Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I certainly tend to agree with you that the leasing agreement should at least require that the car is in satisfactory condition and remains that way for a reasonable period of time – based on the expectation of a reasonable consumer. Very much like the requirement of satisfactory quality for a sales contract. Of course we haven't seen the terms and conditions and it may be that there is something which excludes this. It would not be excludable in a sales contract but it may certainly be excludable in a rental agreement – although I doubt it. On the basis of what you say in that case, it's a question of accumulating all the possible evidence and then bringing an action for breach of contract. I think you should be careful about assembling your evidence – do it methodically and may be you can post up a link here to the terms and conditions – or specifically the terms which deal with this situation. In terms of being confident that the will be prepared to provide all of the telephone records – even if it incriminate them, I find it very comforting to find that there are people who still believe this kind of thing. Bless.
    • Shall I send the letter about the proposed warrant or just proceed to MCOL and execute it? Also how much should I sue for on the most recent disclosure breach? The first was £200 plus fees, as this is the second one this is not just an oversight but a continued breach so I feel it should be escalated to reflect the more egregious nature of their failure.
    • Thank you. Yes, I remember now the file extension because they had already supplied some information. They've now ignored your letter of claim so I think that you start the next action – as well as of course, putting the bailiffs in on the existing judgement. In terms of the SAR, I think I had in mind that you would send a second SAR solely for the handset – and I suggest that you do that straightaway. Although generally speaking we don't limit SARs, in this case I think it would be useful to send an SAR which relates simply to this mystery handset. So three things – get a warrant Sue on the most recent disclosure breach SAR specific to the mysterious handset
    • DX - the lease agreement does state that the car has to be handed back in a drivable condition etc. SO I was forced to pay for the clutch repair to allow this to happen. It was a frozen morning when the girl turned up for the car - had I known this I wouldn't have repaired the bloody windscreen, but when it was booked it was crapping with rain for days...
    • BankFodder,   I didn't record calls, because they were simply me asking to speak to the complaints handler, and being told he will call back. Twice a day - and phone records will show this. If push comes to shove a FOI request for their call records will back this up. When you lease a car, you can take it with or without servicing - our broker advised not to take servicing. It was out of warranty after 3 years. But my argument is the lease was for 4 years/32K miles - although we extended if for an extra year, it was still within the mileage, and the clutch failed and the windscreen leaked. In my opinion it wasn't fit for purpose and the lease company are in breach of contract by leasing a vehicle as such.  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Lowell claimform - Simply Be CAT debt. ***Claim Discontinued***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 774 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

And here's another one.

 

Name of the Claimant - Lowell Portfolio I LTD

 

Date of issue – 16 JUL 2018

Date to acknowledge) = 03/08

Date to submit defence = 17/08

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1) The Defendant opened a Simply Be Regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxx on 10/02/2015 ('the agreement').xxxx

 

2) In breach of the Agreement, the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the Agreement was terminated.

 

3). The Agreement was later assigned to the Claimant on 12/01/2017 and written notice was given to the Defendant.

 

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

 

And the claimant claims

a)The said sum of £4XX.XX

b) Interest pursuant to s69 County Courts 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 £0.089, but Limited to one year, being £32.58

c)Costs

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol)? I don't think so, she has been keeping that comes in now instead of throwing it away and she does not have a copy of that.

What is the total value of the claim? - £5XX.XX

 

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

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007? After

 

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? Debt Purchaser.

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Unknown

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Unknown

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Unknown

 

Why did you cease payments? Payments became too much, the Catalouge kept increasing her limit every month so she spent it, despite being unemployed.

What was the date of your last payment? Early 2016

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 management plan? Yes, offered reduced payments to clear but they kept adding interest on it which made clearing impossible. They did not respond to further contact through the account portal.

 

Marked as defended and CCA/CPR will be in the post.

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

old hat at this now john.

 

plenty of cat defences here when needs be.

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...

Two letters from Lowell Financial(nothing from the solicitors).

 

Both state she has requested documents from this Morses account and give a different account number to that on the claim form.

 

Do we need to do anything about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no 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

Erm..what has a cat debt got to do with Morses??

They were a doorstep loan company??

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

Wires crossed?

Sent to wrong person?

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

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and

generic in nature.

 

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

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. The Claimants case is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Simply Be in the past I cannot recall the specifics nor am I aware of any default notice or legal assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim and I have no knowledge

of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of

Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

2. It is denied that any amounts are due under any contractual agreement.

 

On receipt of this claim

 

I requested information pertaining to this claim from the

Claimants Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st

class recorded post on 24/07/2018.

 

Further to the above I sent Lowell Portfoilio I LTD a section

78 request via 1st class recorded post on 24/07/2018.

 

To date, neither Lowell Solicitors nor Lowell Portfolio have supplied the requested information.

 

Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to

strict proof to

 

a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an

agreement;

b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount

claimed for;

c) show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the

claimant relief.

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under

statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that

the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. 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 Credit 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.

 

-------

 

Did I use the PAPDC correctly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think you should deny...better ways to rephrase it without perjuring yourself.

 

 

1. The Claimants case is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Simply Be in the past I cannot recall the specifics.......

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

In the above defence yes...I assumed you wanted opinions on it ?

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
  • 4 weeks later...

Copied to sols?

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 months later...

Well done

Thread title updated

 

Please consider a donation to keep us here

 

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
  • Andyorch changed the title to Lowell claimform - Simply Be CAT debt. ***Claim Discontinued***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...