BW Legal.Statutory Demand

[citizenB]

Wouldn't be so bad but we want them to go down that route....

 

 

 

I see the debt is for a relatively small sum (in the grand scheme of things) and in your wife's name only. So it is likely not going to be in their interests to issue a BR petition, which I understand is around £1,200, when they are unlikely to receive any benefit.

 

You advise your property is in negative equity, I am assuming there is still a mortgage on the property, and the mortgage provider would always be paid first. Even placing a restriction (they are unable to place a full charging order as it is a single debt with the property in both your names) is unlikely to give them any security for the debt.

 

So whilst it is still possible for them to issue the BR petition - it is not going to be in THEIR interests to do so.

[Guest]

well, if they haven't petitioned by the date given by the J, then may go to show that it was prob just a 'debt collection tool' to try and get payment! as also any payments compounding prior to a petition would negate it?

ps, if they do petition some time after the J direction, then could use that in defence also. unless of course you are happy to go bankrupt.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Ford

[42man]

1st Credit and Connaught Collections were warned about this a few years ago - http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/20-09#.UWk3X8qwV_s

 

If there is a 'requirements' order imposed upon a debt collection agency such as this, then others must comply with this ruling, Sarah De Tute, Lowells Director Of Compliance (and President Of The Credit Services Association (what a complete joke)), is clearly heading for a fall.

 

Make sure you keep those orders of the court close at hand, and you must inform the OFT too - [email protected] .uk (without the space)

 

Drop them an email just detailing briefly what has happened

[Guest]

from that link; 'refrain from issuing statutory demands warning of bankruptcy where it is unlikely that proceedings will be initiated'. says it all!

[knowledgeis..]

First things first - is this a genuine statutory demand or another bwlegal 'fake sd'? Quickest way to tell is under the 'warning' section at the top of the document - if no reference is made to seeking advice from a solicitor, cab etc then it is fake.

If thats the case i recommend you ignore the bullying **** tactics completely - the document would not stand up in court and they know that. Their hopes rest on scaring people into coming to some sort or repayment agreement.

[Octian]

If it's any consolation, I failed to get an SD set aside last September - have loads of equity in my house, but have never heard any further from BW Legal. It seems true that they issue these SD's as a bullying tactic often without any prospect of going through to the petition stage. I have disputes and they have never provided a readable agreement or any statements.

[JamesH1]

If it's any consolation, I failed to get an SD set aside last September - have loads of equity in my house, but have never heard any further from BW Legal. It seems true that they issue these SD's as a bullying tactic often without any prospect of going through to the petition stage. I have disputes and they have never provided a readable agreement or any statements.

 

LOL! Well, after proving that they had given my details to a complete stranger, they continued to threaten for a while then sent me a letter saying that they were no longer persuing Bankruptcy, so were going to persue a CCJ instead!

I made sure that there was a record with the Credit Ref Agencies that the debt is still disputed, just so they had absolutely no excuse for proceeding. This morning, I recieved a County Court Summons.

 

I have patiently allowed them to create a watertight case of victmisation and malpractice, since the begining of the year. They have aggressively threatened me with unintended actions, given my details to a stranger (if indeed a demand was REALLY issued at all) Altered a copy of the demand by removing all descriptions of the person to whom it was served, AFTER I had ascertained that it had certainly not been me, then they have proceeded with a County Court case regardless of a dispute that is even recorded with the Credit Reference Agencies.

 

They need striking off!

[citizenB]

James, have you updated your original thread with this information - then we can offer more advice

[Octian]

As a matter of interest how long was it before your received the summons ? The last contact I had with them was January when they were still going to issue a petition. Not a word since. Totally agree they need striking off - so to BW Legal. Solicitors Regulation Authority rules clearly state they cannot threaten to do something which cannot legally be done - which they have in my case.

[JamesH1]

Hi CtizenB, long time no speak! Tbh, I really thought that BWL had learned their lesson and stopped playing silly-buggers.. How wrong was I?? I have now passed everything over to the finanacial Ombudsman, who are taking the case pretty seriously.

 

Hi Octian, Yeah, it was just over two weeks. But the summons is for a CCJ and NOT bankruptcy proceedings... They gave up on that stupidity after I informed them that I had recorded all of the phone calls, threats, bad advice, lies etc... and advised them that they were using the whole process inappropriately! They knew full well that the debt is in dispute. I have informed them by post, and by phone, and requested a statement of accounts and credit agreement on several ocassions. BWL's response to that is "We are not obliged to share any information with you".. Well, I beg to differ!

I've handed over recordings, copies of correspondence and transcripts to the FO, after recieving this summons from Northampton County Court (Interestingly does not have a hearing date on it)

 

I will push for a financial compensation for everything they've put me through since January, and I'd suggest that ANYONE who has the misfortune of dealing with these idiots also goes to the FO.

I've also contacted Lowell and told them that their 'legal firm' of choice is in breach of so many laws and codes, that they're going to end up in debt to me if they don't take the case back and start furnishing me with the information that I've requested. They got worried when I gave them the FO ref number for the complaint.

[citizenB]

James, if this is a genuine claim form from the court, then you need to follow the procedure - acknowledgment, defence etc. I don't think you should ignore it else they will obtain a judgment by default.

 

In view of the fact that a claim has been issued, I am surprised the FOS are dealing !!.

[Guest]

yes, james you mention a summons for a ccj which is different to an sd/bankruptcy. what are you doing re the claim from northampton?

[Octian]

To be honest, you seem to have it well documented about the dispute, therefore should find it easy to form a defence. Once they have your defence, they have 28 days to reply. If they don't the case will be 'stayed' and they can't do anything without going back to the court.

 

They are a bit stupid and very obviously abusing the processes. May be worth a complaint to the SRA as well as FO.

[JamesH1]

yes, james you mention a summons for a ccj which is different to an sd/bankruptcy. what are you doing re the claim from northampton?

 

I'm going to fill it out and make it clear that the debt has been taken to them whilst disputed as-well-as being investigated. I have still have no evdience of the debt, at all. I know I owe something, but the total that they claim is at least £770 too much.... AT LEAST... It doesn't make sense, and I've been asking Lowell and BWL for a statement of accounts and CA for nearly two years.

[JamesH1]

I'm going to fill it out and make it clear that the debt has been taken to them whilst disputed as-well-as being investigated. I have still have no evdience of the debt, at all. I know I owe something, but the total that they claim is at least £770 too much.... AT LEAST... It doesn't make sense, and I've been asking Lowell and BWL for a statement of accounts and CA for nearly two years.

 

And by that, I mean, I have been asking BWL for 7 months.. But I had disputed the overall amount, with Lowell, 2-years ago! so, really, they shouldn't have passed it to BWL in the first place, as it was already in dispute..

[Octian]

If you've been asking for 7 months - I've been asking for 11 months - so they obviously haven't got any information. I did get a statement - but guess how much I said was owed - £0.00 ! Absolute waste of space.

[gporter3319]

Update from Feb this year.We had the S/D turned down due to a crappy magistrate.Okay no problem.He informed BW legal at the time that they had 30 days to partition for bankruptcy, although he said there was little or no point in doing so. Heard nothing right up until now and they are now stating that they want the money my wife owes them.They claim that if she fails to comply that they will pursue bankruptcy.Is this possible having been told to do so within 14 days by the J?

[citizenB]

Update from Feb this year. We had the S/D turned down due to a crappy magistrate. Okay no problem. He informed BW legal at the time that they had 30 days to partition for bankruptcy, although he said there was little or no point in doing so. Heard nothing right up until now and they are now stating that they want the money my wife owes them. They claim that if she fails to comply that they will pursue bankruptcy. Is this possible having been told to do so within 14 days by the J?

 

You are conflicted here.. You say the Magistrate informed BW that they had 30 days to petition for BR, then in the last sentence that the Judge said within 14 days ??

 

Did he suggest that they couldn't do so if they didn't petition within the stated time ?

[gporter3319]

Sorry he told them to do so within 30 days,but "didnt think it was worth it"due to my wife having no assets

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry he told them to do so within 30 days,but "didnt think it was worth it"due to my wife having no assets

 

Does your wife still have no assets ?

 

Do you know if the Judge formally told them they could only apply for bankruptcy within 30 days ? Is there any judgement stating this ? I am thinking this was just a comment, which the Judge did not confirm in any document that was issued to BW Legal/Lowells.

[gporter3319]

Think it may have just been a passing comment due to not having anything in writing.Home is still in neg equity and she is still on long term sick.

[Guest]

re timeline

there was/is insolvency rule 6.12(7) which said re a creditors petition

(7) If the petition is based upon a statutory demand, and more than 4 months have elapsed between the service of the demand and the presentation of the petition, the affidavit must also state the reasons for the delay

 

but, the insolvency rules have been amended recently so double check whether that still applies, not sure. anyway it wouldn't be a strict bar, but may help negate if their 'reasons' are deemed unreasonable. also, you would mention that the J said within 30 days?

if it gets that far?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Ford

[gporter3319]

Hi Guys,

 

well just been served "ANOTHER" stat demand for this debt.

 

13 months after the 1st one which we didnt manage to get set aside in court.

 

Is this possible to have 2 demands for the same debt from Lowell.

 

The lowlife that knocked the door was real bolshy asking for my wife

 

informed him that he was trespassing and to go away before I let my german shepherd out.

 

He drove off shouting at me.

 

..I thought that quite funny,

 

5 mins later posted the sd thru the door and ran off

 

...Any pointers on what we should do please.....

[citizenB]

I will try and find someone who can help.

 

I would have thought that they would have started the process for the Bankruptcy if you were unable to get the original Stat Demand set aside !! Unless there is a time constraint.

[AndyOrch]

The court normally request for the petition immediately or by specific date if a set a side has been dismissed.

A Stat Demand can expire after 4 months so a fresh one would have to be issued as in this case.

 

Regards

 

Andy