Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

lowells/carter claimform - littlewoods cat debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3046 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

I have a debt with Littlwoods catologue,

I was paying regular each month when my partner was working.

 

He has since left his job (NTL Installer) as it was making him extremly depressed due to their lack of employee welfare,

we are currently on benefits whilst he's job searching.

 

I know i should have taken up their insurance offer when ask but I don't supose leaving your job would be covered.

 

I did make an agreement with which I defaulted,

i have 3 small children under 4, other debts etc.

 

Is there any thing I can do or say to them which could help us in any way?

 

we are in receipt of joint jsa, child tax credit and child benefit

 

I have recently been informed that we can claim some from income support due to low income.

 

does anyone know how much the government have said you can live on and if I can claim anything from IS.

 

I would also like to say to all tax payers, my partner left work for valid reasons and is currently looking for another job.

 

we don't like claiming as much as you don't like paying, but like i said we do have 3 small children,

 

but should be up and running again shortly x

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go on the National Debtline Website there is a budget sheet you can fill out. Fill this out and it works it out for you what you have left after you have taken your priorities into account. Very easy to fill in. You can either speak to them or do it yourself. If you do it yourself there are some letters in the templates which you can send with your budget sheet. As long as you make a token payment, £1.00 a month, if thats what you can afford thats what they get.

 

good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

I received an N1SDT today from Lowell for an old Littlewoods account. I do owe it and was paying it £1 weekly until quite a while back. Long story short, I moved 90 odd miles away, life took over and the debt was forgotten, my bad!

 

Could someone help me with the way forward please. I don't mind paying I would just like to avoid a ccj if that's possible.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Sherry.

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

Name of the Claimant- Lowell Portfolio LTD

 

Date of issue – 24 Nov 2015

Date of defence - 4pm fri 25th dec

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.This claim is for £336.30 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 I Ltd on 24/11/2011

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

2.Particulars RE- Shop Direct A/C No xxxxxxxx

And the Claimant claims £336.30

 

3.The claimant also claims statutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the county act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum

From the date of assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to 26.90

 

What is the value of the claim? £448.20

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Littlewoods catalogue

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

May 2007 which I would assume takes the original agreement sometime before that.

 

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. lowells

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Probably

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Probably

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Unsure

 

Why did you cease payments? I had a crap period of life and everything went to pot. Just being honest :sad:

 

What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday (28/11/2015),

I panicked, I sent it to littlewoods though, not lowell.

Before then was 21/1/2014.

All payments were sent direct to Littlewoods from my bank account.

Even though Lowell had the debt, I didn't acknowledge them.

Each letter they sent me the amount was less because I'd been paying littlewoods.

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementlink3.gif plan? No, I went off my own accord and paid £1 a week. Nothing came of it so I carried on.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thank you

 

 

if you check your credit file it might well tell you more info on the account

like start date.

 

 

pop up on the MCOL website

acknowledge the claim [AOS]

defend all

leave juris unticked

then exit mcol.

 

 

get a CCA request running to Lowell's

 

 

get a CPR 31:14 running to the sols, from the legal section of the library tab

 

 

do not sign anything

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

Try noddle below

Yes it will be the Lowell's one

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 Lowell one wouldn't be the original agreement with Littlewoods though would it?

 

I've posted a letter to both Littlewoods and the Solicitors just now.

 

This is my timeline, not sure if it's right.

 

Date of Issue: 24th Nov 2015

 

Date Acknowledged: Sat 28th Nov

 

Sols/Littlewoods letters sent: Sat 28th Nov

 

Sols Date to Reply by: Wed 9th Dec (5+7 is that right?)

 

Littewoods date to reply by: Fri 11th Dec (12+2)

 

Defence date: 4pm Fri 25th Dec

 

What happens now? Thank you for your help it's massively appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it would be- the debt was written off against tax by littlewoods [shop direct group]

and sold on a phishing list.

 

Lowell would have purchased the list with your details

and randomly started a speculative claim hoping for a default undefended rubberstamped judgement ..you found cag

 

when a debt is sold the new owners name replaces that of the original creditor on your credit fil.

 

...I wrongly or my spell checker did,

told you to send the CCA request to littlewoods

 

sorry but it need to goto the claimant on the N1 which is lowells sorry

don't know how that happened

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

who are the sols in your case carter or bw or hassal

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

ok

you need to do some reading up.

 

 

copy and paste your thread title into the search cag of the top red tool bar

remove the word littlewoods and click search CAG

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

Hi Tiggerneedshelp,

 

You should check my case out, I'm only a few steps ahead.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436631-Shop-Direct-PENALTY-charges-Reclaim-now-DCA-claimform(3-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Andrew

  • Haha 1

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt the same way until I did a bit of reading up.

 

You just need to wait for the responses from the two letters you've sent and read up on what your defence will be. Have a look at my defence on page 7 or 8 for inspiration.

 

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Needing more than inspiration Andrew lol.

 

 

I have no clue what I'm defending, or what any of it means.

 

 

I'm not lacking in the brains department but when you panic, nothing makes sense, nothing is making sense!

 

I owe the money, I don't understand what/how I defend :/ Lots to read tomorrow, hopefully with a clearer head.

 

Hoping the language reads as plain English too and not legal jargon, it isn't helping the brain take it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that you owe money in your own eyes is somewhat immaterial

that's the moral stand.

 

what you need to understand is why would a big company like shop direct group

with all the names they have, in excess of 60 catalogues outlet sell on a debt?

 

urm.. could there be something fishy going on

like they've charged you say a fee for each time they wrote a letter

or you were late with repayment or did not pay enough..

 

£336 is a very low figure to bother with court.

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

Tigger - the relatively small amount involved with this claim and also the fact the original creditor is a catalogue/mail order company,

means it's very unlikely Lowell/Carter will see this through if you put up a little resistance.

 

 

Just follow the steps the guys are advising and keep the thread updated on any developments.

 

 

Do not correspond with the claimant or their solicitors unless told to do so on here.

You may not fully understand what's going on,

but you will get your head around things as the process goes forward.

 

Worst case scenario, in case you become worried about what lies ahead,

you can always concede and offer them £10 a month (keep that at the back of your mind for reassurance).

 

 

It's extremely unlikely that it'll ever come to that though,

so just chill and devote your energies to having a nice time with your family through the upcoming festive season.

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a reply from Bryan Carter Solicitors. I haven't figured out how to include a picture so I'll type it as is.

 

Dated 3 December.

 

"We write further to your recent letter of 28 November 2015, requesting disclosure pursuant to part 31.14 of the Civil procedure rules.

 

We confirm the claim form was issued by county court business centre and that court's protocol was followed when issuing the claimant's particulars of claim. Practice direction 7C point 1.4 (3A) eliminates the requirement to attach the documents to the particulars of claim when they are issued by this court.

 

We confirm this matter will lost 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 notice of default and assignment left the control of the claimant when they were dispatched to you.

 

It is the original creditors policy to issue 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 extent in. For filing your defence.

 

As you will be aware a claim was issued in the this matter on 24 Novemenr 2015 and we are in receipt of your acknowledgement of service and we note your intention to file a defence.

 

We recommend you seek independent legal advice."

 

Can anyone tell me in laimens what that means to me please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing

that's carter std response to a CPR request.

 

 

if you go read a few relevant threads you'll soon get the idea.

 

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=lowell/carter+claimform+-+lcat+debt+&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=lowell%2Fcarter%20claimform%20-%20lcat%20debt&gsc.page=1

 

 

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

Ok, so I figure I pretty much wait it out until my 4pm deadline and work on a defence?

I found the following defence which seems similar to mine and changed the relevant details to fit, would this be right? Do I need to add anything? I'm still waiting to hear from Lowell for the CCA.

 

DETAILS OF CLAIM

1. This claim is for £336.30 the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor and the defendant to provide finance and / or services and/ or goods.

 

2. This debt was assigned to/ purchased by lowell portfolio 1 ltd on the 24/11/2011.

 

Particulars

Re: Shop Direct

A/C no :

 

The claimant also claims interest pursuant to S69 county courtlink3.gif act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum. From the date of the assisngment of the agreement to the date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to 26.90.

 

DEFENCE

 

1. 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.

 

2) It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Shop Direct in the past but have no recollection of the account details or the amount referred to in this claim.Until such time the claimant can disclose the necessary documents that this claim relies upon the claimants claim is denied.

 

3) I am not aware of any Assignment of any alleged debt nor do I have any recollection of any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the law of property act 1925.

 

4) On receipt of the claim I requested copies of any documents or information that would support the claim. The request was made on 28th November 2015 (sent by recorded delivery) by CPR 31.14. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach.

 

5.Furthermore I have a made a request under section 78 of CCA1974 for a copy of this agreement. I understand that until their compliance, the claimant is unable to request any relief or enforce any agreement.

 

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

 

7) Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

(b) show what finance and / or services and/ or goods they refer to;

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

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

8) As per Civil Procedure rule 16.5(4) it is expected that the claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

9) By reason of the facts and matters above it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI best filed by 4pm 24th

check mcol is working earlier in the day

can become flaky over the hols season

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...