Victory over Lowell in court today re;barclaycard debt

[TOMMIEBOY]

Hi guys just back from Durham County Court with a victory over Lowell and it seems i found a Judge who would not be told the law.

 

My case was around a 5 year old debt that i was being chased for but was not mine, Lowell issued a claim despite me sending them a letter to deny the debt.

 

Once i had the claim i sent off a CCA request and it took Lowell 67 days to send some of the information asked for and in this case the Deed of assignment was asked for but Lowell refused and instead sent a hashed up copy of a notice of assignment claiming the Deed was between them and their client.

 

I scanned this forum and got some good advice but the advice was split regards the deed with some saying it does not need to be shown and others saying it should.

 

Well today the judge rather slapped down the Lowell solicitor who told her she had no need to see the deed as the letter of assignment was proof enough. The judge came back with a raft of legal points before dismissing the case stating without the deed Lowell could not prove they owned the debt

[TOMMIEBOY]

Thanks

 

No the Judge said of her own back that Lowell had to prove to her they bought the debt and the only way they could do that is with sight of the deed, the Lowell solicitor came back with the "property act" ? but the judge just came back with "prove it"

[TOMMIEBOY]

Am confused with this

 

How can the actual deed be produced?

That deed say with Barclays as an example will have thousands of accounts attached to it.

The account details will be held on some daata retention such as a disc or hard driver seperate from the actual commercial contract

 

The deed is a commercial document.

Been through this myself and the judge ordered it be produced.

What i got back was a document with commercial elements and a hell of a lot redacted.

 

Be nice to know what the legal points were stated by the judge

 

Sorry could not catch all the sub sections but her point was Lowell had to satisfy her that they owned the debt and she would be happy to look at the deed in private as the court wanted absolute proof

 

Did you not get round to the bit that the debt is not yours?

 

No the deed was the first point the judge wanted sorted when Lowell refused she dismissed the case

 

In the absence of a signed notice of assignment from the OC ( issued to the debtor) confirming that Lowell now own the rights to collect the debt, then the argument must be that Lowell have to prove they own the debt.

 

No doubt in this case Lowell might think about a new claim, this time getting all their documents in order.

 

They did have a signed notice of assignment from the OC

[TOMMIEBOY]

so, what then were the 'raft of legal points' the 'judge came back with before dismissing' you mentioned.

 

Really could not tell you Lowell quoted the property act and the judge can back with sub section of this and that it went over my head. At the end the judge said it was up to Lowell to provide her with absolute proof they owned the debt and the only way was sight of the deed

[TOMMIEBOY]

The signed notice they did have looked made up a fact i pointed out in my defense, it was on plain paper with no company heading of the OC and a photocopy signature that had clearly been cut/pasted as it was at at angle !!