Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm just trying to be practical Do A Deal.   Mediate - they will give you few option and maybe nothing - but get rid of the default - off your record not just settled or satisfied.   Whatever you agree to make sure you stick to it or they might be back. Once it's over it will be behind you.    
    • Hi guys,    I got a straight lettr from Debt Recovery plus, and no other notice. the car is leased and I beleive it went to the lease company first. below is the details    For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]   please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement    26/06/2019   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this. I only recieved a leeter from our registered address on the 11.09.2019 requsting £160, and than further letter on the 20.09.2019 with a notice to court   3 Date received   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up   No, I have called them to ask for the original notice, and they said they will email this, but this has not happened. this was on the 20th September at 13.49   7 Who is the parking company?   APNR Parking Services Ltd   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]   Prioiry Walk Service Yard, Queen Street, Colchester CO1 2PL   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.   Does not state this    I fear that I cannot appeal because of the delay from getting it from the lease company, etc.    any help here would be greatly appreacitted   thanks   Irfan Khan     WORKFORCE - 11.9.2019.pdf WESL - 20.9.2019.pdf
    • Neither does your posts as we have already seen .. in posts 7 and 8           and still none.  
    • Hello,   i have recently missed a DD payment to X4L and have incurred a charge from harlands of £25, which i emailed in response to advising not  to take the payment on the next DD date due as advised in the letter received.   i confirmed over the telephone this was the appropriate action to take.   fast forward a week or so later and i get another letter advising another £25 has been added to the account despite my request.   i have absolutely no issue with payment of the first charge as this is my own fault etc. however i feel like the second occasions is ridiculous as i received no correspondence to advise it would still be taken...   Is this entirely my fault or am i within my rights to not make payment of the second charge?   i have looked through many forums and each case seemed to be ever so slightly different and wanted to ask the question?   thanks!!   
    • I don't know if this will be of any use for you but I have very  recently had a small claims against Lowell for the removal of my default from my credit report. Forget Principles! Right or wrong. Due or not due. Pay it and move on. Get out of there asap. Feel sick - I did and do. Get it settled or satisfied. (Settled paid in full. Satisfied part paid Do a deal and get it in writing.  Unless you have £1,000+ to lose or feel lucky? Remember it's the lottery in reverse and you have just won the..... Lowell fish in a barrel award.  Lies, dam lies and statistics. Then there are the mobile phone companies and Lowell.  £320 (12m -  £25pm/£6pw/ couple of pints a week?) v ? You need a solicitor or barrister? Costs if you lose plus theirs? Plus six years of misery - do not go there. In reality to do it properly you need to put £3,000+ in a bank and write it off if you lose. Appeal? Advice - look at the downside. As the Judge said why not just pay it - because I don't owe it is surprisingly not the right answer. Remember it is a lottery and work out the odds.   My case: Lost.It was quite apparent the judge had little time, knowledge of the Data Protection Act, no knowledge of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( labelled as 'archaic' and then 'technical'  and no conception of how Credit reference Agencies work. They had a barrister who he 'conferred' with and a witness statement from the Lowell Barrister. Whatever they said was llke the word of god.  Whatever I said was taken the opposite way. The judge claimed to have never sent anything by recorded delivery and the barrister..oh i agree! LPA s196 (3) includes a postman delivering by hand and S196 (4) recorded delivery is therefore only optional! If only I  had a few million spare.
  • Our picks

balina2

Lowell/shoe's Claimform - EGG Pers Loan

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 550 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Thank you for your advice and I will also put in the SAR

 

In the meantime, I confirmed back to S-miths that, as they stated, I have responded to their requests for further information (those that are relevant and pertain directly to the matter). I have also provided sufficient evidence of this debt being statute barred, as per my defence (dated Jan 2017) and its accompanying Exhibits. I said their organisation asked me for further information via email and I responded in kind. I said that their statement that this is insufficient as per Part 18 is denied as a result and I would expect that the matter falls actually not under Part 18 but Part 27.

Their response

 

As set out in my email below, your response to my client’s Part 18 request for further information is spread out over a number of emails. It is incoherent and insufficient for the purposes of Part 18.

 

 

For your convenience, I provided you with a copy of my client’s request with space for you to detail your reply. I attach a further copy and ask that the document is completed and returned to me, by no later than 4pm on 24 January 2018. In default, I will have no alternative but to seek an Order from the Court, compelling you to provide a sufficient response.

 

You suggest that the matter falls under Part 27 and not Part 18. The matter has been allocated to the small claims track, the procedure for which is set out in Part 27. Part 18 covers requests for further information.

 

 

Should I ignore them at this point?

 

And is there anything else I should be preparing for the hearing (SAR evidence if received in time)? My defence from Jan 2017 has already been received by the Court and S-smiths.

 

Thank you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already covered in my last post...#198...CPR 18 is not applicable to Small Claims Track...Fast Track only.

 

Already advised what you need to prepare and submit and serve in preparation for the hearing...your WS and Disclosures as per the Notice of Allocation.


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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh! they know/confirm its been allocated small claims yet they still want part 18! and you even pointed them to part 27 which confirms 18 doesn't apply in smalls. or am i missing something (was it court ordered?). are you up against a new paralegal/trainee :)

did you see andy's post re 18.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I wanted to update on the result of the hearing today at small claims.

The Judge ruled in Shoosmiths/Arrows favour and awarded full claim plus costs.

 

The focus of the hearing was actually not on my defence but was a quite personal line of questioning about why I had defaulted, why I had spent certain monies on the bank statements I had provided.

 

The bank statements showed that I had not made the payments that Arrows had claimed I had but this seemed to be of no interest to the Judge who instead asked me about why I had spent money in Morrisons and John Lewis but had failed to keep up payments on my loan.

 

Her summary was that my defence was not unreasonable but that she was making a judgement on the balance of probability which has a threshold of 51%.

No parts of my defence were discussed.

All in all it was very much a huge verbal and financial slap round the chops for having defaulted on a loan, disregarding the fact it is statute barred.

 

I am minded to appeal the decision but I have no idea whether this is possible/advisable.

 

I am also unaware of the best approach to negotiating an installment plan with them so any advice here appreciated.

 

The Judge rather unhelpfully advised that if she were to do this today it would be recommended as £400 a month, even though she had no knowledge of my current financial status/earnings/outgoings etc

You can see I find the Judge somewhat prejudiced......

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

opps you hit judge lottery.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...