Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Court is selected by you if you get an n180 dq form from the court.   Lowell will need to provide signed agreement s for both accounts in their POC to succeed as well as things like notice of assignment and default notices.   If you search here lowell claimform you see they have backed off with better paperwork than you have..those are pants..no ip addresses either i will guess.. Goodluck Lowell!!   Dx
    • I can't read it in detail now, but just skimming over it:   1.  Where is the title?  Didn't we say "Particulars of Counterclaim"?   2.  Where is para 19 and 20?   3.  I think FTMDave suggested putting the individual subtotals and Exhibit numbers against para 18(a) - (d) to make it clearer for the judge?   4.  what is this £3000?    "A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling"   Isn't that £3000 already included in 18(a)???????   5.  Why are there two 18(c)?   6.  I don't understand what this means:     A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling,                                                      (ii) Rubble truck £387.12                                                     (iii) £250.00 to Mellor the roofer   The two priced quotes in respect of items (b) (1) Cheshire Bespoke Building Limited for £5,190.00,  and (2) Mellor Roofing Specialist. (c) – see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim   7.  Does the last sentence need a paragraph number as appropriate?   Read #131 et seq again...    
    • Why not ring the contravention unit (sic) of the council first. Find out why this has happened, but I've a funny feeling it will result in you using the appropriate forms in that link.   They might deal with the bailiffs for you, as there appears to be some comms breakdown .
    • My final ticket:      1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000. (See receipt at Exhbibit-1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhbibit-2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit -3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at ( Exhibit 4.)   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in  Exhibit-5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above. (d). the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.   A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling,                                                      (ii) Rubble truck £387.12                                                     (iii) £250.00 to Mellor the roofer   The two priced quotes in respect of items (b) (1) Cheshire Bespoke Building Limited for £5,190.00,  and (2) Mellor Roofing Specialist. (c) – see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.     The defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant is claiming 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day the       STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim 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.’.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Court Claim lowell/Carter - shop direct - but not our account ***Claim Dismissed / Costs***


Gia
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2194 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

My son received court papers today that state:

 

This claim is for 377.92

the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor and the defendant

to provide finance and / or services / goods.

 

 

The debt was assigned to / purchased by Lowell portfolio 1 Ltd. on 27/ 02/2009.

And notice served pursuant to the law of property Act 1925.

 

Particulars / shop direct and an account number. They also claim 8% interest.

 

A few years ago we were receiving letters from shop direct, we told them they have the wrong person.

No one has ever had a mail order catalogue in this house.

 

 

Eventually after them ignoring the issue of the wrong account

we sent a CCA request which they totally ignored.

We heard no more except one or two letters from Lowell during the last few years which we ignored

as the account was in dispute with the original creditor for not supplying a CCA.

 

I intend fully defending the claim but could use some help as this account is fraudulent.

 

 

Looking at the date of purchase feb 2009 and the previous time we were dealing with shop direct

this fraudulent account would also appear to be statute barred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gia

 

If you could read and complete the following posting your responses here...then we have all the relevant information to advise you further.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-April-2014**(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andyorch.

 

What is the claim for – This is what it says on the claim form

 

This claim is for 377.92

the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor and the defendant

to provide finance and / or services / goods.

 

The debt was assigned to / purchased by Lowell portfolio 1 Ltd. on 27/ 02/2009.

And notice served pursuant to the law of property Act 1925.

Particulars / shop direct and an account number. They also claim 8% statutory interest pursuant to s 69 of county court Act. .

What is the value of the claim? £377.92

Is the claim for a current or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? catalogue account

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007?

Not my son's agreement he never had an account with any catalogue company.

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Lowell Portfolio 1 purchased the debt on 27/02/09.

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

Why did you cease payments:- Never made any payments

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?

 

 

Yes, we got letters from shop direct,

contacted them told them we had no account,

received no goods from them.

They ignored us so we sent a CCA request for a copy so we could see the signature,

we also requested statements and proof of delivery slips for any items they said they were claiming for.

They never responded.

So I wrote again stating not our account and it is in dispute, and their lack of CCA.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? No other than the above mentioned letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fine GIa.......

 

 

If not already you need to acknowledge the claim....you can do this on line using the MCOL service once you have registered and obtained a username.....your password is already on the claim.

 

Defend all....and we can draft a suitable defence in the next couple of days for you to submit.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget to send a CCA request and CPR to lowells

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget to send a CCA request and CPR to lowells

 

I will get a CCA and CPR request off in the morning. Should it be to Lowells or Bryan Carter who issued the claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

both to lowells

as carter simply replies with rubbish

if you go read other carter/lowell threads here

in the FLI forum

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son just checked his credit report and this account was opened on 10/11/07 the default date is 15/12/08.

 

His credit record is perfect but for this default on this account that is not even his. Lowell are going to pay big time for ruining his otherwise impeccable credit record for 6 years :mad2:

 

CCA request was sent yesterday I hope they are able to provide statements of accounts and signed delivery slips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect it was shop direct that defaulted it before they sold it.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect it was shop direct that defaulted it before they sold it.

 

 

dx

 

yes, the original default would have been put by Shop Direct. It changed to Lowell after they purchased it in 2009. My son was not even 18 when that account was opened with Shop Direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No response to CCA request as yet. Court papers dated the 24 October so got some time before defence is due in.

 

Well no response to the CCA request, so they are now in default.

 

I will go with a statute barred defence, as the default is due to drop off on 15/12/14 and for it to have been defaulted it would have to have been a minimum of 3 months in arrears I believe. Therefore, making it statute barred now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no response to the CCA request, so they are now in default.

 

I will go with a statute barred defence, as the default is due to drop off on 15/12/14 and for it to have been defaulted it would have to have been a minimum of 3 months in arrears I believe. Therefore, making it statute barred now.

 

 

the claimform stopped the clock

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you presuming that payments into the account must have ceased well before Oct 24 in order for the D N to have been issued by Dec 8: in other words, that it must have been S B by the time the claim was issued?

 

Please bear in mind that if you entered a simple S B defence, any point of the claim that you do not deny is taken by the court as acknowledged. In other words, this will legitimately have been your son's account after all.

 

Moreover, you would be damaging your intention to screw whoever trashed his credit file. You can't acknowledge it for one purpose and deny it for another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you presuming that payments into the account must have ceased well before Oct 24 in order for the D N to have been issued by Dec 8: in other words, that it must have been S B by the time the claim was issued?

 

Please bear in mind that if you entered a simple S B defence, any point of the claim that you do not deny is taken by the court as acknowledged. In other words, this will legitimately have been your son's account after all.

 

Moreover, you would be damaging your intention to screw whoever trashed his credit file. You can't acknowledge it for one purpose and deny it for another.

 

The default began on 15/12/08

I believe it is highly unlikely that a default would have been issued on 15/12/08 if any payment had been made in late October 08.

 

 

If I am right for a default to have been issued in December 08 at least three payments would have to have been in arrears,

making any last payment made (if any were) September 2008.

 

 

I believe the account was statute barred before the court claim was issued on 24/10/14.

 

I get where your going with the credit file trashing,

but my son is fed up of all of it,

and just wants it over and done with asap.

 

If I do a statute barred defence, can I also deny knowledge of the account and mention their CCA request default, that I made to see the signature on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no wrong route

use the no paperwork/holding

 

put them to strict proof of him owning the account etc etc.

 

then when you win

 

you demand the default removal.

 

though you might want toinclude this in the defence somewhere

 

not sure

 

p'haps andyorch can give a pointer.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how fed up you or son are of this uninvited mess,

you would be unwise to attempt to brush it away using speculation about last payment dates

on a debt you know nothing about??

 

 

It is not his payments so how, if challenged, would you respond if the claimant had evidence of a payment beyond 24 Oct?

 

 

Not all creditors respect the ICO guidance on minimum 3 missed payments before D N.

 

You must, as said, use a holding / no paperwork defence.

 

 

Plenty of examples in financial legal section which you can adapt to your situation.

Post your proposed defence on here for checking /editing.

 

Once that battle has been won,

removal of incorrect info on son's credit file should be easy as pie

and you are well placed to demand compensation - under threat of legal action - from O C.

 

We all get sick of the injustice of the justice system but Patience is the only way through. No quick fixes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to get the defence in this weekend, so will the following suffice?

 

POC

 

1.The claimants claim is for the sum of £493.14 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the defendant and Shop Direct under account reference xxxxxxxxxxx.

 

2. And assigned to the claimant on 27/02/2009 notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

3. The claim includes statutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of 0.51) from the date of the assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year amounting to £30.22.

Defence

1. Paragraph 1 is neither admitted or denied with regards to the defendant entering into an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim (‘the Agreement’) the Claimant has yet to disclose any such agreement.

 

2. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

3. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 by first class post on October 31st 2014. The defendant has received no reply to the request. Furthermore, a request was made pursuant to the CCA 1974 section 78 on 31st October 2014 by first class post and as at this date the claimant has failed to comply and is therefore in default of the said request:

 

Therefore with the court's permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

(b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for;

 

© show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the claimant relief.

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5, it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

Should I also add that its highly likely the account is statute barred and put them to strict proof that its not ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

swap 1 & 2

 

 

remove the repeated bit start of point 3

 

 

forget the SB bit

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lowell have received my defence and responded with their

" we are continuing with the claim letter."

 

 

I have also received a response from BC the same one others on here have had,

which asks that we agree a full and final settlement, and a Tomlin Order to sign.

 

So tempted to respond to both Lowell and BC declining their kind offer as they have not proved ownership of the account,

and remind them they are in default of the CCA request and that they will need to produce it in court,

along with statements of account which will show the last date any payment was made.

Which could prove the account to be statute barred.

 

 

Might also be a good idea to tell them we want to go to court,

so when the debt is proved to be someone else's we will be asking for costs as litigant in person

and sending them court papers for compensation for his credit file trashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No point / gain / value corresponding with them.

 

You keep mentioning S B but, for an account that's nothing to do with your son, that is immaterial.

 

As advised before, just be patient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a bit of an update, and could use some advice on what to do next.

 

I have been clearing out old files and lo and behold I came across a file on Shop Direct concerning this account.

 

 

I sent a SARN to them in 2008 when we discovered the existence of this account and disputed it.

 

 

The paperwork from the SARN confirms that only one order was ever placed with them when the account was opened

and it was not delivered to our address.

 

 

Paperwork also confirms they held no signed agreement only an online application with a tick box for signature.

 

 

They also confirmed that no payment has ever been made on the account since it was opened

and I can now prove without doubt that this account as well as being fraudulent is well and truly statute barred.

 

In light of the above should I notify Lowell / Carter/ The Court of this as it is an absolute defence,

maybe even ask the Court if I can submit an amended defence and supply them with the evidence.

 

 

Make complaints to the regulatory bodies about Lowell issuing proceedings on a statute barred debt,

then issue our own proceedings against Shop Direct / Lowell for the damage to my son's credit files?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...