Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In terms of your letter of claim, you've asked us to remove some information – but you have put it up and it's not that critical it's simply bad practice and so we will be leaving in place. It's highly unlikely that the company will stumble across this thread – and anyway no great harm done – but there is no point in spelling out in a letter of claim every detail of the evidence you are going to be relying on if it goes to court. In terms of referring to mediation, it's not up to you. It's up to them. Once again you want to play your hand before it is necessary. Do not do it. Let them make the decisions. They probably will opt for mediation as part of the court process – and then you can simply accede to that. A letter of claim is not the time to start stating this kind of stuff. You come here for advice and I suggest that by and large you follow our advice. In terms of just keeping part of the contract – the frames – as long as you are sure that another supplier would be prepared to supply the glass which is absolutely appropriate for those frames. However, I should warn you that mixing your suppliers like this can eventually lead to problems because you are giving both parties a means by which they can pass the buck onto the other party. This really can get complicated – if the frames fail and the company with which you've already fallen out, then decides to get their own back and they say it is the glass supplier. The glass supplier may well turn round and say no it's the frame supplier – and you are left in the middle and you will have a difficult problem including maybe having to pay for an independent assessment to ascertain whether liability lies. In my view its most ill-advised. You have an opportunity here to predicate your rejection on the fact that you had a single contract and the glass and the frames are supplied as a job lot and the defective glass means that the entire contract is subject to rejection. However, it's up to you. Furthermore, if the frames fail within a particular time, apart from the problem of passing the buck to the glass suppliers, you may find that the frame suppliers are quite reluctant to do any further business with you because they will have long memories. If you really think that after this litigation the frame suppliers will be prepared to continue with you and to supply the glass that you need, then you need to be very certain. Of course they may be very pragmatic and business minded and mature about their dealings and be prepared to supply you with the glass you need with perfectly goodwill and professionalism. However, you shouldn't bank on it. All it needs is one individual within the organisation start feeling that the whole thing is some kind of personal rebuke against them are you are you are you are you you are a you are you you are you are you are a you you are a you.   Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. I think you should follow our advice in terms of legal process and the letter of claim. The rest of it is to how you deal with your windows is simply a bonus for you.
    • Perfect thanks for the reply and apologies for the marker Pen, I thought I had covered it off.    So to clarify, I just ignore this letter and no response is necessary?   
    • First of all, we please deal urgently with the identity of this company. In the title to this thread they are identified as being in Letchworth. This is not correct? We do not want to start firing off accusations against some company elsewhere may be is doing its job perfectly well. Please can you respond to this urgently Post up a link to their website
    • If you scan up letters here by the way, please make sure that they are included in a single file multipage PDF. Please make sure they are all in the correct order, the right way round, and not simply minuscule photographs. You can't imagine the kind of stuff that people put up here when they realise that they're not paying for the advice!
    • Think you've got the wrong Crystal there Slick132...it's Crystal Clear Group Ltd. There's a lot of companies with Crystal in the name!   I agree could take out the struck through part about evidence, although they already have it all already, but I think I need to leave the part about mediation/ADR in, it's important to show I'm open to these, that and the next line came from a template letter before action.  Have asked for that post to be removed via the report button, just in case, the rest of the thread can stay!         The frames are fine, no reason not to keep them, though I could reorder frames from somewhere else it'd be easier to keep these ones as I then already have the measurements for the glass (which I've double checked). I will be asking that question tomorrow though. I have found another supplier I'd be happy to use at around the same price. Glass at the mo is stored mostly upstairs, it's a bit inconvenient as it takes up a lot of space, but no losses as such.  
  • Our picks

Lowell/? claimform - cat 'debt' - not mine.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1587 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

" would this be suitable as no paperwork has ever been received or shown: "

 

No.....does it resemble at all anything you have looked at over the last 2 days on the standard holding defence?

 

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

my bad i misread; how about this.

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.the claimants claim is for the sum of 359.00 for monies due from the defendant to the claimant

under a home shopping agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974,

between the defendant and jd williams and co limited. under acct ref xxxxx

 

2. and assigned to the claimant on 31st march 2014, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

3.the defendant failed to maintain under the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served and not complied with.

 

The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984

at a rate of 8% pa a daily rate of 8p from the date of the assignment of the agreement

to 31st march 2015 being an amount of £29.28.

 

What is the value of the claim? £473.90

 

 

 

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.

 

Paragraph 1 is denied in the particulars of claim. I am not aware of any such home shopping agreement and deny entering into such agreement.

 

Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware of any assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Paragraph 3 is denied.I am not aware of receiving a Default Notice nor would be the claimant as an assignee of a debt be aware of either.

I have never received statements or Notice of Sums in Arrears given that the claimants plead they are the legal owner of any alleged debt.

 

Notwithstanding the above, requests for information pursuant to the consumer credit Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were made.

The requests were sent on 27th May 2016 by Recorded Delivery Post. To date I have received no response or acknowledgement from the claimant’s solicitor.

 

As per civil procedures Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

On the alternative, as 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 Credit Act 1974

 

It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any alleged monies to Lowell Portfolio.

 

The Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© evidence any nature of breach and show service of a Default Notice and Notice of sums in Arrears.

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

8.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.

Edited by Andyorch
Particulars added ..defence tweaked.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its correct now...just a few edits .

 

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its correct now...just a few edits .

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

should i include the part on red, even though the poc will be visible to the court? is this just makng it simple for them to see my defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the red is our ref for you to align paragraphs properly

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...
the red is our ref for you to align paragraphs properly

 

Lowells have responded saying that their client intends to proceed and have notified the court, so what happens now.

.. They have none of what I've asked for at all, and have failed to produced anything against my defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them proceed but without the paperwork they arent getting very far and it will cost them to proceed further

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowlifes are hoping you'll fold and give in, wait for any court docs to materialise.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Use our search cag box of the red top toolbar

Lots of dq's here 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

If one wasnt supplied from the court with the allocation pack, download a form N180 and complete it, always agree to mediation, the rest is self explanatory.

 

When mediation get in touch you will be asked 3 questions, if the answer to any of them is no then mediation will fail.

 

As above, read like threads and it will all become crystal clear

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have the pack already

just nothing from the claimant re CCA/CPR.

 

 

did you ever go and check your credit file

just to be sure

it might throw a light?

 

 

we've known various dca phone jockeys to wrongly change an account name

to the spouse before

if you get what I mean

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...