Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • TECHZONE BUXTON LTD overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK TECHZONE BUXTON LTD - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual... thread title updated. dx
    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
  • 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

Lowell/Lowell sols claimform - old CAt 'debt'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2819 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,

After a bit of advise please.

 

I received a letter from Lowell regarding a shop direct account saying that they have been instructed by Lowell Portfolio to commence legal action and issue a claim against me, along with a load of costs on it.

 

I contacted Shop Direct, as I was very dubious about the balance quoted, let alone the debt.

 

 

I think it is something I set up for my ex to buy a few bits and pieces.

 

 

Looking at my credit file, the defaulted balance is half of the amount they claimed.

 

 

I contacted Shop Direct and found out (very little, other than the last purchase was July 2010. They couldn't provide information regarding any payments made (or wouldn't, they referred me to Lowell).

 

What should I do.

If it was defaulted at have the value they are claiming,

are they allowed to add whatever they want to the balance?

 

Can I request they prove the balance etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

read the letter properly

it does not say WILL anything.

 

 

as this debt is coming up to being statute barred

[6yrs no payment or written ack and signed]

 

 

they are trying to fleece you before it gets that far and out of their reasch

 

 

just remember they are not a bailiff

and have

no such legal powers.

 

 

its rare for a DCa to add any charges

so I suspect it was the "12 late/over/letter/default fees that shop direct

load the debt up with

then mark it defaulted

and flog it on for pennies.

 

 

you could CCA request lowells

although as this debt originates from 2010

an unsigned reconstruction of the agreement will do.

that will suffice the CCA

but might not suffice enough for them to brave court.

 

 

have you all the statements?

 

 

if not get an sar off to shop direct

and get reclaiming

I bet you've their version of PPI too.

 

 

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

Thanks.

The exact wording is "WE have not heard back from you regarding your Shop Direct account and are instructed by our client to commence legal action and issue a cl;aim against you.

 

I have absolutely no paperwork relating to Shop Direct, nothing to say the debt had been assigned. Don't even know if there was PPI on it.

 

The debt was marked at default at about half the amount that Lowell want for it, so it isn't Shop Direct fees prior to default. If I send a CCA off, will that reset the Statute Barred clock? Also if I SAR Shop Direct, does that put this on hold until they comply with the request or do I need to notify Lowell?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

instructed = if.might.could etc

not will

 

 

upto you

pers id ignore them.

 

 

what bal are they after?

 

 

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

not worth worrying about then.

 

 

I bet once you have all the statements.

 

 

its all ppi/penalties.

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

  • 1 month later...

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

 

Date of issue – 17/3/16

 

Date to submit defence = XX (33 days in total) - 18/4/16

What is the claim for –

1). The defendant entered into a Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulated agreement with Shop Direct.

The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and a default notice was served and not complied with

The Agreement was later assigned to the claimiant on 14/3/11 and notice given to the defendant

2). Despite repeated requests for payments, the sum remains due and outstanding

 

The claimant claims, the sum outstanding + interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate but limited to one year, costs

What is the value of the claim? £334+Court fee+ legal costs. The default/delinquent value was £168 according to a credit report. Also, default date shows as Mar 2011 but no other history shows.

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

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? Was after 2007. Think it was done online but not 100% sure

 

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. Issued by the debt purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No, nothing received

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No, both could have been sent to an old address as I moved due to a relationship breakup and never got any post forwarded on

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Not received any at all

 

Why did you cease payments? Payments ceased due to relationship breakup and financial difficulties

What was the date of your last payment? Unsure, sometime in 2010

 

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 managementicon plan? No, didn't have any information due to having to move out of my previous home and not being able to get all personal effects together

 

 

Would I send a CPR31.14 for a loan/credit card in this instance?

 

I would be happy to pay the default amount, but it looks like a heck of a lot of money has been added and I don't know why :(

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes send the credit card CPR

and send a CCA request to the claimant

don't sign anything

 

 

pop up on the mcol website and acknowledge the claim {AOS]

defend all

leave juris unticked.

 

 

did you ever send the sar off in feb to SD?

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 AOS

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

why not ring shop direct

ask last payment date?

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

Do I need to file a defense yet or wait to see if any documents come back?

 

Going on the details in red above, you have a few days yet, but I'd probably plan to do it tomorrow just in case something prevents you submitting on Monday (your last day).

 

Don't be afraid to ask for help if you're stuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

defence was due yesterday!

 

 

get the holding/no paperwork def in before 4pm.

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

Here is a recent Cat defence that Andyorch drafted for another poster

which was successful in the claim remaining stayed.

You will have to edit slightly to suit and add your requests for CCA /CPR ect.....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1). The defendant entered into a Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulated agreement with Shop Direct.

The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and a default notice was served and not complied with

The Agreement was later assigned to the claimiant on 14/3/11 and notice given to the defendant

 

2). Despite repeated requests for payments, the sum remains due and outstanding

 

The claimant claims, the sum outstanding + interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate but limited to one year, costs

 

Defence

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.

1 .Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had an agreement in the past with Shop Direct but do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.

2 .Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served over 3 years ago.

On the 1st April 2015 ( sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. The claimant has failed to date to respond to the CPR and remains in default of the section 78 request.

3.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

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

(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;

4.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), 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 crediticon Act 1974.

6.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.

Regards

Andy

***************

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

thought you said you'd stop forgetting things

get that defence moving its gone 4pm already/..............

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...