Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Another 3/Lowell/Red default...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4718 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Morning all,

 

Hope someone can give some advice on this, I'm posting on behalf of a relative. Sorry it's a long one. Back in August 2006 they took out a contract with 3 and the phone was subsequently stolen. The last payment was made in December 2006 and she then believed the contract was cancelled (not sure of the exact goings on as it was dealt with by her father who has since passed away).

 

Her credit file shows Lowell Portfolio started 22/08/2006, default balance £463, current balance £679.20, defaulted on 07/10/2007. A statement has been sent through by 3 which literally just reads a list of invoice balances and a £216.70 early termination fee.

 

My thinking is that don't defaults have to be applied according to the ICO within 6 months of the breakdown of the agreement? The last payment was made to a DCA (not sure which) on 6 Dec 2006, but the default wasn't applied until 10 months later. As the default must have been filed by 3 and the breakdown of that relationship (the point at which it was transferred to a DCA) was in fact 2 months before that, it looks to me like it's been left a year which appears to be against the ICO regulations.

 

They don't recall any warning that a default was to be applied (from what I understand certain letters need to be sent) so is it worth a SAR to 3 to find out if this was all done correctly?

 

The debt is now with Red Debt Collection services, what powers do these people have to enforce collection? Their last letter said they would be looking at her credit file to see what assets she has.

 

Any thoughts appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to the CAG

 

First of send Red/Lowells (same firm) a prove it letter, also I dont believe that they can apply interest or anything to a phone contract so make em prove the full amount, because reading above it seems to have increased by £200ish

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

Red is just another desk in LowLife Towers. They have no powers so don't worry about them.

 

I agree with PGH that they can't add charges or interest to the debt.

 

As suggested...get them to prove the debt.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, how was the Contract 'terminated'. Was it just assumed that as the 'phone had been stolen the Contract would no longer exist? Unfortunately, in most cases this is not what happens, read the small print and you may well find that the 'extra charges' are in fact the monthly installments due until the natural 'end' of the Contract, and even then because most of these 'roll over' it has to actually be terminated in writing and over the 'phone giving at least one months' notice.

 

IMHO this is a very unfair situation and I would follow the above advice about the 'prove it' letter which should sort out where the 'extras' have come from.

 

I have had dealings with 3 and below is a very helpful e-mail address to contact:

 

[email protected]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

 

harrassed senior, I would assume it was done over the phone but woudl have to check. A prove it letter sent previously is how we ended up with the 'statement' which is in fact just a vague list of transactions on the account. To be honest I'm not sure exactly what we'd expect to receive back from them - any suggestions welcome?!

 

I was thinking the SAR would help to see if the default was applied fairly but not sure how to go about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...