Jump to content


Lowells/Carter claimform - overdraft - debt poss sb'd ***Claim Discontinued***


Lightmen
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2164 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

Hi there, I'm about to go to court (coming month) against Lowell's/Bryan Carter for an old overdraft debt that is statute barred.

 

I filed my defence in a hurry a while back. But in now re-reading it I just need to check it makes sense. Defence is as follows:

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on xxxxx.

2 The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £xxxxxx or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

The part that's confusing me is the first line of para 2. Checking through a number of forums I've found that it seems to be written a number of ways?

 

'The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Claimant's defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' Can anyone please clarify which is correct? Or are all correct? Getting a bit muddled because that starting sentence seems to make the paragraph make sense.

 

Thanks,Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ryan - and welcome

 

I have added some line breaks into your post so that it is a little easier to read.

 

Although it is not really my area, since you are the Defendant in the case it is YOU who is contending, not the Claimant, so:-

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on xxxxx.

2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the Claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £xxxxxx or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

The part that's confusing me is the first line of para 2. Checking through a number of forums I've found that it seems to be written a number of ways?

 

'The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Claimant's defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' Can anyone please clarify which is correct? Or are all correct? Getting a bit muddled because that starting sentence seems to make the paragraph make sense.

[/Quote]

 

The contention in Red is the correct wording - so the wording in Paragraph 2 needs to be changed as I have indicated in Red to reflect that YOU contend that the Claimant's Claim, so issued, is time barred

 

I think that the problem is that the Statute Barred defence is very commonly used and pretty standard regarding the wording, but with successive cutting and pasting sometimes words are substituted incorrectly

 

Other, more experienced Caggers may have further comment

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sb defence

 

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).

2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC] or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

..................

 

 

so what you have sent is correct...

 

 

how do you know you are going to court

have you had notice and already done mediation?

 

 

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

Thankyou Sidewinder & Dx, :) Common sense was saying Defendant, but I'm no expert in law so was getting proper confused.

Will amend in my witness statement. Also thanks for the line breaks, tried to format last night but no joy...much appreciated!

 

And yes, I've had court dates through(next month). I said no to mediation because the debt is statute barred in my opinion.

I do have paperwork over the 6 year period to show debt amount hasn't changed,

so I'm thinking the only route Bryan Carter/Lowell's have is to make out I've had contact with them in the 6 year period, which I haven't.

 

I do have one more question though,

 

 

as the debt is an overdraft,

some of my research says that it's not covered by section 5 of the limitation act but actually by section 6(3) instead.

 

 

Was thinking of changing the wording in para 2 of my defence to 'provisions of section 6(3) of the limitation act 1980' instead of section 5, what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

having contact makes no odds to SB.

only you paying on the debt or signing a letter to them acking it will change anything.

 

 

I wouldn't worry about the wording

we've never had it questioned to date.

 

 

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

if you type witness statement into the search CAG of the red toolbar

there are examples if you need them.

 

 

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

Just a quick update....sent witness statement to Bryan Carter and court a few days ago. Today received letter from Bryan Carter, it was a 'notice of discontinuance'. Thanks Dx and Sidewinder for the help/info when I needed it....much appreciated!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done all involved........Lightmen enjoy your success:-)

 

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

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

and another fleecing attempts bites the dust

 

 

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

Good old Carter and Lowell - run and hide at the first sign of a viable defence

 

Well done!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check with the courts too. Just to be sure. How that sham of a solicitors company is still able to be in business is astounding.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice news indeed - do as advised and check with the court to ensure that the claim has definitely been discontinued :)

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...