Lowells PAPLOC now claimform - old Vanquis card debt

[dx100uk 9,545]

Why do you keep wasting your time on Google

wHen there are 1000's of lowell claimform threads on cag?

 

mediation has always been by phone..

if when it actually happens

the same q's ..are asked again as the n180 form

if you've not received enough information to make an informed decision to progress it. Then tell them so.

[king100 69]

I typed in mediation in search as above. Just looking for info. Plus my previous info is from the post in here about small claims and covid.

[dx100uk 9,545]

1 hour ago, king100 said:

 

If small claims are taking ages to go to court this therefore will increase the time that debt will be SBd by months. It says that FT claims took 62 weeks to reach trial.

No the sb clock stops on claimform issuance.

If you win or they discontinue, the clock resumes as if it had never stopped.

If they win obv its totally immaterial.

 

[dx100uk 9,545]

On 12/01/2021 at 16:58, Andyorch said:

It stopped on the issuance of the claim......and remains stopped unless the claim is discontinued or dismissed by the court.

 

[king100 69]

Ok thanks. Understand, i thought it added to the time, so if held up in court you added that to your time. Assuming its discontinued

Edited January 23 by king100

[dx100uk 9,545]

how can it add to the time..

if they lose its as if the claim was never raised..they LOST.

 

[king100 69]

I dont know just had horrible feeling.

 

 

[king100 69]

ok might be getting ahead of myself but here is witness statement.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1: I am the defendant and state that the facts contained in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge.

 

2: There are several documents attached with this statement. (paginated)

 

3: It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 20p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.

 

4: As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.

 

BACKGROUND

 

5: The Claim relates to an Alleged Credit card agreement between the defendant and Vanquis bank.

 

6: Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had contractual dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unware of what alleged debt the claimant refers, and the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant.

 

7: The defendant requested a copy of the CCA in September 2020 (cant find copy letter) after receiving a letter from Lowell dated 15/09/2020, Page 1, to which the Claiment has acknowledged receipt and requested said documents from their client, letter dated 05/10/2020 ,Page 2.

 

8: The defendant has received numerous letters from the claimant asking for payment with a settlement figure leading, with no proof of debt owed in these letters, led the defendant to doubt the authenticity of the Claimant and the claim.

 

9: Legal proceedings were issued on the 30/11/2020 to which the defendant issued his defence a copy of which was served on the claimant. Again a letter was sent, dated 07/12/2020 Page 3 requesting a copy of the documents that they rely on in their claim. Alas no true copy of agreement has yet to be received, in fact no paper work has been received relating to their claim.

 

10: The defendant stated in his defence that no evidence of the CCA has been provided nor evidence of the acquisition/purchase of the alleged debt by the claimant.

 

DEFENCE:

 

11: The claimant has not provided a true copy of the CCA despite numerous requests being made firstly in September and secondly on the 07/12/2020 in response to claim despite stating in the letter dated 23^rd October 2020 `please find enclosed a copy of the agreement`

 

12: There is no valid copy of an executed consumer credit agreement that complies with the CCA1974

 

13: The `so called ` copy of agreement stated in claimants letter dated 23/11/2020 , Page 4, is in fact stated as an online application and is no more than a log from either the OC`s operating system or one that has been constructed since with details from the account to look like an application.

 

14. The information provided on letter dated 28/02/2020 from Vanquis has been sought without the defendant’s approval and as the defendant did not contact Vanquis to request application information and as such any information dated 28/02/2020 provided by Vanquis should not be used as evidence.

 

IN CONCLUSION:

 

16: Without a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA1974 the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt and has in fact attempted to mislead the courts in to believing that they have the necessary paperwork.

 

It is therefore respectfully requested that the court dismiss this claim and costs requested.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true.

[dx100uk 9,545]

might be a bit premature 

not sure what 14 means but the rest is fine.

but ofcourse change upon their WS arriving.

 

dx

 

[king100 69]

There is a letter in the info sent that is from vanquis dated this 28th feb 2020 addressed to me with copy of the online application form. I never asked for this. Lowell must have asked it for.

 

I got this from here where the case was thrown out by the judge.

[dx100uk 9,545]

but why do they have to get your approval?

 

dx

 

[king100 69]

Because the letter states 

 

Dear Mr XXXXXX

 

I refer to your recent request (which I didnt request) for application information in reference to the above account. There is no address just my name and comes on Vanquis headed paper. I never asked vanquis for this info.

 

Also there is a letter dated 11 May 2017 where it states that "your account with Vanquis was sold to us on 29th September 2017" well thats some 4 months before the letter date and "was sold" is past tense, so shows a fake letter. If this is a doctored letter then no evidence shown by claimant can be deemed as reliable is what I am trying to achieve if they were suddenly show T&Cs at court. Or at least add to my evidence so that if goes to court and they show T&Cs, I have introduced it in my defence and argue that.

 

I put this in as there was a previous case on here that has the same thing and his case got thrown out of court.

[dx100uk 9,545]

but you sent a cca request to the claimant did you not?

 

dx

 

[king100 69]

I did 3 times and havent received any terms and conditions

 

, im just trying to back up my argument should it get to court and they produce one

 

, then I can tell well, they

1. Didnt manage to show 1 3 times I asked.

 

2. they cant even get their dates right on the paperwork so why should this be nay different to this paperwork.

[dx100uk 9,545]

11 hours ago, king100 said:

The claimant has not provided a true copy of the CCA despite numerous requests being made firstly in September and secondly on the 07/12/2020 in response to claim

by that you did give approval..

 

[king100 69]

Any thoughts of the difference in dates in the letter?

[dx100uk 9,545]

On 07/12/2020 at 11:07, king100 said:

The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29/09/2017 and notice given to he defendant

 

from the POC

 

i believe in an earlier upload you obscured all dates

put the dates back  please

[king100 69]

Here is the letter with dates. Basically on the 11th May 2017 they are informing me that that they bought the debt on the 29 September 2017. Amazing foresight.

20210127_104419.pdf

[dx100uk 9,545]

On 03/11/2020 at 14:38, king100 said:

Sent PAPLOC and reply as below

 

Hopefully thats correct

king100.pdf-min.pdf 3.03 MB · 11 downloads

and the 2nd letter here too please

[king100 69]

Which 2nd letter do you refer to? Are you talking about the letter from Vanquis? As thats the only letter with wrong dates on it.

[dx100uk 9,545]

page 2 of the PDF.

 

notice of assignment is a 2 letter process

one from the OC

one from the debt buyer

the debt buyer is allowed to post on behalf of the OC and use their letterhead.

 

so the two letters should have the same date

but as we can't see the date on the OC letter......

 

all this could simply be a typo rather than a deliberate act..

 

dx

 

[king100 69]

Found it on underside of letter from Vanquis, same dates so a typo twice?

20210127_122016 (1).pdf

Edited January 27 by king100

[dx100uk 9,545]

1 hour ago, king100 said:

Which 2nd letter do you refer to? Are you talking about the letter from Vanquis? As thats the only letter with wrong dates on it.

 

so its not the only one..

as both have the wrong date

will be useful later in your ws then.

 

 

[king100 69]

Gotta hand it to them.

 

Just received another letter with an attached Tomlin Order, with a covering letter stating "that evidence provided which rebuts my defence"

 

All they sent me was statements and notice of default.

 

I assume to ignore and let the process continue.

[dx100uk 9,545]

Standard letter they always send if you go read the numerous lowell claimform threads here