Lowell claimform - Vodafone mobile debt

[roland60]

Will do. Thanks

[roland60]

Hi

 

I have received a copy of the claimants witness statement and that I apparently have a hearing date on 14th June. I have not received anything from court in the post regarding the hearing date yet. Please see witness statement attached.

 

Roland

 

 

Lowell_Witness_Statement.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Did you submit your directions questionnaire ?

How do you know the hearing date ?

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

so hearsay evidence.
all information is from the claimants cms systen NOT from the vodaphone.

5. b. you have not said that the agreement existed between voda and yourself.

12...oh how nice of them..but there is no interest on mobile account as they are not regulated credit and there is no remit, lawfully, for anyone, let alone a debt buyer to add any penalty charges.

17 b. the defendant has not admitted entering into the agreement subject to this speculative claim.

18.j thats not what OFCOM said.
early termination charges may well be 'common place' and standard in T&C's but that doesnt mean they are enforceable nor unlawful.

k the defendant did not benefit from the service. the resultant charges till end of contract were added after the phone was was disconnected by vodafone.

 

we need all the exhibits to please

[roland60]

Hi Andy, yes i submitted the directions questionnaire, the hearing date was mentioned by Lowell in their cover letter, I've not received anything from the court regarding any hearing date.....

 

i will call court tomorrow to check.

 

Thanks DX for this info, please see attached all Exhibits as requested.

Exhibit_Docs.pdf

[AndyOrch]

They must of had their N157 Notice of Allocation...have you prepared your statement and disclosures ?

 

Not much time now till 14th June and parties normally file submit and exchange statements and evidence 7/14 days pre hearing ?

[roland60]

i’ve not prepared anything yet, as I was unaware of the hearing date.

[AndyOrch]

Best get on to your local CC in the morning and advise them you have not had your Notice of Allocation...I would start on your statement now because  Lowell normally serve very late (you got theirs Friday 31st)

[roland60]

Hi, I spoke with the court, apparently they had sent me the N157 Notice of Allocation back in April, which i have never received.....

 

I was also informed that they paid their trial fee on the last day before the claim would have been struck out, 17th May 2019.

 

The hearing is 14th June 2019 at 10am.

 

I have not done a witness statement before so would really appreciate help with putting one together especially with the time constraints, thanks.

 

Roland

 

 

[AndyOrch]

You will have to look at other similar threads and make a start...I have intermittent internet access until Thurs evening.

 

Andy

[roland60]

Hi Andy

 

I have attempted to put a Witness Statement together after reading similar threads,  if you could please check it over and advise of changes. Thanks Roland

 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD
(VODAFONE)

-and-
ROLAND
(DEFENDANT)
_____________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND

_____________________________

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1. I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.  The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. 

 

THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 

 

2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 5.a-d inclusive that they do not have the original alleged Agreement on which this claim is based on and have failed to provide such a copy including the Default Notice despite a CPR 31.14 request made 8^thJanuary 2019 (Exibit A).

The Defendant claims that his CPR 31.14 request, of which the Claimant has confirmed receipt, for the disclosure and production of a verified and legible copy of the Agreement has not been adhered to, by way of the fact that a Service Contract is entirely missing from the Claimant’s evidence. 

 

3. Under Paragraph 9 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the Claimant states that the debt “was subject to a legal assignment dated 28 February 2018 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant”. The Defendant argues that the cause of action has absolutely nothing to do with assignment nor the Law of Property Act 1925.  

 

4. The Claimant states in Paragraph 10 and continued in Paragragh 17f that they continued to attempt to make contact with the Defendant and have provided ‘sample’ evidence of these letters under their Exhibit “SR3”, which they deem as meeting the requirements of Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant categorically states that no letters have ever been received from the Claimant, with the first contact from them being this claim. Therefore, the Claimant is to put strict proof to their claim by providing proof of delivery for these letters. If the Claimant cannot provide this, then the Defendant invites the Court to strike the claim out based upon a failure to adhere to Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Practice and Protocols. 

 

5. Paragraph 12 states the Claimant did not apply any additional interest or charges on the account, lawfully there is no interest on mobile accounts as it is not regulated credit and there is no remit to add any penalty charges.

 

6. The defendant has not admitted entering into the agreement subject to this speculative claimas stated by the Claimant in Paragraph 17b.

 

7. The Claimant admits in Paragraph 17d that they are unable to obtain a copy of the agreement, they have also failed to provide a Default Notice. The Defendant again invites the Court to strike the claim out, on this basis. 

 

8. The Claimant refers to a draft Tomlin Order in Paragraph 17e and is also mentioned in their Exhibit “SR7” but no such order is attached.

 

9. The Claimants states in Paragraph 17j that early termination charges will become payable should an agreement end early, however, OFCOM have stated that early termination charges may well be 'common place' and standard in Terms & Condition's but that doesn’t mean they are enforceable nor unlawful.The alleged amount claimed includes an early termination charge amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge, which is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service. 

 

10. Paragraph 17k the defendant did not benefit from the service. the resultant charges till end of contract were added after the phone was disconnected byVodafone. 

 

11. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim.

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. 

Signed: Roland
Dated: 

[AndyOrch]

Yes...well as long as you have covered all the main points of their statement and offered alternative argument..there is no set guidance on drafting a statement.....its your account in your words to support your defence and to point out the errors that the claimant are trying to conceal/mislead  the court.

 

One point.... there is no requirement to issue a default notice on mobile agreements...its not regulated by the CCA1974.Concentrate on the ETCs...you did not benefit as you state and it was charged after termination of the agreement...or in other words its a penalty charge for leaving early.

 

Andy

[roland60]

Hi Andy

 

Thank you for getting back to me and thank you for the pointers.

 

I have amended my WS, could you please check it over and please let me know if I have covered my defence and the Claimants WS, many thanks.

 

Roland

 

IN THE County Court AT …..CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: 

 

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD
(VODAFONE)

-and-
ROLAND
(DEFENDANT)
_____________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND

_____________________________

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1. I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.  The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. 

 

THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 

 

2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 5.a-d inclusive that they do not have the original alleged Agreement on which this claim is based on and have failed to provide such a copy despite a CPR 31.14 request made 8^thJanuary 2019 (Exibit A). The Defendant claims that his CPR 31.14 request, of which the Claimant has confirmed receipt, for the disclosure and production of a verified and legible copy of the Agreement has not been adhered to, by way of the fact that a Service Contract is entirely missing from the Claimant’s evidence. 

 

3. Under Paragraph 9 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the Claimant states that the debt “was subject to a legal assignment dated 28 February 2018 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant”. The Defendant argues that the cause of action has absolutely nothing to do with assignment nor the Law of Property Act 1925.  

 

4. The Claimant states in Paragraph 10 and continued in Paragraph 17.f that they continued to attempt to make contact with the Defendant and have provided ‘sample’ evidence of these letters under their Exhibit “SR3”, which they deem as meeting the requirements of Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant categorically states that no letters have ever been received from the Claimant, with the first contact from them being this claim. Therefore, the Claimant is to put strict proof to their claim by providing proof of delivery for these letters. If the Claimant cannot provide this, then the Defendant invites the Court to strike the claim out based upon a failure to adhere to Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Practice and Protocols. 

 

5. Paragraph 12 states the Claimant did not apply any additional interest or charges on the account, lawfully there is no interest on mobile accounts as it is not regulated credit and there is no remit to add any penalty charges.

 

6. The defendant has not admitted entering into the agreement subject to this speculative claim as stated by the Claimant in Paragraph 17b.

 

7. The Claimant admits in Paragraph 17d that they are unable to obtain a copy of the agreement.The Defendant again invites the Court to strike the claim out, on this basis. 

 

8. The Claimant refers to a draft Tomlin Order in Paragraph 17e and is also mentioned in their Exhibit “SR7” but no such order is attached.

 

9. The Claimants states in Paragraph 17j that early termination charges will become payable should an agreement end early, however, OFCOM have stated that early termination charges may well be 'common place' and standard in Terms & Condition's but that doesn’t mean they are enforceable nor unlawful. The alleged amount claimed includes an early termination charge amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge, which is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service. 

 

10. Paragraph 17k the defendant did not benefit from the service. The resultant charges till end of contract were added after the phone was disconnected byVodafone. 

 

11. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim.

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. 

Signed: Roland
Dated: 

[dx100uk]

9 should surely say lawful?

 

[roland60]

Hi

 

My court hearing is this Friday morning, this is my first time and I’m really nervous, I would really appreciate any advice and what should I be aware of regarding my case.

 

many thanks

Roland

[dx100uk]

its no big deal

more like a meeting around a table.

speak only when spoken too.

but don't let the opposition railroad things.

stand your ground

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Enjoy...nothing to worry about...stick to the facts...you cannot be charged for a service you have no access to or can use....drum home your point 9.

 

See if the court accepts that its legalised theft.

 

Best of luck.

 

Andy

[roland60]

Thanks DX and Andy

 

Yes I will emphasise Para 9 regarding the termination charges etc, and Para 2 regarding no agreement & T&Cs copy being provided.

 

If things don't seem to be going my way, can i mention that there is a big chunk of charges in the claimed amount and the fact that Vodafone were irresponsible as a company to let this spiral and go on for so long even though they were aware of my financial hardship and never gave me the option to reduce the tariff plan etc. 

 

Thanks 

Roland 

 

[roland60]

Hi All

 

I had my day in court today, Lowell won the case, I was given a judgement for £1296.42

 

I managed to remove the termination fee £90 and the 8% interest was reduced from £80 to £20, the claimants cost for attending were also not allowed. A further £42.44 was reduced as they had stated in their WS that the mobile was dissconected 12th March 2017 but they provided statements with charges til 12th July 2017. 

 

The fixed fees - court fee, hearing fee and commencement costs £265 was added to the account, 

 

The Judge was quite pleasant and tried to be fair to both parties, but he didn't seem knowledgeable in this area as he left the Ofcom and Property Law for me and Claimant to explain, obviously the Claimant's solicitor was more experienced.  I tried to tackle the fact that there was no agreement and T&Cs which the judge was quite surprised about at first but then when the Claimant went on about it not being a credit agreement the judge went along with it.

 

The claimant stated at the end that they wanted attendance costs for for 'unreasonable conduct' by defending the claim.  The judge said it wasn't unreasonable conduct as i had the right to defend a claim that was made and rejected his fee. 

 

The judge has left it open for me to contact the claimant to agree on an instalment plan to suit my financial standing as i have no extra penny to spare, and that's not me exaggerating, I'm on working tax credits as i explained to the judge. 

 

Reflecting back on this I wish I had taken their offer of 50% reduction that was offered sometime last year....

 

Thank you for the help and advice.

 

Roland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

sounds like judge lottery to me

something you can never protect again..

 

dx