recorded delivery on 11th April 2010 (see attached document 1) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act.

]I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements.

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

It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms

 

Consumer Credit Act

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor.

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

(N.B - 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. (cont)

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

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 law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Hoffmann said , at page 1131 “Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.”If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the bankruptcy demand was issued.

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 attached to the demand.

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 Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the demand at all. 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 requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

The alleged creditor has not 'served' anything on me, but simply hand posted a demand - I believe that this is a frivolous attempt at scaring me into paying and therefore an abuse of the process.

 

I refer to:

Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241

'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON.

As a lone parent to a young child I have limited resources, I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court, which I could not afford. I therefore attach my costs incurred to date as Litigant in Person.

I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount.

 

In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:-Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:-

27 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 collection where 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).

 

PLEASE CAN I HAVE ANY COMMENTS ASAP WOULD LIKE TO GET MY PAPERS IN THIS WEEK???????

Edited April 11, 2010 by DebShe271

[DebShe271]

HI MJ

 

Have pm'd you

[DebShe271]

BUMP Pls can someone assist with my post 26!

[wycombe]

Hi Debshe - I do not have the expertise to commnet on your casework.

 

But if no one with expertise does come and help you and you need help desperately because of time limitations click on the red triangle and one of the Site Team will have a look.

 

By the way - well done so far!

[mandyjayne]

Deb this is similar to my set aside expect for the bits you have added at the beginning..yes you totally dispute the debt.

 

You are going to have to get the Ok with this from the "higherachy" before you continue, as it will need double checking just in case we have missed anything.

 

Red triangle as wycombe said, leave a message and someone from site team will drop by.

 

I have pm'd 42man for you but he has not been around of late due to other commitments, if he picks up he will assist.

 

MJ:)

[DebShe271]

Wycombe/MJ thanks - will click now.

[SUMMERSMILE]

DO NOT sign any letters to lowells, Red or Hamptons (they are all the same company) with your usual signature!!! They have been know to cut and paste signature onto credit agreements! **** bags.

[DebShe271]

Thank you Summersmile, I actually did block capitals and put crosses all through it, did hear somewhere that if nothing put can be used against you. I also took photocopies of the marked copies sent to them so any 'mark' they try to perhaps use could be checked against those.

 

I'm probably being really thick here but what red triangle do I do, is it the report post one, it says this should only be used for spam etc.

[lilly white]

The defendant totally disputes the debt.

 

The alleged creditor has provided no enforceable consumer credit agreement that contains the prescribed terms.

 

The alleged creditor has not provided any default notices in the prescribed form.

 

The alleged creditor has provided no statements for the duration of the account. (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of excessive penalty charges)

 

The alleged creditor and the alleged original creditor has not provided any valid notices of assignment.

 

Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act a formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to XXXXXX. via guaranteed/recorded delivery on the (insert the date on the recorded delivery slip here) (see attached document 1 – you need to copy the letter and the recorded delivery slip (take 2 copies) – to date they have not sent any valid copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act

 

I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements (as the account does not exist),

 

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;

 

It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms.

 

Consumer Credit Act

 

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

(N.B - 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. (cont)

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

 

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 law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and

 

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:-

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

 

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

 

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.”

 

If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the demand was issued.

 

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 attached to the demand.

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, dating 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

Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 says:

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--
(a) to terminate the agreement, or
(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum....

Section 88 says that the DN must be in the prescribed form and the associated regulation say what that form is. 

Thus, if the DN is not in the prescribed form, it is invalid and, under s87, the lender has no right of action.

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 Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim at all. 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 requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

 

The alleged creditor has not 'served' anything on me, but simply posted a demand by first class - I believe that this is a frivolous attempt at scaring me into paying and therefore an abuse of the process.

 

I refer to:

 

Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241

 

'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

 

On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON.

 

As a lone parent/low income earner/low income family with limited finances I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court.

 

I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount.

 

In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:-

 

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

 

In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:-

 

27 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 collection where 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).

 

 

 

 

Use this and this alone do not go into any other detail apart from that, it is not for you to prove anything, but to them.

 

So you do not know them.............. its all to them

[DebShe271]

Thank you LW - so you feel I should omit anything to do with the fact that they would not put me through to the named person on the SD and also the fact that they did not list a court near to me!

I thought that these show their abuse of process? Or is that something I would state when there?

Regards D

[DebShe271]

Bump

[DebShe271]

Want to send the letter below to Experian - any comments pls???

 

Customer Support Centre

Experian

 

xx April 2010

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Credit Report Ref: xxxx

 

I am writing in query to entries numbered P2-P11 (10 entries in total) between xxx and xxx by Lowlifes listed as ‘Unrecorded Enquiries’ on my credit file.

 

I write to inform you that, at no time, have I ever given the Lowlifes permission to search my credit file or to process my data, nor have I asked them to carry out an enquiry, quotation or verification check.

 

 

I ask that one of the following is carried out.

• Provide a copy of the permission that enables LL to search my credit file giving rise to search entries P2 to P11, or
  

• Permanently remove entries P2 to P11 by LL from my credit file within 14 days, and confirm in writing this has been done.
  

If you are unable or unwilling to provide either of the above, please say why, in a letter that is clearly marked at the top with the words FINAL RESOLUTION.

 

 

European Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive) states that data can only be processed when the data subject has unambiguously given his consent.

 

Should any future footprints occur on my credit file which have not been authorised by me, I will seek compensation for damages.

 

This letter is not a Subject Access Request and does not ask you to provide any personal data about me as it is defined in the 1998 Data Protection Act.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited April 12, 2010 by DebShe271

[vinegarvera]

Hi Debshe,

 

Mandyjayne asked me to pop by to offer some moral support for you, will have a good luck at your thread after tea but have a quick read of my threads, ~(Should ease the nerves!!)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/254621-lowells-not-paying-up.html

 

I am about to hit them where it hurts - will give em one for you too!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230908-help-statutory-demand-costs-7.html

 

 

What a shower - seems to go on a lot - Lets put a stop to this!!!

[DebShe271]

Thank u Vinegarvera.

 

I have to say not feeling too great today, only had 2/3 hours sleep per night for the last 4 nights, so it is catching up with me. Had read through your threads but I am getting soooo lost now and confused with what I should be doing! The more I read the more round in circles I seem to be going. I still haven't filled in my Form 6.4 & 6.5, I presume I need to fill all these in prior to attending the court?

 

Should I handwrite them or fill in on my pc? Not even sure I understand what details go where on the Form 6.4 Much help needed please!

[vinegarvera]

I filled in my 6.4 and 6.4 in and took them to court, then waited for a court date....

 

1 week before i submitted my costs to the court (we can go through this later). Lowells are well known for not turning up - they didn't for me!!

 

I know it is hard but try to calm down, its only money and they cannot get what you dont have and the judges hate this method of debt collection (this will go in your favour)

 

We are all here to help you through this, one step at a time. Just get your forms in to court, you will get plenty of good advice on this site. Just shout.

 

Will keep an eye on your thread...

[DebShe271]

Thank u V.

[DebShe271]

Bloody lowlifes set up TWO direct debits on my bank account tonight! Have cancelled online and had prewarned bank prior to this happening but will also give bank another ring tomorrow, just hope nothing goes through!

 

Even tho told can call back via DD guarantee should it happen - would really be a blow and mess me up.

Does anyone know if they can just keep setting it up???

[cerberusalert]

When you contact the bank tomorrow remind them of this;

The Direct Debit Guarantee

 

The Guarantee is offered by all banks and building societies that accept instructions to pay Direct Debits.

If there are any change to the amount, date or frequency of your Direct Debit the organisation will notify you (normally 10 working days) in advance of your account being debited or as otherwise agreed. If you request the organisation to collect a payment, confirmation of the amount and date will be given to you at the time of the request

If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society

If you receive a refund you are not entitled to, you must pay it back when the organisation asks you to

You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by simply contacting your bank or building society. Written confirmation may be required. Please also notify the organisation.

And raise the fact that their actions breach the Lending Code too!

[DebShe271]

Thank u cerberusalert - much appreciated.

[DebShe271]

ADVICE ANYONE PLEASE:

 

On reading about Direct debits at my bank, they have stated that once you cancel a DD you also need to contact the company concerned otherwise they can set up another DD. Didn't really want to contact the Lowlifes - not sure what to do, if I have to contact them any suggestions for wording????

[slick132]

Hi Debs,

 

To my knowledge, if you cancel a DD with the bank, the recipient cannot set up another. Only you can authorise a DD instruction.

 

Keep a close eye on the a/c and maybe confirm your instructions to the bank in writing.

 

[DebShe271]

Thank you so much Slick, I am losing sleep over all this!

 

I shall go in person (AGAIN) to the bank tomorrow and personally hand them a letter.

 

Kind regards

[wycombe]

I would send a Recorded Delivery letter to the 'lowlifes' informing them you have rescinded, after advice and because you are disputing the debt, the Direct Debit mandate and they no longer have your permission or authority to apply for a Direct Debit on your account.

 

At the same time I would ask my bank manager to change to a new account number and transfer all your current standing orders etc to this. If he complies let all the people who transfer money to your present account know (benefits people, employer etc.)

[DebShe271]

Thanks all, letter to lowlifes today (recorded del) stating that they are not authorised to take money from my account, personally took a letter to the bank reminding them of DD guarantee and that no money to lowlifes to be taken from my account, of which I have a receipt.

 

Finalising my 6.4 and 6.5 forms tonight, going to the court tomorrow!

[wycombe]

Good luck - Hope all goes well for you tomorrow.