Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
    • Hi I'm after some help with trying to get my wedding car hire deposit returned. I'll provide a bit of a chronological background to try and keep things clear. January 2020 - Began booking church, venue and other services for our Wedding for 29th May 2021 - 100+ guest during the day, and 200+ on the night. 25 Jan 2020 - Attended Exclusive Wedding Cars (EWC herein). Booked and Paid deposit for 1 Beetle and 3 Camper Vans = £400. Corona came along and we were in and out of lockdowns. Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) brought out some guidance for Wedding Services 7 Sept 2020. In mid January, we got back in contact with EWC via text, expressing our concerns over the wedding and Government imposed Public Health measures(we were currently in lockdown and no idea when things would return to normal), and that we were looking to move the wedding forward 1 year. 3 Feb 2020 - Emailed to cancel our Wedding date of 29th May 2021, after text had been sent and Steve replied asking for it to be sent via email. We asked if 28th May 2022 was available. 5 Feb 2020 - EWC replied to say they could not fulfill our new date due to other commitments. 7 Feb 2020 - We replied that we would have to cancel our booking with EWC, but would be in touch if dates changed again. 22 Feb 2021 - Government published Guidance (Roadmap out of Lockdown) - Stated, “Not before 17th May…Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings…”. *Note again our wedding was for 100/200+ guests at the Stadium of Light, so not reasonable to have the same venue for 30 people. 5 Jan 2022 -  Called and spoke with Steve to see if they had any availability (any cars at all) for our date. He was driving and so couldn’t confirm.                         Exchanged some texts on the same day to which he replied in the evening, that they had nothing, but to keep in touch due to cancellations. 15 Jan 2022 - Started an email thread asking about deposits and their return. EWC went straight on the defensive saying we wouldn't be getting it back and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy as we were not given a copy when we booked. 17 Jan 2022 - Emailed to ask for the return of our deposit. EWC replied that since we cancelled within 4 months of the wedding date, they now wanted the remaining balance of £850, and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy of the contract again, and that we would seek legal advice. EWC replied with ever increasing sarcasm, saying we would receive notice demanding the remaining balance of £850 in the post. I replied that if they didn't supply a copy of the contract I would send them a SAR.   20 Jan 2022 - Sent a letter via Post and email, asking EWC to reconsider their position. We stated we believe the contract to have terms that would be deemed unfair; terms that were not clear; there is a ‘Significant imbalance’ concerned with the parties’ rights and obligations, which can be seen as disproportionate financial sanctions; their ‘Terms and Conditions’ appear to seek to remove the consumers rights, while removing their obligations, but allowing them to make an unjustified windfall gain. We also stated that we believe the guidance and statements by the CMA, suggested that since the wedding we had planned couldn't go ahead (we'd be breaking the law with the numbers we wanted) on our planned date, and that a reasonable person wouldn't expect the wedding to go ahead when we cancelled the date, that we should receive a full refund as they were not out of pocket. We gave EWC 14 days to respond...it took them 6 hours, basically refusing our request while coated in lashings of sarcasm and arrogance.   I'm guessing my next step would be Letter before Action? Any help much appreciated. Attached is the "Contract" - removed the signatures, but you can see the whole contract. The booking form has no Ts&Cs or costs of any kind, just addresses, personal info and the vehicles.     EWC-Contract.pdf
    • The firm's shares fell more than 20% as investors worry that demand for its pricey exercise machines is waning.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Lowell/Overdales (Eon) N1 Court Claim received.


Aterlatus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Answers as per the sticky are below. Rounded numbers in brackets. :)

 

Name of the Claimant ?

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd

 

Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 

29/10/2021

16/11/2021 to acknowledge

30/11/2021 to defend

 

Particulars of Claim

1.The claim is for the sum of (£600) due by the Defendant under a E.on Energy Solutions Limited account with an account reference of 01234567890

 

2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required under the terms of the account agreement.

 

3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 30-09-20, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of (£50).

The Claimant claims the sum of (£650)

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?

I have a letter from Overdales (11/08/2021) headed "Letter of Claim - 30 days to prevent legal action" if that fits the bill...

 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?

Yes, although Eon were aware of the new address - the bill is from my last property.


What is the total value of the claim?

Around £650

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? 

No, utility bill

 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?

Over the phone

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?

Mid 2015

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?

Yes, from Feb 2017 to Feb 2019. Account was open until I moved in early 2016 but there is no history from that period.

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. 

I think it was sold to Lowell, but it was some time back so memories are sketchy.

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? 

I recall seeing something when it went to Lowell, but couldn't find the letter for the details.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? 

No N/A

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? 

No N/A

 

Why did you cease payments?

Outstanding amount is disputed (resulted from two months significantly increased bills - circa £250/mo). Disputed with Eon at the time who were uninterested and would not respond to communication.

 

What was the date of your last payment?

Circa April 2016

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? 

Yes - small 2-bed mid-terrace house had significantly increased bills for two months compared to the surrounding months (circa £250/mo). Asked for additional information and for the meters to be checked but was ignored.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? 

No.

 

 

 

My primary concern now is I could really do without this ending up as a stain on my credit file - hoping to be buying a house for my family within a few years. Is it still the case that even if it gets to court and the judgement was against me, a rapid payment would prevent it going on my credit file? I'm also obviously open to any support that is available in fighting this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be an easy one to win

 

We rarely lose util claims to lowell

 

In our enhanced google search box type in..

 

Lowell clainform util

 

And get aos and cpr done.

 

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

Nothing unusual for lowell s....most util debt claim s are simply made on scant info hoping defendant wets themselves...and coughs up.

keep scratching..get aos and crp done asap

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

AOS complete and CPR is in the post. The one thing that jumped out at me whilst putting together the CPR request was that there's no reference to a default notice in the POC, although Eon did stick a default on my file in 2019 (long after they stopped supplying and with no default notice).

Link to post
Share on other sites

not covered by the consumer credit act so dont issue default notices.

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

time to get reading up here now as detailed earlier

 

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

  • Andyorch changed the title to Lowell/Overdales (Eon) N1 Court Claim received.
  • 2 weeks later...

I've had a response to the CPR now. Letter with redacted details is attached.

 

There was also a final statement from Eon included which still doesn't give me the information I need to verify the legitimacy of the bill (unsurprisingly - eon couldn't produce it when I first disputed). I also note there is no account number on that final bill to verify.

 

Any tips before I get the defence drafted up this evening? How far do I go with it? The POC is extremely wooly so keeping just to the points will be difficult, but I don't want to hand over the back story if they don't already have it.

Overdales.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of lowell util claimform threads here to base yours on get reading up put your defence up here well in advance for checking..needs filing by 4pm tomorrow.

 

Mention the useless cpr return with no account no.

 

use our enhanced google search box.

 

you see our std no paperwork/holding numerous times

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

Particulars of claim

 

1.The claim is for the sum of (£600) due by the Defendant under a E.on Energy Solutions Limited account with an account reference of 01234567890

 

2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required under the terms of the account agreement.

 

3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 30-09-20, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of (£50).

The Claimant claims the sum of (£650)

 

 

 

Draft defence:

 

1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with EON Energy Solutions Ltd in the past. I resided at the property of supply from (August 2015) up until (April 2016) at which time I vacated the property and moved to a new address whereupon my new supplier was Npower and therefore it is not possible to leave a remaining unpaid balance. During the period of supply I made contractual payments to the sum of (£800) to Eon Energy Solutions Ltd.

 

3. There was and still remains an unresolved dispute with EON which was never resolved prior to the assignment of the alleged debt. Furthermore, the claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.

 

4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by EON and are therefore prevented from charging.

 

5. The claimant has thus far been unable to produce any evidence that the alleged debt has been legally assigned to them.


Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.

1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be available at the hearing.


With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -


        a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement.
        b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.
        c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

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

 

7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tidied your defence and made a few tweaks...looks good.

 

Andy

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...