lowells bankruptcy pertition *** dismissed ***

[42man]

And the adjournment needs to be made into a dismissal or withdrawal on their part....

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Thanx guys it looks like all is sorted I have today made a payment and told them the rest will be paid by the end of the month, they have said they will seek an adjurnment on wednesday where we are going to seek a dismissal as the case should never have got to there in the first place. I left them this morning telling them I would not be paying theyre costs and I'm only paying the £850 as at this stage I see very little option and that if I dont hear by email that they intend to dismiss the case I will be making the court aware of their tactics to date.

 

I will give you an update when I know more;)

 

Hi steve221977,

 

It's good to see that the Site Team and some of the regular Caggers have been on hand with assistance here.

 

If you'd like any help from me you're welcome to email me with the relevant details via the Contact us form here quoting the code WRT135 - CAG Forum in the subject line.

 

Once sent you'll receive an automated reply with a reference number. To ensure that it reaches me could you update the thread with this and I'll get back to you as soon as I can?

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

 

 

 

 

[Bandit127]

You should ring the court to check whether the adjournment has been actioned ? Otherwise do you have it in writing from Lowells that they will adjourn ?

Steve - you really need to do this.

[steve221977]

Steve - you really need to do this.

 

I have settled the total debt today luckily I was in a position to do this I feel for anyone else being hounded by these scumbags. We are going in the morning as we want to oppose the award of costs on the grounds they dont deserve them;( If they win costs we will hopefully win them back when we go to FOS we will not let this drop.

[steve221977]

Hi steve221977,

 

It's good to see that the Site Team and some of the regular Caggers have been on hand with assistance here.

 

If you'd like any help from me you're welcome to email me with the relevant details via the Contact us form here quoting the code WRT135 - CAG Forum in the subject line.

 

Once sent you'll receive an automated reply with a reference number. To ensure that it reaches me could you update the thread with this and I'll get back to you as soon as I can?

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

 

 

 

 

 

Thanx Lee I will keep your offer in mind mate

[steve221977]

An update for you guys been to Court this morning where the Judge verbally bitch slapped lowells solicitor ( a nice and helpful guy incidently) and dismissed they're claim for costs;) I have just contacted lowells to smuggly ask for a copy of they're complaints procedure so I can progress my complaint to the FOS. The Judge was superb really friendly he allowed my wife to submit a written statement and also allowed myself to speak on her behalf. I thank you guys so so so so much we really couldnt have done it without you:)

[Bandit127]

My mate Lensman on MSE told me to look in on your thread...

 

Well done both of you. A proper result and I hope you have enough money left for a bottle of bubbly. Congratulations.

[cerberusalert]

Thread title updated.

[steve221977]

My mate Lensman on MSE told me to look in on your thread...

 

Well done both of you. A proper result and I hope you have enough money left for a bottle of bubbly. Congratulations.

 

Hey Bandit a special thank you to you mate right from the start you were pointing us in the right direction your an absolute star

[citizenB]

Excellent, I am pleased to hear this. Yes, please do make a complaint to the OFT

[robcag]

I'm glad you're happy with your result, but, not wishing to put a downer on it, I can't help feeling you'd have been better following 42mans advice. By paying the sum demanded you've let them get away with using the bankruptcy process as a tool for debt collection, a disputed debt at that, and they hadn't even served the SD on you!

 

Just my opinion, so sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

 

Rob

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Hi steve221977,

 

Thanks for the update regarding the outcome to your case yesterday.

 

Best wishes,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm glad you're happy with your result, but, not wishing to put a downer on it, I can't help feeling you'd have been better following 42mans advice. By paying the sum demanded you've let them get away with using the bankruptcy process as a tool for debt collection, a disputed debt at that, and they hadn't even served the SD on you!

 

Just my opinion, so sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

 

Rob

 

Perhaps Vodafone and other companies should review any dealings that they have with DCA's that use Statutory Demands as a debt collection tool, rather than the normal CCJ route. If I were the CEO of Vodafone, I would not be very happy that my company was being dragged into a missuse of the insolvency system.

[steve221977]

I'm glad you're happy with your result, but, not wishing to put a downer on it, I can't help feeling you'd have been better following 42mans advice. By paying the sum demanded you've let them get away with using the bankruptcy process as a tool for debt collection, a disputed debt at that, and they hadn't even served the SD on you!

 

Just my opinion, so sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

 

Rob

 

Cheers Rob and I can see what your saying but at the stage we were at the safest way of dealing with it was to settle the debt and make it known it was only being settled because we were bullied. We can now go forward to the FOS with our dispute over what was actually owed and we can also go after lowells for the tactics used, a job made all the easier now a Judge has said basically they lied as in his summing up he agreed 100% that it was reasonable to ask for proof by way of statements and letter of assignment and that they had never complied with those requests as they're solicitor admitted as much. He also said that he believed that the SD had never been delivered as the statement made by the process server was littered with mistakes on the address/ times etc. So he dismissed the claim for costs on the grounds that the case should never of been put before the court and that lowells had not provided one piece of credible evidence to the contrary;)

[steve221977]

Hi steve221977,

 

Thanks for the update regarding the outcome to your case yesterday.

 

Best wishes,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

 

Hi Lee you said the other day that if I thought you could help you would see what you could do.I would therefore like to ask you having read the evidence on her and backed by a Judge to put pressure on your bosses to stop using these thugs to pursue monies owed this includes selling debt to this ****. I personally would never have a vodafone contract again even if they offered to pay me for using it as I dont believe they are any better than lowells;) This is in noway personally aimed at you Lee because I do genuinely believe you want to clean up the way customers are treated otherwise you wouldnt be involved with this site;)

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

I'm glad you're happy with your result, but, not wishing to put a downer on it, I can't help feeling you'd have been better following 42mans advice. By paying the sum demanded you've let them get away with using the bankruptcy process as a tool for debt collection, a disputed debt at that, and they hadn't even served the SD on you!

 

Just my opinion, so sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

 

Rob

 

And what is wrong with that? What is the bankruptcy process for if it's not for recovering debt?

[robcag]

And what is wrong with that? What is the bankruptcy process for if it's not for recovering debt?

 

AIUI the amount of the alleged debt was at least partially disputed, therefore it appears there were triable issues which should have been resolved via a court claim. In this instance the petitioner has been allowed to side step the court claim /CCJ process, which as you know is against OFT guidelines on debt collection.

 

Rob

[Bandit127]

AIUI the amount of the alleged debt was at least partially disputed, therefore it appears there were triable issues which should have been resolved via a court claim. In this instance the petitioner has been allowed to side step the court claim /CCJ process, which as you know is against OFT guidelines on debt collection.

 

Rob

Rob.

 

The OP (for whatever reason) first posted for advice on MSE on Saturday night. He was in a position of a BR hearing yesterday (Wednesday) having failed to set aside the SD or done anything to acknowledge and defend the BR hearing. This was no fault of the OP, but that is by the way.

 

While you might be right that 42man's advice might be better than paying, all I could find (from 42man actually) was that any submission for that hearing had to be made with 7 days notice. He was therefore out of notice.

 

I don't know what would have happened if he had somehow got a legitimate defence together and submitted it to court on Monday with 48 hours to go, but I suspect he would have been at the mercy of the judge lottery at best.

 

So I think the OP may have paid perhaps some disputed amount to a debt. But the circumstances denied him the proper course of action. I stand by my advice at the time and I stand by my congratulations to him for a good result.

 

He could well have seen his wife bankrupted by the judge lottery.

 

Hopefully he can pen a good complaint to the OFT and FOS and get recompense of some sort that way.

[steve221977]

Rob.

 

The OP (for whatever reason) first posted for advice on MSE on Saturday night. He was in a position of a BR hearing yesterday (Wednesday) having failed to set aside the SD or done anything to acknowledge and defend the BR hearing. This was no fault of the OP, but that is by the way.

 

While you might be right that 42man's advice might be better than paying, all I could find (from 42man actually) was that any submission for that hearing had to be made with 7 days notice. He was therefore out of notice.

 

I don't know what would have happened if he had somehow got a legitimate defence together and submitted it to court on Monday with 48 hours to go, but I suspect he would have been at the mercy of the judge lottery at best.

 

So I think the OP may have paid perhaps some disputed amount to a debt. But the circumstances denied him the proper course of action. I stand by my advice at the time and I stand by my congratulations to him for a good result.

 

He could well have seen his wife bankrupted by the judge lottery.

 

Hopefully he can pen a good complaint to the OFT and FOS and get recompense of some sort that way.

 

Nail on the head Bandit I really couldnt take the risk of going to court and not being able to raise a defence having no experience at all of the court process and knowing my wife I couldnt sit back and take a risk putting her through further hell. Having read all advice on here and considered it carefully I feel I took the right course of action in paying the disputed amount with a view to challenging it through the FOS at a later date. Like I said earlier Rob I will now pursue this right to the bitter end and with having a Judge coming down on our side maybe that task will now be easier, rest assured mate I will not roll over on this one I want to play my part in the destruction of the **** they call lowells;)

[Lee Vodafone Company Rep]

Hi Lee you said the other day that if I thought you could help you would see what you could do.I would therefore like to ask you having read the evidence on her and backed by a Judge to put pressure on your bosses to stop using these thugs to pursue monies owed this includes selling debt to this ****. I personally would never have a vodafone contract again even if they offered to pay me for using it as I dont believe they are any better than lowells;) This is in noway personally aimed at you Lee because I do genuinely believe you want to clean up the way customers are treated otherwise you wouldnt be involved with this site;)

 

Hi steve221977,

 

I can appreciate how you and your wife feel following these recent events and whilst the thread doesn't paint the best picture I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to comment further on what's happened without having reviewed the account in question.

 

In order for me to do this I'd be grateful if you could contact me with the relevant details via the Contact us form here quoting the code WRT135 - CAG Forum in the subject line?

 

Once you've received our automated reply could you then update the thread with your email reference number and I'll get back to you as soon as I can?

 

Thanks,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

[robcag]

Rob.

 

The OP (for whatever reason) first posted for advice on MSE on Saturday night. He was in a position of a BR hearing yesterday (Wednesday) having failed to set aside the SD or done anything to acknowledge and defend the BR hearing. This was no fault of the OP, but that is by the way.

 

While you might be right that 42man's advice might be better than paying, all I could find (from 42man actually) was that any submission for that hearing had to be made with 7 days notice. He was therefore out of notice.

 

I don't know what would have happened if he had somehow got a legitimate defence together and submitted it to court on Monday with 48 hours to go, but I suspect he would have been at the mercy of the judge lottery at best.

 

So I think the OP may have paid perhaps some disputed amount to a debt. But the circumstances denied him the proper course of action. I stand by my advice at the time and I stand by my congratulations to him for a good result.

 

He could well have seen his wife bankrupted by the judge lottery.

 

Hopefully he can pen a good complaint to the OFT and FOS and get recompense of some sort that way.

 

Perhaps I am mistaken, but without re-reading the thread, I was under the impression that a SD had not been served on the OP.

 

Rob

[toddle2u]

And what is wrong with that? What is the bankruptcy process for if it's not for recovering debt?

You know so little!!

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

You know so little!!

 

Gosh really? So do tell me why creditors bankrupt people.

[unclebulgaria67]

Gosh really? So do tell me why creditors bankrupt people.

 

Of course it is a debt collection tool, but it should only be used when absolutely necessary and where it is really merited. Some DCA's are using SD's and the bankruptcy petitions as a way to create publicity for themselves on internet debt forums, hoping the increased fear will drive the numbers of people paying earlier in the debt collection process.

 

As bankruptcy can have severe consequences, I think DCA's should me made to use the normal court claims process first and only use bankruptcy if that does not succeed in gaining payment. No doubt if DCA's continue using bankruptcy in the way they are, the government will change the law at some point.

[cerberusalert]

It is a well known fact that certain DCAs use SDs as a cheap tool to intimidate people into making payment when in fact they have no intention in following it through.

 

Even the CCCS state this on their website http://www.cccs.co.uk/InfoCentre/EnglandandWales/Creditoraction/Courtaction/Bankruptcyfromcreditors.aspx and they are funded by the industry.