Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, it has been cleaned now - it had to be, he came out of hospital at the end of December, and Friend has secured the services of a local cleaning company to come in once a week.  
    • Following the issue of a Liability Order the Council must obtain a warrant of control to try to collect the debt. If they fail their only option is to return the matter to court and you will be asked to attend.   At that hearing the court must be satisfied that:   • A liability order was imposed in relation to the debt. • You have failed to pay; and • The council tried to collect the sum using a warrant of control, and failed.   They must then go on to conduct a "means enquiry" into your financial circumstances. The principle aim of that is firstly to establish whether you had demonstrated either a wilful refusal to pay (i.e. you had sufficient funds but simply refused to pay) or "culpable neglect" (i.e. you had the funds but chose to spend them on something else). Only if they find one of those two can commitment to prison (either immediate or postponed) be considered. Also, only if they find one of those two can they order payments to meet the debt. The usual combination is an order to make payments coupled with a postponed commitment. But, the payment rate must be realistic in terms of your financial circumstances and it should normally mean that the debt is paid within three years. If a realistic payment rate will not see the debt paid in that period then the court should consider remitting (i.e. writing off) some or all of the debt. Similarly, if they find neither wilful refusal to pay nor culpable neglect (and by default find that you simply did not have the ability to pay) they should also consider remitting some or all of the debt.   You should note that at these commitment proceedings, as the matters you face could result in custody, you are entitled to have the services of the duty solicitor. In your circumstances I would say the chances of you being committed to prison are slightly less than zero. From your very brief description of your finances you simply have no spare money (though a means enquiry will delve more deeply into your affairs, especially the debts for which the DWP are making deductions from your benefits). There is no point in delaying any of this. The sooner it gets sorted the better as your circumstances seem unlikely to change any time soon. One thing you must bear in mind is that these proceedings will only deal with the debt covered by the Liability Order. If you have any Council Tax arrears that have accrued since then they will have to be dealt with separately. I'm also assuming you live in England. Since April 2019 commitment to prison has not been an option in Wales.    
    • good issued the default after you turned 50 when any payment is not longer required on the loans and they should be written off.   it's fast becoming clear that they solely refused your SLC forms as a mode of deferring to create this whole falsehood.   the case your refer to about the new forms is detailed in this form in many SLC erudio threads.   if you could go get a USB converter lead to make your old HDD drives readable from amazon or somewhere , cheap as chips and <£5.
    • Has the property been cleaned now? Is it the in the same state as before?
    • Please follow the link and read what we have to say about people who pay by bank transfer
  • 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 414 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...