Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 2nd class stamp only , get free proof of posting from any PO counter dx  
    • Hi,  It has been a long time but I have had confirmation claim will proceed to hearing in roughly 1 months time.  I was wondering if anyone could advise on defence please.  A few questions I have are: 1) I didn't notify VCS that I was not the driver of the vehicle and the judge may look negatively on this point.  I did not receive any direction in correspondence from VCS  that I should inform them if I was not the driver and that was going to be the foundation for may argument on this point. 2) The vehicle is stopped at a zebra crossing.  Based on the images from VCS for around 10 seconds.  At that time there is someone standing near the zebra crossing and someone else enters my vehicle.  I was going to raise the point that stopping at a zebra crossing when someone is standing near it is to be expected.  I was also going to ask the question how you can have a no stopping zone when there are zebra crossings where the driver is required to stop. 3) The no stopping zone is clearly signposted, however, no drop off or pickup is not clearly signposted with one small sign at the zebra crossing, parallel to the road and on the passengers side.  I was going to challenge that no-drop off or pickup is clearly signposted.  4) VCS mentioned my initial defence was generic and clearly copied from the internet.  It covered 1) Claimant not being in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.  2) No evidence that claimant's contract with landowner supersedes byelaws & signage isn't legally binding contract. 3) No contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on speculative charge. I am interested to know if anyone has had success or been unsuccessful with this 'generic' defence. 5) If I should submit an updated defence to the court based on questions 1, 2 & 3.  Or if it is better to only raise these points in court? Thanks.  Any guidance would be appreciated  
    • I honestly don't know, Baz. In addition what I don't  understand (from that pamphlet) is this: The s88 criteria are quite clear and don't need a medical professional to interpret them . The one most relevant to his topic says that an application is not a "qualifying application" if a relevant disability has been declared. The problem with the word "may" is how does the applicant establish whether me "may" driver under s88 when he has not complied with its conditions? I don't know the answer to that either. But to further muddy the waters, the pamphlet says this (about : But the s88 statute says absolutely nothing like that at all. It simply says that if you have declared a relevant disability s88 does not apply. The DVLA pamphlet is simply confusing as far as I can see. That's actually my opinion and that's what I would stick to if it was me making the application. But I'll seek a few opinions from others over the next couple of days.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell claimform - old Paypal Debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 306 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Court date hearing and hearing fee date does not signify the dates from the N157 when each party must file/exchange their statement and evidence by ?

  • 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 OTHER

 

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

Yes n157 and all the exhibit s too.

 

Dx

  • Like 1

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

On 11/03/2023 at 07:35, robert_harper_2000 said:

Case going to court next month. They sent a lot of papers but nothing on the actual drbt

 

You should have posted the N157 with your post above on the 11th March then we would have plenty of time to prepare and also know the date that you should file and serve by, although DX seems to know your 4 days late somehow even though you are yet to upload the N157 Notice of Allocation.

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 OTHER

 

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

I can’t seem to find this allocation can I access through the MoneyClaim gov site?

 

A claim was issued against you on 31/05/2022

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 11/06/2022 at 09:37:18

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 13/06/2022 at 01:06:11

Your defence was submitted on 27/06/2022 at 12:12:40

Your defence was received on 27/06/2022 at 14:05:09

DQ filed by claimant on 02/08/2022

DQ sent to you on 02/08/2022

You filed a DQ on 19/08/2022

Your claim was transferred to BRIGHTON on 27/09/2022

 

My DN 

DN1-merged.pdf

  1. Invalid Default Notice: On [date of receiving the Default Notice], I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 7 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach. As the Default Notice only provided me with 7 days to comply, I argue that it is invalid.

 

 

apple-touch-icon.png Consumer Credit Act 1974

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

An Act to establish for the protection of consumers a new system, administered by the Director General of Fair Trading, of licensing and other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the supply of...

 

Dn bit Crap 

Again what's this about dn 7 days?? It's not!

 

The DN notice says I have 7 days. But the CCA S88 is it needs to be 14 days - I don't understand what I've said wrong? Paypal gave me 7 days when it should be 14?

 

 

 

sorry again. The date is 15.01.2020 and the date to be remedied by is 29.01.2020 so that is 14 days but doesn't allow +2 days for postage?

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I put yes 

 

How can you be given 14 days when it must have taken +2 days for the letter to reach you.........DN invalid

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

I really don't want them to win by default. You need to get your witness statement in. I never expected this to get to the hearing stage. Having skimmed the files you uploaded it seems they are using your lack of knowledge against you, don't let them. I think (please more knowledgeable correct me if wrong) you really must emphasise the Pre-Brexit issue & invalid default notice. But, you need to get your WS done & dusted a.s.a.p. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do it now working on it asap

 

Ok sk dn invalid due to postage time 

 

prebrexit rules need to find 

 

that’s the main points?

 

So this so far is going in the right direction

 

Invalid Default Notice:

  1. On [date of receiving the Default Notice], I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach, and this period should also account for the additional time needed for postage, which would be at least 2 days. In this case, the Default Notice provided me with 14 days to comply but did not include the extra 2 days for postage. Considering the postage time, the effective period provided for me to remedy the breach should have been 16 days, making the Default Notice invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

  1. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

  1. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

 

can't find the legislation regarding old PayPal pre brexit 

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall I send this off? Email the claimant and post to the courts? 
 

Invalid Default Notice:

  1. On 18.01.2020, I received a Default Notice from Paypal Europe SOrl  & Cie SCA, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach, and this period should also account for the additional time needed for postage, which would be at least 2 days. In this case, the Default Notice provided me with 14 days to comply but did not include the extra 2 days for postage. Considering the postage time, the effective period provided for me to remedy the breach should have been 16 days, making the Default Notice invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

  1. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

  1. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

 

1 hour ago, rarelydarely said:

I didn't quote any Brexit legislation. You will confuse yourself if you try. You have 2 issues that should have this struck out the DN & pre-brexit.  One or both of those issues saw my case discontinued.

 

The jurisdiction issue. But the agreement doesn't have an ip address 

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, robert_harper_2000 said:

The jurisdiction issue. But the agreement doesn't have an ip address

 

so they cant prove in what country it was signed up to in then..

 

12 hours ago, robert_harper_2000 said:

On [date of receiving the Default Notice], I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach, and this period should also account for the additional time needed for postage, which would be at least 2 days. In this case, the Default Notice provided me with 14 days to comply but did not include the extra 2 days for postage. Considering the postage time, the effective period provided for me to remedy the breach should have been 16 days, making the Default Notice invalid.

 

no thats not correct its NOT 16days its 14days by the act

BUT as the DN is dated the 15th with an expiry to remedy by 29th

so if was posted on the same day it was written,

it could not have arrived to you until atleast +2days into your allowed 14 days to remedy the default.

so DN is invalid. you were not given the acts full 14days .

 

 

you dont email a fleecer never!

 

and yes we need their FULL WS + exhibits but we DONT need account statements.

 

so your WS was due on april fools day...:pound:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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

Please do although in reality as it should have been already filed and served by date (unknown) it may be too late and your defence has already been struck out.

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 OTHER

 

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

No you will be informed before the hearing if they have invoked sanctions (struck out defence) informing you the claimant has judgment as you did not comply with the court directions on time.

 

 

.

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 OTHER

 

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

can you post up exactly what WS you filed please

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

exact default boiler plate ws amy files every time.

 

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

Any tips ? Do you have any cases to quote for the PayPal jurisdiction 

 

the case has been postponed. The court emailed yesterday to say they might delayed the case as they have double booked and they called this morning to say they will post out a new date for the case to be heard. Do I have extra time to correct witness statements?

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if you could file a supplementary witness statement?

getting things right this time  ?

 

cant see why not?

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

Shall I send it anyway and see if it is accepted it won’t do any harm. 
 

shall I upload my witness statement and would you take a look? I know I’ve been a bit doodoo so far. 
 

should I just quote legislation or do I need to include the actual legislation in the witness statement like quote the actual bit.

 

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

not before its thoroughly checked by the experts.

 

 

 

 

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

this better?

 

In the county Court at Brighton                                                           Claim No. xxxxxx


 

Mr xxxxxx -AND- Lowell Portfolio I LTD

 

Witness Statement of:

xx xxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

11/04/2023

 

Witness Statement for PayPal Credit Agreement Dispute

 

I, XXXXX, hereby declare that the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Background Information:

  1. I am the Defendant in this case, and I am disputing the validity of the Default Notice and the alleged Paypal credit agreement provided by the Claimant, Lowells. I believe the Default Notice is invalid and the credit agreement is not properly executed, as detailed below.

 

  1. On 18.01.2020, I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach. The Default Notice was dated the 15th, with an expiry to remedy by the 29th. Assuming it was posted on the same day it was written, it could not have arrived to me until at least 2 days later. As a result, I was not given the full 14 days required by the Act to remedy the default, since at least 2 days were used for postage. Therefore, I argue that the Default Notice is invalid.

 

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

  1. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.



 

Jurisdictional Issue:

  1. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

 

Statement of Truth:

  1. I, XXXX, confirm that the contents of this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Signed: XX

XXXXXXX

13.04.2023

 

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...