Lowell claimform - old disputed Studio Cards debt ***Claim Discontinued***

[johealey]

Amazing thank you, I have done both letters and will post tomorrow as I cannot print at home.

 

My next step is the defence, is it worth looking on here for examples or could you point me in the right direction please and I will do some reading to prepare my defence?  

 

Thanks 

[dx100uk]

You have 33 days

Prob be std holding/no paperwork one

[dx100uk]

just add and highlight..

you had a dispute too[earlier in this merged thread of the same debt]  …. and the debt at that stage appears to have significantly increased since then without any further use or payment by you?

??

please clarify

[johealey]

It's always been £716.38, now they have added their court fees and interest submitting the claim form to make it £909. 

 

The figures before were where I was trying to see what the total "goods" were rather than total including any interest charges were. 

 

The balance is and always has been the £716.38 until receipt of the claim form this week, thanks 

[johealey]

As an update, I have just rang SD and they have told me they have no information on my account as my account is so old that they have archived everything.  Any paperwork has been sent to Lowell for them to chase any debt that is owed.

Is there anything that I can do about this please?  They couldn't even confirm when the last payment was made.

 

Thanks 

[dx100uk]

you didn't need to ring SD

you know when your last payment was.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

[johealey]

Hi

Paper attached has now been received, Default notice to follow "apparently", but given Studio have no paperwork or record of my account I find that very hard to believe I will ever receive that!

 

Would welcome any advice, defence to the claim form, to stop them adding a potential CCJ to my credit file

 

Thanks 

 

[johealey]

sorry to chase, but I am getting a little stressed about this and could really do with some advice and assistance and being pointed in the right direction if possible please :_) 

 

Thanks 

[AndyOrch]

Defence not due until Monday 28th Oct 4.00pm...can you not find a similar thread and defence to adapt ?

 

Andy

[johealey]

Thanks for your help!

[AndyOrch]

Post #34 in the following thread.

 

Edit to suit

 

Andy

[johealey]

1.    The defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account under reference ********* on 30^th November 2011.

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 25^th September 2015 and written notice given to the Defendant.

4.    Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £716.38 remains due and outstanding.  And the Claimant claims; a) the said sum of £716.38; b) interest pursuant to s69 Count 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 £0.157, but limited to one year, being £57.31; c) costs.

 

 

Defence

 

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.

 

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.

 

Paragraph 1 is admitted insofar that a contractual relationship in the past with Studio did once exist but I do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.

 

Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the nature of the alleged breach and service and copy of a Default Notice pursuant to CCA sec 87.1.

 

I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 25^th September 2015 pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974.

 

On the 30^th September 2019 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. To date the claimant has failed to comply to my CPR 31.14. The claimant also remains in default of my section 78 request and are therefore unable to enforce any agreement until such compliance.

 

On the 7^th October 2019 Lowell provided a photocopy of an agreement and statement.  They confirmed that they have requested a copy of the Default Notice from the original creditor and this will be sent to me upon receipt.  To date, 21^st October 2019, I still await their compliance.

 

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/agreement/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14 and sec 78 CCA1974 and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

 

This is my first attempt at my defence so thank you in advance for any help and amends

 

Just a few things to highlight as well, which I have found whilst trawling through my paperwork:

 

1.  I moved in August 2017 and never gave them my new address - they were still writing to my old address in August 2018 as I was having my post redirected for the 12 months.  They have "somehow" and not sure how, managed to get hold of my new address.

2.  I have a letter from them dated February 2018 saying that I defaulted 30th November 2011, which is obviously a typo error on their part - but can I use this?

3.  Studio  have no record of my account as I asked them when I called a few weeks ago

Edited October 21, 2019 by johealey
Additional comments

[dx100uk]

I don't think its wise to say they have failed the CCA , but then indicate they did infact reply.

 

they got your details from your credit file.

[johealey]

ok thank you.

 

Other than your comments above, is this ok to submit and should I wait until the last day to submit?

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Quote

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/agreement/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14 and sec 78 CCA1974 and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

 

and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   What ? I'm sure our defences dont end there ?

 

Andy

[johealey]

Whoops........... I think I might have missed that bit off 

 

Here it is in its entire form:

 

1.    The defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account under reference ********* on 30^th November 2011.

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 25^th September 2015 and written notice given to the Defendant.

4.    Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £716.38 remains due and outstanding.  And the Claimant claims; a) the said sum of £716.38; b) interest pursuant to s69 Count 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 £0.157, but limited to one year, being £57.31; c) costs.

 

 

Defence

 

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.

 

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.

 

Paragraph 1 is admitted insofar that a contractual relationship in the past with Studio did once exist but I do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.

 

Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the nature of the alleged breach and service and copy of a Default Notice pursuant to CCA sec 87.1.

 

Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 25^th September 2015 pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974.

 

On the 30^th September 2019 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. To date the claimant has failed to comply to my CPR 31.14.

 

On the 7^th October 2019 Lowell provided a photocopy of the alleged credit agreement and statement. The purported agreement is lacking all the prescribed terms and therefore unenforceable. They confirmed that they have requested a copy of the Default Notice from the original creditor and this will be sent to me upon receipt.  To date, 23^rd October 2019, I still await their compliance.

 

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/agreement/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14 and sec 78 CCA1974 and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974

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

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

 

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

 

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.

If there is anything that needs amending or changing please let me know.

The debt becomes SB on the 23rd Nov, so if I can drag it out to then I am guessing that there is nothing they can do?

[dx100uk]

issuance of a claimform pauses the sb clock.

 

surely you cant say they are in default of your sec 78 as they have complied, better to say they have not fully complied.

 

the DN is NOT covered by a CCa request.

 

ive removed your earlier upload as crossing thru with a felt pen dos not obscure your details

and 

your name is clearly visible as well.

 

 

 

 

[johealey]

Ahh right ok thanks, i wasn't aware the SB would get paused on the back of a claim.

 

I have requested a copy of the DN, they confirmed to me in writing that they have written to Studio Cards to request this - I know they won't have it as they told me they transferred everything across to Lowell when the closed the account down and confirmed that they hold no paperwork.

 

So this para......he claimant also remains in default of my section 78 request and are therefore unable to enforce any agreement until such compliance.

 

If I change that to read "the claimant has not fully complied with my section 78 request............"

 

Does that read better?  Is there anything else I need to do/amend before submitting please DX? T hank you for your help so far

[AndyOrch]

A few edits above done....what do you mean by " not fully complied with my section 78 request "...either they have complied  or not.....if they have and it has errors then specify the errors?

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

I though we took the view at this stage not to give away what as wrong until disclosures stage? that way they cant refudge the return to correct any alerted to errors or add the missing parts?

[AndyOrch]

I'm not saying to put it in the defence...simply explain here then I can check and reword it....it's impossible to partially comply.

[johealey]

10 hours ago, Andyorch said:

A few edits above done....what do you mean by " not fully complied with my section 78 request "...either they have complied  or not.....if they have and it has errors then specify the errors?

 

Andy

Hi Andy

 

They sent a photocopy of what looked like a credit agreement, but it was removed by DX the other day as my name still showed through the marker pen   I can give it another go at uploading if you want me to?  If this is sufficient evidence do I just remove the bit about not fully complying please?

 

9 hours ago, dx100uk said:

I though we took the view at this stage not to give away what as wrong until disclosures stage? that way they cant refudge the return to correct any alerted to errors or add the missing parts?

 

Is there something I should take out from the above defence please?  Would ideally like to get this submitted as I am working all weekend and Monday is the deadline I believe

 

Thanks both for your help so far.

[AndyOrch]

Yes please if you would upload it again and redact properly this time.

[johealey]

Should be all ok now and no personal info showing through the marker pen, thanks 

 

docs1.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Is that your scanning quality or does the document actually look like that ?

 

Does it contain your signature ?