Help - Lowell Statutory Demand [LIttlewoods Cat debt & store card together] **SET ASIDE**

[42man]

Excellent...send one copy to the Information Commissioners Office, save one for the judge, send one to the OFT and send a copy to the person named on the statement (if the address is there)

[nunkychunky]

Evening folks,

 

A long time has passed since I was last on, was allocated a hearing date but could not make it so wrote to the Court with my reasons and they kindly adjourned it until October.

 

Today a very interesting letter dropped through the door from B W Legal.

 

They state that their client (Lowells) are prepared to come to a commercial settlement, without incurring costs in "defending my application".

 

As far as I am concerned they have NO defence, let's get this straight.

 

1) The documentation they provided under my CCA request is woefully inadequate and fails the tests in the HSBC v Cairns case (my name does not appear on it).

2) They sent me a copy of somebody else's credit agreement.

3) The agreement is unenforceable.

 

With the letter was a Tomlin order setting out 1) The SD be set aside and 2) There be no order as to costs.

 

The letter goes on to say that they will be prepared to accept instalments of £248 per month until settled (they can whistle) or a FFS of £3500 (again they can whistle). They go on to say they will pursue a CCJ if not satisfactorily dealt with (I thought the fact it is unenforceable means they cannot take me to court - hello? wake up and smell the coffee?).

 

I would, preferably, like to deal with it without a court hearing but any suggestions how to deal with it? (e.g. agree to sign the consent order, start paying a token amount, or tell them that the debt is unenforceable until they fully comply with the documentation, or alternatively tell them I'd be prepared to let the Court deal with it).

 

Do the indications seem to suggest they are about to cave in?

 

Any thoughts welcome.

 

NC

[dx100uk]

court and expose them!

for the charlatans they are

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I agree. This sounds like an attempt to mislead you and convince you to make the payments in to court and expose them.

[citizenB]

nunky, have flagged the post for those with more legal knowledge

[marshy1977]

They are cornered I got one like that yesterday, in court today they tried to use it to reduce the costs.

[citizenB]

Nunky, comments below for you.

 

 

It simply means if he agrees to the TO and accept their terms they will not object to the set a side. Reading the above they have no option but to agree to the set a side...but they are calling his bluff.

 

 

I personally would ignore and await the hearing for set a side in October.

[nunkychunky]

Folks,

 

Thanks for the advice.... I will call THEIR bluff as well... two can play at that game. I am happy to let it proceed to the hearing.

 

Cheers

 

NC

[nunkychunky]

Hi folks,

 

A while since I have been on... hearing date is next Wednesday (16/10). The correspondence from BW I ignored, but thought I would fire a shot across their bows and yesterday an email went to them stating the following:

 

1) Why did they send me somebody else's statement of account?

2) Their documentation is still non compliant applying the tests in the Carey case.

3) If they wanted to press for a CCJ it would be resisted by (basically) running the same argument.

 

Later a very interesting email came back.

 

They virtually are pleading with me to sign the consent order - when I received it in August they said they would enter into it on the basis I settled up with them (see #102 for their terms). They state they will now enter into a consent order to save costs, and that the arguments I raised can be dealt with later.

 

They stated they were not aware I obtained an adjournment (which is a lie - they sent me a copy of the Court order adjourning it).

 

Whilst I would prefer not to go to Court, I don't trust these people as far as I can throw them, if I sign the consent order are they likely to lift my signature? Should I get a solicitor to sign it on my behalf?

 

Now looking at the consent order itself it is very basic.

 

Upon the parties having reached agreement (this bit troubles me, I have not reached any agreement with them, are they likely to rely on a side letter or do the terms of agreement have to be on the face of the consent order?).

 

1.That the Statutory Demand be set aside.

2. That each party bears its own costs.

 

Or should I tell them that I have not reached agreement with them, and agree on entering into the consent order on the basis of saving costs and Court time (the estimated hearing time is 1.5 hours).

 

Any advice much appreciated.

 

NC

[citizenB]

I will ask someone to look in on you.

 

Could be they are simply wanting to avoid further costs - as for your signature, you could always make it different to your usual one, in some way. As long as you photocopy the page it is attached to, so that you would recognise it should it pop up on something it shouldn't

[citizenB]

nunky, apparently it is standard text

 

Consent is fine CB thats the standard wording on all consents " Upon the parties having reached agreement...... "

[42man]

They are extremely afraid that you will go to court,

 

demonstrate what a complete bunch of idiots they are and you will win your costs.

 

They sent you somebody else's documents which is a breach of the data protection act,

 

and deny knowledge of an adjournment to which they sent to you from the court.

 

If you show your resolve, and know your stuff, and stand up to these bullies you should at least get it set aside if not hit them for costs

 

- (which need to be in the court 24 hours before the hearing)

[fkofilee]

Sorry to raise an old thread... but WTH happened with this!!

 

I want to hear what happened in Court

[Tashaounette]

I really want to know what happened! The court date must of happened, please up date!

[citizenB]

It is possible this has not gone to a hearing. I seem to recall in an earlier post that nunky advised there was a consent order where the opposition were suggesting that they agree to the set aside but both parties bear their own costs.

 

I am sure nc will let us know if this is not so

[nunkychunky]

Hi folks,

 

A long time since I've been on but the outcome is that the SD was set aside with no order as to costs.

 

Thanks everybody for the advice.

 

Cheers

 

NC

[dx100uk]

hey great result!!

 

 

dx

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover its expenses.

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

[citizenB]

Excellent news. Pleased to hear this. A bit unfair that you didn't receive your costs though

[42man]

Excellent great result....