Sheriff Officer trying to deliver papers - Walker Love

[dx100uk]

how about we get the op to post up the SD?

 

the thing is lowells are on a short wicket

 

theres lots of cases recent of them never having paperwork

so if this is the case and it'll be dropped

 

or its the use of the SD as debt collection tool. not allowed.

 

to the OP:

 

**you can post up images/letters by this method immediately..you don't need 10 posts**

.

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

************************* ************************* ***********

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

or

use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice DD-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

...

YOU DONT have to put a link to the attachment in the msg box..just upload it ..job done

.

 

 

please I say again.

 

i'm not saying im correct

neither is this the advise from CAG or the siteteam

 

only going by MY experience of the recent 6yrs

[JimBrain]

Thanks for the advice folks and I understand the caveats attached.

 

Some more info:

 

The SD has a cover letter from BW which lays out all sorts of dire consequences if I am sequestrated (yawn). But it ends with a request to contact them as there is still time to come to an acceptable payment arrangement. I have no intention of doing this.

 

So perhaps they will not follow through but I am still inclined to deny and send them a prove it letter.

Do you think this would give them the impression that I have assets to protect if I did so?

 

If in the perhaps unlikely event that they raise proceedings will it not harm my case that I did not challenge the SD?

 

The way I was looking at it was if I deny or not, the next legal step they can take is sequestration,

so denial and a prove it letter at least gives them something to think about

and perhaps makes their life a bit more difficult and strings things out a bit longer?

 

Their SD and cover letter is dated 16th December and appears to me to be intentionally worded to confuse the reader

as to whether this is the date of service i.e. the 3 week clock starts ticking from this date.

I have the docquet signed by the SO from last Tuesday so don't need to worry on that score but seems a bit underhand

 

To consolidate my paranoia - on the Denial slip, the wording of the instruction is -

 

*Delete if applicable (3) and (4). Only delete (3) if you accept that you owe the whole of the sum demanded, but retain (4) if you are denying that you have to pay that sum immediately

 

OK - but what do I do if I deny owing them anything at all??

 

(3) That I owe you the sum demanded

(4) That I owe you the sum demanded immediately

 

There are no further options.

 

Logically deleting 3 and 4 doesn't seem right as it would appear to be a denial of nothing.

 

I certainly don't want to just delete 3 as I don't accept owing them any sum

 

Deleting 4 only seems suspiciously like it is intended to be interpreted as accepting liability for part of the debt. Or am I being paranoid?

 

Could anyone offer advice please?

 

In addition, there is also attached a page entitled "EXPLANATION OF DENIAL"

Subheaded - "If you deny the debt referred to in the attached Statutory Demand,

or any part thereof, please state your explanation for such denial in full:-"

 

Am I obliged to complete this?

 

I was thinking a simple "I do not acknowledge or recognise liability for any part of the sum quoted or any agreement claimed by the pursuer"

 

Might actually be useful to include this given my paranoia about the

"delete if applicable/not applicable" (delete if applicable itself is such a non-intuitive choice of words).

Information re the debt on the SD is listed as:

 

Original Creditor: LTSB

Account Agreement no: XXXXXXXXX

Agreement type: Unsecured loan

Default notice date: June 2010

Debt due: 23K

Notice of Assignment: July 2013

 

I'll try to scan to get you a better look

Edited January 18, 2014 by JimBrain

[dx100uk]

please scan up what you have received following the guide above.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

if you must send anything it should be a CCA request not the prove it letter

 

your ack time for the SD starts from the day the sheriff delivered it .

 

dx

[JimBrain]

if you must send anything it should be a CCA request not the prove it letter

 

your ack time for the SD starts from the day the sheriff delivered it .

 

dx

 

Thanks dx. I got mixed up between the CCA request and prove it letter, I thought they were the same thing. Thanks for the link

 

It says that I should send to the OWNER of the debt so I should send to Lowell not BW Legal? I don't have any contact details for Lowell but I guess I might be able to find a contact on line.

Edited January 18, 2014 by JimBrain

[dx100uk]

BW legal is ok

 

dx

[JimBrain]

Thanks dx. Lowell actually called my mobile today. Didn't pick up and blocked the number.

[dx100uk]

correct.

 

keep off that phone

 

dx

[JimBrain]

UPDATE

 

I received a letter from BW Legal on Monday 27th Jan (dated 23rd Jan).

 

I am going to send denial slip along with CCA request tomorrow by special delivery.

 

The SD states that BW have sole responsibility for the account and all communication should be addressed to them only.

Does this mean I should send the CCA letter to BW or Lowell, or even both?

 

The latest letter begins by stating I was personally served the SD on 14th Jan

then asks me to contact someone at their office to discuss the matter so a settlement can be reached.

 

It then says

 

"If we fail to receive a response from you by 4 February 2014, we will send a Sequestration Petition to Court to be issued"

 

The denial and CCA should prevent the immediate risk of this if not just stringing it out for a while.

 

It then says if a sequestration petition is issued a hearing date will be set,

I will be served with the petition and If I don't pay up or reach a settlement

"we may seek a sequestration order against you at the hearing"

 

It then goes on to outline what will happen to my finances if I'm sequestrated.

 

Then finishes with "In order to avoid us submitting a Sequestration Petition to Court,

please contact us before 4 February 2014 to arrange a payment solution"

 

My initial reaction was that they mean business here but on reading over a few times it says they WILL send a petition to court if I don't respond.

Clearly I am going to respond, just not in the way they would like.

 

There are three separate references to reaching a settlement arrangement

so perhaps they are not as keen to go to court as at first seems.

Or perhaps they are just being a caring sharing DCA

and offering to negotiate out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

PS - I am going to leave both options

"[i DENY]

(3) That I owe you the sum demanded &

(4) That I have to pay you the sum demanded immediately" intact on the denial slip.

 

I am still not 100% clear on the connotations

Edited January 29, 2014 by JimBrain

[JimBrain]

They included an "Explanation of denial" section on the denial slip.

I wrote a couple of sentences saying I have no knowledge of the terms

and no liability for the agreement quoted

and I have submitted a CCA request to the alleged creditor to confirm this.

 

Do you think this is a good idea or giving them something to twist

and I'd be better to ignore the explanation?

 

I've been advised that the explanation of denial is not a mandatory part of the denial.

[dx100uk]

it would be better if you scan up the stuff you have received

following the instructions previously posted first

 

dx

[maroondevo52]

Hi jim,

 

Regarding the explanation of denial, you should fill in this slip simply saying that you ‘ deny the debt’ and send it to the creditor by Recorded Delivery within the 3 week period mentioned in paragraph 4 of the demand, this will render the demand almost useless.

 

The creditor will then have to take alternative action against you which will more than likely cause them too much grief and more expense which may put them off taking it any further.

[JimBrain]

Hi jim,

 

Regarding the explanation of denial, you should fill in this slip simply saying that you ‘ deny the debt’ and send it to the creditor by Recorded Delivery within the 3 week period mentioned in paragraph 4 of the demand, this will render the demand almost useless.

 

The creditor will then have to take alternative action against you which will more than likely cause them too much grief and more expense which may put them off taking it any further.

 

UPDATE

 

I returned the denial slip by special delivery on 30th January with a note in the explanation to say I do not acknowledge liability for the alleged debt and have requested they provide a valid credit agreement under CCA to confirm this. I left both 3 and 4 options intact (I deny that I owe you the sum demanded, I deny that I owe you the sum demanded immediately). In the same envelope I sent a CCA letter.

 

This was received and signed for at BW Legal on 31st January. I sent the documents to BW Legal marked Lowell Portfolio 1 c/o BW Legal.

 

This morning I got a letter through from BW Legal dated 4th February.

 

It says

 

"On 14 January 2014 you were served with a Statutory Demand dated 13 December 2013 [it wasn't it was dated 16 December 2013 - if that's in any way relevant]. However you have not paid the amount demanded or contacted us to agree a suitable payment arrangement within the 21 days allowed by the Statutory Demand, nor have you applied to set-aside the Statutory Demand.

 

As a result of your failure to resolve the matter, we will shortly be submtting a Sequestration Petition to your local Sheriffs Court. If a Sequestration Petition is issued, a hearing date will be set and you will be served with the Sequestration Petition. If you do not pay the Petition debt in full or we do not come to a settlement agreement, we may seek a Sequestration Order against you at the hearing"

 

It then goes on to describe what happens if the Sequestration Order is granted.

 

It then makes a "without prejudice offer" allowing me to pay them either £19K in full settlement or £6K + £1.7K per month till the full amount is settled - for an alleged debt they have not proven I owe! £1.7K is more than my total monthly earnings and I don't imagine many people who are subject of SDs have a spare £19K lying around. What planet are these people on?

 

It ends:

 

"This offer is made on a without prejudice basis. A without prejudice offer means this offer is a genuine attempt to settle the dispute and it cannot be put before the Court.

 

Please call XXXX XXXXX on 0113 XXXX XXXX ext XXXXX as soon as possible to agree the best solution.

 

If we fail to receive a response from you in 14 days from the date of this letter, we will send a Sequestration Petition to Court to be issued"

 

Needless to say this letter ignores both my denial of the debt and the CCA request. Not sure if this is blind stubbornness, administrative incompetence or given that it is dated 4th February - the 22nd day following the service of the SD - an autobot special. The numbers in the offer certainly seem too exact (to the 23p) to have been calculated by a human but you never know.

 

All of their correspondence so far - other than the SD itself - doesn't even acknowledge disputing the debt as an option, it's merely a cause of agreeing what and when to pay them in their eyes.

 

Initially I was minded to send them a letter pointing out I have not failed to respond - the denial slip and CCA request were signed for - and refer to the the CCA request as per the following:.

 

Please note that until such times as a legally enforceable, original Consumer Credit Agreement can be produced and a copy sent to me by return, then this letter is not an acknowledgement of debt and this account will remain in an unenforceable state protected in line with s.127 (CCA1974). Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request will be brought before the court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless.

 

However on reflection would I be better off letting them hang themselves by their own petard as the clock is ticking on the CCA request and why bring this to their attention?

 

I'm not entirely sure what they mean by set aside? I thought this was an English term? And in the absence of a court hearing how am I supposed to do so? A red herring I expect.

 

14 days from the date of the letter is 28th February.

 

Assuming a valid CCA agreement is not forthcoming could anyone offer any advice as to next step please?

Edited February 8, 2014 by JimBrain

[maroondevo52]

Keep proof you sent back the denial slip, any sequestration action will be halted and the claimants would then have to go through the courts.

If you do not want to be sequestrated, sending back the denial slip (recorded delivery) denying the debt, prevents apparent insolvency kicking in and therefore the creditor cannot petition for the debtor’s sequestration.

[JimBrain]

Keep proof you sent back the denial slip, any sequestration action will be halted and the claimants would then have to go through the courts.

If you do not want to be sequestrated, sending back the denial slip (recorded delivery) denying the debt, prevents apparent insolvency kicking in and therefore the creditor cannot petition for the debtor’s sequestration.

 

I have retained the receipt for postage and have printed the proof of delivery with scanned signature. I have scanned copies of the SD and denial slips that were returned and a Word version of the CCA Letter.

 

Does this mean that in the event they go ahead with the Sequestration Petition, all I need to do is produce this evidence and it is dismissed, albeit they can then go back to the court?

 

I think I will wait till the time for them to respond to the CCA request lapses before responding to them. After all, someone once said, never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake!

[PRBrown]

You're in a position here where you're dealing with someone from England

who is applying their experience of English law to their replies.

You can use this to your advantage.

 

For instance,

we had dealings with an company where the solicitor was based in England

and who thought putting "without prejudice" on their letters meant none of the contents of their letters

could be put before the court

....little did they understand how different the interpretation is in Scotland compared to England.

 

They wrote extremely freely in their letters and got a shock when we started

using the comments in their letters against them when they decided to attempt court action.

 

If you're able to, take advantage of their relative ignorance of the Scottish system which

, in my eyes, is a much fairer system with higher burdens of proof (just my opinion).

 

From what maroondevo52 says it seems they are completely ignorant of the Scottish process.

It is probably a good thing if you have knowledge that they don't. Good luck in your fight.

[JimBrain]

Thanks again for comments and support.

 

Today is the 12th working day since they received the denial slip and CCA request.

 

I have received nothing re the CCA request,

only the aforementioned "without prejudice" attempt to squeeze payment out of me.

 

What would you recommend as the next step?

 

I'm thinking I should send them (BW Legal) a letter in the next few days.

 

Something along the lines of

"I received your letter of 4th Feb. I was surprised and disappointed that you did not acknowledge

receipt of the denial slip and accompanying CCA request

which were signed for at your office on 31st Jan in line with your request for all correspondence

on the matter to be directed to yourself.

 

Return of the denial slip is sufficient to prevent sequestration petition on the basis of apparent insolvency"

 

Then something about them being in breach of CCA having ignored my request?

 

They threatened to send sequestration petition 14 days from issue of the last letter which is Friday 28th Feb.

Edited February 18, 2014 by JimBrain

[dx100uk]

failure to comply to CCA letter might be an idea once 12+2 working days have elapsed

 

dx

[PRBrown]

failure to comply to CCA letter might be an idea once 12+2 working days have elapsed

 

dx

I agree. It can be tempting to "tweak the tiger's tail" when you appear to be in a good position, but my experience has shown me that keeping a low profile is often the better strategy. You can be strong, have great denials, and cutting replies to letters when prompted, but being pro-active just stirs things up when it would be better if they were left alone - let them do the running. A reminder about their failure to comply with your CCA request is certainly in order, but there's no need to say anything about returning the denial slip. They'll know what it means, and if they are daft enough to continue you have your defence

[JimBrain]

I agree. It can be tempting to "tweak the tiger's tail" when you appear to be in a good position, but my experience has shown me that keeping a low profile is often the better strategy. You can be strong, have great denials, and cutting replies to letters when prompted, but being pro-active just stirs things up when it would be better if they were left alone - let them do the running. A reminder about their failure to comply with your CCA request is certainly in order, but there's no need to say anything about returning the denial slip. They'll know what it means, and if they are daft enough to continue you have your defence

 

Yes there is a named person dealing with the account at their end and I suppose there is the risk of making it personal if you go overboard with the cutting replies. I do think I should gently remind them I did indeed return the denial slip though. But I will stick to factual statements on the basis less is more and a low profile is better than stirring it up. The balance to be struck is to let them know they will be strongly opposed if they insist on pursuing this. I will be sending failure to comply letter registered post on Monday

[JimBrain]

Deleted

Edited February 22, 2014 by JimBrain

[JimBrain]

failure to comply to CCA letter might be an idea once 12+2 working days have elapsed

 

dx

 

Is there a template you could recommend?

 

Found this one after a search but seems a bit over the top? Also based on an English case http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/DCA:_Non-Compliance_of_CCA_Request

[maroondevo52]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405830-Letter-for-a-Failed-CCA-Request

[StressBall]

Jim Brain, any updates on your battle with BW Legal and them saying you did not send the denial slip for the stat demand?

 

I was referred to your thread today, from my thread of exactly the same nature. Another scottish member, alscotland, is in the same position too - doubtless, so are many others.

 

My feeling is they are bluffing - where clearly ALL of us DO have proof of these denial slips being returned.

 

Your deadline of 28th Feb has passed - any updates?

 

Please do keep in touch thru here, so we can all help each other out...

[JimBrain]

SB, up until yesterday morning (5th March) I've had nothing through, although their last letter was dated 4th February but didn't actually arrive till the 9th. Not sure if that is through use of snail mail or a deliberate tactic to try to reduce the effective time I have to respond.

 

The 4th was actually the 21st and final day for a response under the SD (no working days caveats for us plebs), so a question I would ask is did they jump the gun sending a letter with this date?

 

In any case I'm not sure if their assertion that I haven't denied the SD is something they would seriously claim or a just tactic to make me think my reply had been lost in post - even though they must know I know it was signed for via special delivery - or are just ploughing on relentlessly with threats and intimidation in the hope I'll capitulate.

 

They might also be betraying their lack of knowledge of the Scottish legal system by sending this letter "without prejudice" thinking that it cannot be produced in court thereby giving themselves a licence to harass me with impunity. I certainly hope so.

 

So to date, they have possibly jumped the gun re following up the SD, wrongly thinking their "without prejudice" letter cannot be produced in court - wrongly asserted that I have not denied the SD despite documentary evidence to the contrary - whilst ironically ignoring my own CCA request. That’s good going.

 

On the point of CCA request - I had a browse of the net prior to sending the follow up letter and I found a thread elsewhere where someone was claiming that a CCA request could be viewed as acknowledgement of debt as it is designed for information purposes rather than proving existence of debt therefore only a genuine debtor would make such a request.

 

The consensus was that this is not so and not something to be concerned about, however being ultra careful I added the words “where such an agreement exists” to the sentence that in essence says you are obliged to provide all relevant documents in the template that was kindly provided by maroondev. Don’t know if you would view this as overly cautious but hopefully it couldn’t do any harm.

 

I’ll report back if and when I hear from them again. Happy to help as I have received more than my fair share of assitance here.

Edited March 6, 2014 by JimBrain