Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • 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 claimform - old provident doorstep loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2390 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,

I was wondering if it would be possible to get some advice please.

 

Late 2011/ early 2012 (sorry I can't remember the exact date) I took a loan out through Providemt for about 300.

I paid weekly to the lady collector who arranged the loan and then a new collector started working for them and I continued to pay him weekly (for about 4 weeks) until late mid 2012 when I was moving to a different county.

 

At this point I paid my balance to the collector in cash as was the arrangement and moved away.

 

Over the past few years I would occasionally get a 'debt' letter from Lowells which I queried with them the first time then ignored as I believed it to be just an error.

 

However this morning out of the blue I received a claim form from moneyclaim.giv.uk asking for 464.94 plus 85.00 fees. They haven't put the original date of the loan in the particulars just a date 29/08/2014 which is when they say they took on this 'debt'.

 

I really don't know what to do. I don't see why I should pay twice but as it was five years ago I don't have the provident payment book to prove the collector took the cash.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome,

 

I have moved this thread to the appropriate forum, you should get some help shortly.

 

Regards,

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome aboard

 

 

Please read the following link which explains the process of how to deal with a court claim then complete the Qs and copy and paste back here to your thread:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-2016**

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 – 20 Jul 2017

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

1) The defendant entered into a consumer credit Act 1974 regulated agreement with Provident Personal Credit Limited under account ref

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

3) The Agreenent was later assigned to the Claimant on 29/08/2014 and notice was given to the defendant.

4) Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of £430.50 remains due and outstanding.

 

And the Claimant claims

a) The said sum if £430.50

b) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courtd Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.084, but limited to one year, being £34.44.

c) Costs

 

What is the value of the claim? £549.94

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Doorstep Loan

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? After (2011 or early 2012)

 

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. - Lowell Portfolio (Debt purchaser)

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I don't believe I did as I had moved.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No I don't believe I did as I had moved.

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Yes I think so.

Why did you cease payments? I cleared the outstanding cash amount in June/July 2012

 

What was the date of your last payment? Unknown

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? I didnt think so

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not in the least

 

 

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

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CCA Request running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

don't sign anything

.

 

 

 

was this the only doorstep loan with them

or was this a part of a chain of loans with them,,

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

No this was the only one I ever did x

 

Sorry didn't mean to x the end of my post 🤦🏻*♀️

 

I will do everything you said first thing tomorrow. Thank you so much for your help, it really is very much appreciated. I will post back as soon as I have done it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok all good

 

 

there are numerous claims already here for lowells and provi.

so yo ae not alone

 

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=lowell+claimform+provident&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=lowell%20claimform%20provident&gsc.page=1

 

 

whatever happens just DONT miss your defence filing 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

Ok I've done the acknowledgement part on MCOL

 

Now I will do the other parts

😊👍

Thank you for helping me, I'm so grateful for it. Do I then just wait for the solicitors and claimant to get back to me with the requested details?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well if yo think about it you don't want them too.

just don't miss your defence filing 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

What happens if they dont get back to me within the timescale?

 

Sorry if im being a bit daft,

do i now complete the defence form bit from the court to say im disputing as already paid

or do i do nothing and wait for responses if any from Lowells?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't do anything of the sort

you don't want them to reply

think about it

 

just don't miss your defence filing date.

go read those like threads

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi again

Just a quick question.

 

So far I've heard nothing in regards to the letters I sent.

 

Am I correct in thinking I have 28 days from the date served to file my defence?

I just want to be sure I've read it correctly.

 

If this is the case do I wait til a few days before the due date and then fill in the defence section and send it to the court?

 

Do I state that I have requested the information and it wasn't received? Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a total of 33 days

 

28 days plus an additional 5 days after which it is deemed you received it

The date on the claim form is deemed one in the count

 

You do it via mcol like the AOS

 

Post it up here first

 

And go read the threads in post 9

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello again

Well i have not received the requested info from Lowells and my cut off date is looming.

You said i now put my defense into MCOL?

 

Do i just write what i have previously told this thread?

That it was paid off and completed back in June/July 2012.

Do i need to say anything else?

Thank you very much for your assistance in this it isvery much appreciated.

 

Also do i mention that i have requested the information (CCA and CPR 31:14) and did not get anything back aside from an acknowledgement letter from Lowells stating that they have requested the details from Provident and will send them to me when they get them.

 

It also stated that my account was placed on hold while they wait for this info but i assume that the MCOL is still active.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

go read those linked threads

you need the holding/no paperwork defence.

 

 

post it here 1st mind......

 

 

you have till 4pm TODAY to file it on MCOL website

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 i have read through the links above and found a template for a defence and amended it to my details. Is this acceptable? there are two options for defence on the MCOL form. 1 is to dispute because i paid (which i did but have no record of it and cant remember the exact amount before all these 'charges') or 2. defend for other reasons. Do i go for number 2 and use this template?

 

1: I received the claim D******* from the Northampton County Court on 25th July 2017.

 

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

 

3: This claim appears to be for a Loan agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.[it is admitted/denied] that the Defendant has [previously] entered into [an agreement/agreements] with [Original Creditor /Claimant] for provision of credit.

 

4: The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

 

5: On the 25th July 2017 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Lowell Solicitors. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment .

 

6. Lowell Solicitors have sent only a photo copied letter of assignment on blank paper with no company letter head.

 

7. On the 25th July 2017 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

 

8. The Claimant has failed to comply with s77 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s77 (4) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

 

9. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore It is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

 

10. I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.

 

11. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

 

12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

 

Statement of Truth

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

 

 

Signed …………………………………………

 

Dated ................................................

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

Thank you. Your attention and time is appreciated Dx

Is this more acceptable? However should i remove item 4, as although i dont recall receiving a notice Lowell Solicitors have sent me a copy of a plain typed sheet of paper (i.e not letterhead) stating it is from september 2014 and signed by Provident Central Colections telling me my account has been sold to Lowell. Other than the signature at the bottom there is no evidence it is from Provident at all.

 

Particulars of Claim for reference only

 

1) The defendant entered into a consumer crediticon Act 1974 regulated agreement with Provident Personal Credit Limited under account ref

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

3) The Agreenent was later assigned to the Claimant on 29/08/2014 and notice was given to the defendant.

4) Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of £430.50 remains due and outstanding.

 

And the Claimant claims

a) The said sum if £430.50

b) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courtd Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.084, but limited to one year, being £34.44.

c) Costs

 

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out their 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. Item 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Provident but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and CCA Section 77 request.

 

3. Item 2 of the claim is denied. I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. Item 3 of the claim is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1).

 

5. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant sent a request by way of a Section 77 request pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement, by Royal Mail 1st Class Signed For Recorded Delivery. As of the 21st August 2017, the Claimant has yet to comply and as such is in default of said request.

 

6. A further request was made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor (Lowell Solicitors) requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. This was once again done by Royal Mail 1st Class Signed For Recorded Delivery. A letter from the Claimants solicitor dated 4th August 2017 was received by the defendant acknowledging the request for documents and that they had passed this request on to the claimants. As of the 21st August 2017, the claimant has not supplied the requested documents, the claimant has given no good reason or any reason at all to the defendant for this failure to comply with the defendant's legal rights of entitlement to inspect the documents that the claimant's claim is to rely on.

 

7. Item number 4 of the claim is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and 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;

c) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87.1 CCA 1974 and;

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

 

8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed.

9. 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
Checked
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay Angelina187....but yes the defence is fine and checked.

 

And many thanks for your intended donation.:yo:

 

 

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 OTHER

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello again

 

I today received a letter from Lowells with an attached form called a Directions Questionnaire. They have completed it to say they wish the claim to be referred to small claims mediation service.

It states I will also receive a form to complete. Do I also tick the mediation box?

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...