Lowell claimform - old Paypal Debt

[AndyOrch]

Must be headed Supplemental Witness Statement of xxxxxxx and ideally should only contain addition information which was not available or included at the time of your initial statement not a redraft but they will either accept or decline. Don't forget to serve a copy on the claimant's sol.

[robert_harper_2000]

ok I'll sent that off. Fingers crossed. Thanks for your support. Appreciate it

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, robert_harper_2000 said:

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.

surely this is NOT correct

brexit changed nothing.

you are pointing out the agreement is NOT a UK credit agreement but an EU one which could have been taken out in any country, not necessarily the UK. 

[robert_harper_2000]

Still not heard anything... is this typical?

[AndyOrch]

What are you waiting to hear and from whom ?

[robert_harper_2000]

Received a new court date. 3rd August now. So ....

[robert_harper_2000]

My main arguments are the 

 

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.

2. 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:

3. 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:

4. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a PayPal EU agreement. As a result, the agreement is not a UK credit agreement and could have been taken out in any country and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

 

[robert_harper_2000]

I’ve had a claimant witness statement come through today.

I, Amy Abdul, of Overdales Legal Limited whose registered address is PO Box 1399 Bradford

BD5 5GA, WILL SAY as follows:

1. I am a Paralegal employed by Overdales Legal Limited, the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant. I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my principals and I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on the Claimant's behalf.

2. The facts contained in this statement are known to me, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The Claimant's solicitors have access to the Claimant's case record systems, from which the information in this statement emanates.

3. I make this statement in addition to my Witness Statement dated 21 February 2023 (the

"Claimant's First Witness Statement"), and to respond to the Defendant's Witness Statement dated 4 April 2023 ("The Defendant's First Witness Statement"), and Correction to Part 2 Supplementary Witness Statement dated 13 April 2023.

4. The Defendant admits to receiving the Default Notice on 18 January 2020, however disputes the validity of the Notice on the basis that the length of time provided to remedy the account was insufficient in accordance with section 88 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant submits 2 further days were required to account for service of the Default

5. The Defendant alleges the Agreement is not properly executed pursuant to s61 Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it lacks the signature, IP address or tick box verification as required S4 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic Agreements.

6. The Defendant alleges the Agreement is a pre-Brexit PayPal EU Agreement and as a result of Brexit the Jurisdiction of such Agreements have changed and the Agreement falls outside the Jurisdiction of this Court.

 

7. The Claimant submits that the Defendant initially stated he was not aware of service of a

Default Notice by the Original Creditor' within paragraph 2 of his Defence.

8. The Defendant has since admitted to receiving the Default notice on 18 January 2 within paragraph 2 of the Defendant's First Witness Statement. The Claimant submits the Defendant is clearly inconsistent in his submissions.

9. The Claimant submits that whilst the Defendant was not provided with the 2 days for service, the Defendant was provided with 14 days to rectify the arrears and sent Notice of Sums in Arrears and Notice of Default Sums prior to the Default Notice. The Claimant submits that the Defendant was aware of the arrears prior to the Default Notice and therefore submits that the lack of 2 days is de minimus. Copies of the Notice of Sums in Arrears are hereto exhibited at ("AA1") of the Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement.

10. The Claimant submits that the Agreement has been electronically signed in the Defendant's name and is therefore deemed to be executed correctly. The. Claimant further submits that the Defendant admitted to entering into dealings with the Original Creditor within paragraph 1 of his Defence. The Claimant submits that the Defendant did not raise the illegibility of the Agreement as part of his Defence and therefore cannot rely on this at the hearing.

11. The Claimant submits that the Agreement clearly states the law governing the Agreement is English Law. Therefore the Claimant rejects the Defendant's assertion that the Court does not have Jurisdiction on the matter.

 

12. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to serve his First Witness Statement in accordance with the directions of the Order dated 7 February 2023 by District Judge Harper. The Order clearly states 'Each party must deliver to the other party and to the Court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing'. The hearing was listed for 14 April 2023, therefore the Defendant's Witness Statement was required to be received by the Claimant no later than 31 March 2023. The Defendant's First Witness Statement is dated 4 April 2023, which is not in compliance with the Court's Order. Therefore the Claimant requests the Defendant's First Witness Statement and Supplementary Statements are disregarded for the purposes of the Claim.

13. The Claimant refers the Court to the High Court decision in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd Langhelle [2020] EWHC 2500 (Ch), in which the Court held that an application to admit witness evidence which had been filed and served late should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has no made any application for relief, and therefore the Defendant's Witness Statements nor his oral evidence should be permitted at the hearing.

14. In any event, the Claimant submits that the Defendant did not raise his submissions regarding the illegible Agreement and Default Notice within his Defence and therefore cannot rely upon such at this time.

15. The Claimant reiterates paragraph 23 of the Claimant's First Witness Statement, 'the Claimant submits that it has attempted to settle the Claim with the Defendant on multiple occasions, but has been unsuccessful in its attempts. The Defendant has continued to re-request information that has previously been sent to the Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant submits that the Defendant has intentionally avoided settling the Claim'.

The Claimant submits that it has now received further information in relation to the single transaction.

The Original Creditor has stated the following 'The account was used to make one transaction of £3,299.00 on 20 August 2019. The transaction was disputed by the suyer as not being as described. However as the item was confirmed as received, the Claim was denied on 17 September 2019 and the interest reinstated'. Therefore the valance is payable.

Doc_by_Scan_Shot.pdf

[robert_harper_2000]

So it’s court next week…

[rarelydarely]

I wish I could offer advice but can only offer support. I don't know what I would have done if mine had got this far. Only thing I can suggest is make notes of what you want to say, try not to waffle (hard I know) and make sure the judge knows you are not a professional.

[dx100uk]

only speak when spoken too, only answer as you have done in your defence/WS.

dont allow any little chats outside before you go in...smile walk away.

their WS arguments that you owe them anything are really very very weak, esp as it results from an outstanding dispute with the original creditor PayPal EU..

and are mostly hearsay evidence and speculation/assumptions with no real evidence.

dx

 

[robert_harper_2000]

But how do I say that in legal speak

[dx100uk]

you dont have too, whomever said you did?

you are a Litigant In Person, joe public ..you are not expected to be familiar at speaking legalese.

 

dx

 

[robert_harper_2000]

But what is the legal arguments

[dx100uk]

well i hope you should know this by now , you've filed a defence and your WS......

 

dx

 

[robert_harper_2000]

But I mean counters to their counters

[dx100uk]

the same as what was stated more than 2 yrs ago at the start of this thread and xx pages ago rob.

we cant hold your hand..you dont counter their counter claims. they are BS.

 

[robert_harper_2000]

But the judge will surely say xxxx

what do I say to the whole although not having two days

I mean having been shorted two days

they did receive the secondary and third notices.

So the additional notices are invalid end of

[dx100uk]

its all a red herring. total bs. to divert away from they have nothing really enforceable. just a typed name ! nothing else.

NOSIA are just a std letter they must send, nothing to do with enforceability rob.

its simply a duty of a creditor under FCA rules to send them. means nothing to your case 

so what you were late..it doesn't matter. pulling at straws you are a LiP and have leeway.

stop being distracted by BS the judge wont be.

as an example (you can do this yourself ROB)!!..time to actually work on your own not nursemaiding ..you are the one up there NOT us.. you've had more than a year to get ready..

 

On 27/07/2023 at 17:15, robert_harper_2000 said:

The. Claimant further submits that the Defendant admitted to entering into dealings with the Original Creditor within paragraph 1 of his Defence.

no you DID not say that you said...what? go look..

On 27/07/2023 at 17:15, robert_harper_2000 said:

The Claimant submits that the Defendant did not raise the illegibility of the Agreement as part of his Defence and therefore cannot rely on this at the hearing.

how could i - i didnt ask for copies until AFTER the claimform arrived...etc etc 

 

 

[dx100uk]

On 27/07/2023 at 17:15, robert_harper_2000 said:

4. The Defendant admits to receiving the Default Notice on 18 January 2020,

but not from the oc on the date it was written.  schematics' to confuse the judge 

its all lies...disprove each statement 1 by 1 in your notes to take with you.

 

[robert_harper_2000]

Lost

Judge said the default notice was invalid but he spent 40 minutes finding a case Brandon Vs American Express (as the solicitor they sent said he has no defence for the invalid notice)

 

he said the agreement is valid

 

Jurisdiction issue he said isn’t valid as it says valid in English Law

[rarelydarely]

sorry to hear this after you long journey :(

[robert_harper_2000]

Win some lose some. Judge spent 40 mins finding a case to help the solicitor!

[dx100uk]

blimey the ole brandon case.

he must have heard of it it was about 2011, but hasnt really come into play since.

i think you suffered judge lottery here, else they play golf together.

 

dx