Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You cant get defaults removed dont get scammed.   they would have been registered by the original companies before or upon sale.
    • I'm disappointed it didn't go to court, a hearing would have been interesting if Priti Useless had been compelled to testify. But I understand that Sir Philip might not have wanted the stress and uncertainty of a hearing.
    • Well stuff and all they can do with only a restriction k  £13k thats one hell of a card debt..   wonder why rbs decided to sell it on ....should they have allowed you to have such a large balance? Were you well solvent at the time? Looks like you were not if you had to pay your mortgage with it for god knows how long to run up £13k..   smacks of possible irresponsible lending to me esp if your credit file was shot with all manner of default s and lots other debt/ lending .
    • Hi guys    First post so apologies if I've made any mistakes on posting location or if this information if held in a general file location.   I have been declined a Mortgage recently based on defaults on my credit file that I genuinely didn't know anything about (details below)    British Gas - Defaulted in July 2019 owing £1,871 and £992 (settled Oct 2019)  Cabot – Defaulted Sept 2017 owing £330 (settled July 2017) Lowell – Defaulted May 2018 owing £79 -  Bt Consumer – Defaulted Feb 2016 owing £34 - This one isn't even in my name!    I was looking to see if anyone has a process or maybe letter templates for challenging Defaults and ultimately getting them removed from credit file?   I have spoken to a credit repair company who are looking to charge me £250 per Default to have them removed, however I would prefer to try and challenge these myself however have no idea where to start.    Any help appreciated. Happy to make a donation to the running of the site too if anyone can assist.   Many Thanks   
    • Priti Patel reaches £340,000 settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam "Priti Patel has reached a six-figure settlement with a senior civil servant following claims that he was forced out of his job for intervening in her alleged bullying of fellow staff, it has emerged."   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam   Now Johnson needs to explain how and why he over turned the assessment on her breach of ministerial code https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-rules-priti-patel-did-not-breach-ministerial-code-over-bullying-allegations-12136986
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Lowell clamform - old shop direct CAT debt


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 419 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

urm.. that's a telecom defence??

why not adapt the one I pointed you too??:noidea:

 

 

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

Oh god! How silly!

 

I had so many different tabs and word documents open , cutting and pasting different bits I think I’ve copied in the wrong one.

 

Just had to nip out. I’ll post the correct version ASAP! X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll Try Again 😅

 

Particulars Of Claim.

1)            The Defendant entered into an agreement with Very - Littlewoods/Additions Direct which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 under reference ******** on 02/12/2014 ('the Agreement').

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 09/09/2016 and written notice given to the Defendant.

4)            Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £990 remains due and outstanding. And the Claimant claims

a)            The said sum of £990

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 £0.216, but  limited to one year, being £80

c)            Costs

 

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.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied I do not recall any breach and I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant. They have sent an alleged copy dated 5th Oct 2016 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.

 

4. On receipt of this claim form , I the Defendant sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request.

 

5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.

 

6. It 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) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

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

 

7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

8. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done that man..

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

Just received a letter from the courts. Guessing it is pretty standard.

 

The body reads:

 

I acknowledge receipt of your defence.

A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).

 

The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.


Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of youndefence.Afteflhat period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed.

 

The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea sure quite std

 

they have 28 days to do 'something' else the claim will get stayed.

 

plenty of threads here to read up on the court process as/if its progresses through the various stages

 

most claimform threads will hold info.

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
  • 1 month later...

So, I completed the forms sent, including the one about mediation after following the advice on other threads.

 

One thing that I've been sent in the info from Lowell is a 'draft Tomlin order'. 

Is this a sign of their confidence or desperation?

 

Still no DN. Just a silly computer screenshot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

std practice for every Lowell claimform thread if you go read them.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...