Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Carter/Lowell/ - Claimform Orange mobile 'debt'


Remy3
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3350 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

Hello, I hope that I am on the right forum/ thread.

 

I have received a CCJ claim form for an old mobile phone that was with Orange. It is from Bryan Carter solicitors on behalf of Lowell Portfolio.

 

I have responded at MCOL tonight stating the intention to defend and asked for additional time. The claim was issued on the 21st Jan.

 

We constantly had issues with the signal of the phone and called numerous times over the three months

before we stopped paying the contract and took another contract out with another company who provided us with a vastly improved signal.

 

On the times that we called they agreed that there was issues with the local mast being out of order

and they admitted that there was a problem.

However we have no evidence of these conversations,

although I would hope they are on a call log somewhere.

 

There is no information at all about this account with the claim form,

No dates of original contract etc.

We estimate that we had the contract about 3-4 years ago, possibly longer.

 

The amount is for less than £200.

 

Your advice and help would be greatly appreciated.Many thanks

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

ideally you should not be asking for an extension

 

 

serves you no purpose to give THEM more time

to find paperwork they should already have before issuing a speculative claim hoping for a default uncontested judgement.

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

Name of the Claimant Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, Ellington House

 

Date of issue 21st Jan 2015

Date of issue 21st + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) 9th Feb + 14 days to submit defence = 4pm Friday 20th Feb

What is the claim for – The claim is for £164.95,

the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor

and the defendant to provide finance and / or services and / or goods.

 

This debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell Portfolio l Ltd on 29/08/14 and

notice served pursuant to the law of the property act 1925.

 

Particulars Re orangelink3.gif A/C **********

 

and the claimant claims £164.95

 

The claimant also claims statutory interestlink3.gif pursuant to s.69 of the country act 1984

at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of the assignment of the agreement to date

but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to 5.21

 

What is the value of the claim? £245.16

 

Is the claim for a current account (overdrafticon) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Mobile phone account

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? ? Unsure of the start date,

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. By Lowell the debt purchaser?

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Can't remember

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Again, sorry can't recall?

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

Why did you cease payments? Lack of signal after 3 months of complaints

What was the date of your last payment? Sorry, can not remember, it was over 2-3 years ago

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? I suppose the lack of signal.

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? No just complaints about lack of signal.

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks you for the advice on additional time. I just thought it was to give me more time.

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

is that ALL of the PoC? what is the claim for 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

correction to your dates ...submit defence by = 4pm Friday 20th Feb

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

The claim is for £164.95, the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor and the defendant to provide finance and / or services and / or goods.

This debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell Portfolio l Ltd on 29/08/14 and notice served pursuant to the law of the property act 1925.

Particulars Re Orange A/C **********

 

and the claimant claims £164.95

 

The claimant also claims statutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the country act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of the assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to 5.21

 

 

Thanks

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok see if you can find out information from your credit files

noddle is free see below.

 

 

you need to send LOWELLS a CPR 31:14 from the legal section of the top green library tab.

 

 

have you moved since the contact

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

Thanks, I will check my file and send the form off to Lowells.

 

No we have not moved since. Thanks

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please also send Orange an SAR. Maybe this will reveal the call records you are referring to and also some useful screen notes - but don't hold your breath.

 

If you had bad service which they did not fix then you have a wining argument. However it will come down to whether you have the evidence - and if you lose it will be because you did not take the basic customer services precautions when dealing with them. You have been here since 2011.

 

Get the SAR off now, read our customer services guide and also try to put together a detailed chronological account of the problems you had and the steps you took to have them sorted out before you gave up.

 

Let's see the chronology here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I have sent off the SAR to Orange and registered with Noddle.

 

Noddle shows the account began on 17/01/2009 and defaulted on 26/11/2012

 

I am just starting the LOWELLS CPR 31:14

 

Many thanks

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Good Evening, I have received a response from Bryan Carter,

 

It say's

 

We write further to your letter of (Date) requesting disclosure under Part 31 of the civil procedure rules.

 

We confirm this matter will most properly be allocated to the small claims track as this is a simple contractual matter and Part 31 of the civil procedure rules will therefore not apply. . In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you.

 

It is the original creditors policy to issue at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and , in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

 

We confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filling the defence. (Spelling is theirs)

 

As you will be aware a claim was issued in this matter on 21st January 2015 and we are in receipt of your acknowledgement of service. Please respond to the claim using the response pack provided by the court. You should comply with the deadlines outlined by the court in order to avoid a default judgment being entered against you.

 

We recommend that you seek independent legal advice.

 

Yours sincerely BC

I may not be money rich, but I'm rich in other ways! I like to 'pay it forward'. One good turn triggers another!

Link to post
Share on other sites

std reply remy

 

 

go read a few carter threads

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...