Lowell Portfolio Ltd.

[cymosa]

I had a letter from Lowell Portfolio in February alluding to the fact that they might make me bankrupt. I then received a Statutory Demand under the Insolvency Act 1986. They claimed they had bought the debt by way of debt sale agreement claiming £5,500. The Statutory Demand was completed in a slap-dash manner, Lowell Portfolio claiming to be a Government Department or Minister of the Crown. My defence to the demand included a paragraph regarding unfair terms regulations (reconfigured from the Consumer Action website) in line with the claim for bank charges, re Wilson versus Lowe 1896.

 

Lowell Portfolio failed to attend the Insolvency Hearing. The judge made reference to the fact that I had "a reasonably good chance of success" regarding the claim of £5,500 being a penalty. Because Lowell Porltfolio did not attend the hearing the judge threw the Statutory demand out. Hope this helps others.

 

Graham

[tooth_fairy]

Excellent news!

[ODC]

What a bunch of T****rs. Who do they think they are dealing with. Someone should teach them how to use Photoshop properly

[ICO]

I had a letter from Lowell Portfolio in February alluding to the fact that they might make me bankrupt. I then received a Statutory Demand under the Insolvency Act 1986. They claimed they had bought the debt by way of debt sale agreement claiming £5,500. The Statutory Demand was completed in a slap-dash manner, Lowell Portfolio claiming to be a Government Department or Minister of the Crown. My defence to the demand included a paragraph regarding unfair terms regulations (reconfigured from the Consumer Action website) in line with the claim for bank charges, re Wilson versus Lowe 1896.

 

Lowell Portfolio failed to attend the Insolvency Hearing. The judge made reference to the fact that I had "a reasonably good chance of success" regarding the claim of £5,500 being a penalty. Because Lowell Porltfolio did not attend the hearing the judge threw the Statutory demand out. Hope this helps others.

 

Graham

 

 

Hi there !!!

 

Just a quickie and sorry if I sound stupid, but did you attend court to have the SD set aside ???And that is when it got thrown out as Lowell didn't show ???

 

I had an SD sent via second class post around the same time !!! Same sort of stuff included in mine !! I didn't apply to have it set aside as they sent it to the wrong address too !!! Nor have I acknowledged it . . .

 

Have you heard anything from Lowell since the SD ????

[thinksmart]

Been there too! My hearing for setting aside comes up soon. Same shody form filling. Pretty sure Lowell Portfolio won't attend as they have no case but they are ignoring all my letters. Have advised them that I will be seeking costs and loss of revenue from work and that I will also be suing them for harrassment and trying to embezzle money to which they are not entitled. No response appears to me to be their modus operandi. Here's a thought... not sure if it would be admissible but I'm wondering if it could be shown that they do this regularly and don't turn up to hearings then maybe they would be seen to be abusing the legal system, wasting court's time systematically and possibly even to be in contempt of Court. Any thoughts? Anyone else out their experienced similar? Might be fun to endanger their credit licence!

[cymosa]

Hi there !!!

 

Just a quickie and sorry if I sound stupid, but did you attend court to have the SD set aside ???And that is when it got thrown out as Lowell didn't show ???

 

I had an SD sent via second class post around the same time !!! Same sort of stuff included in mine !! I didn't apply to have it set aside as they sent it to the wrong address too !!! Nor have I acknowledged it . . .

 

Have you heard anything from Lowell since the SD ????

HI,

Yes I applied to have it set aside.

Graham

[cymosa]

Been there too! My hearing for setting aside comes up soon. Same shody form filling. Pretty sure Lowell Portfolio won't attend as they have no case but they are ignoring all my letters. Have advised them that I will be seeking costs and loss of revenue from work and that I will also be suing them for harrassment and trying to embezzle money to which they are not entitled. No response appears to me to be their modus operandi. Here's a thought... not sure if it would be admissible but I'm wondering if it could be shown that they do this regularly and don't turn up to hearings then maybe they would be seen to be abusing the legal system, wasting court's time systematically and possibly even to be in contempt of Court. Any thoughts? Anyone else out their experienced similar? Might be fun to endanger their credit licence!

HI,

 

Haven't heard anything more from Lowell Portfolio since they didn't appear at court. I couldn't agree with you more. It is harrassment and a waste of court's time. I would've thought the courts themselves might have taken some action but am not familiar with court proceedings. I am in dispute with Capital One over PPI but judge said I would've probably been successful with Wilson versus Lowe argument. It's time Lowell Portfolio had some hassle.

 

Graham

[Belaflat]

To be honest, I think you all could have saved yourselves some money simply by ignoring these demands.

I am not knocking any of you though since before I found this site, I too would have been absolutely petrified at the prospect of being made bankrupt for what amounts to peanuts to these people.

There are plenty of people who have received them and heard no more as they are just a bluff in nearly all cases.

I had one from lowell ages ago followed by a "time is nearly up" letter with a reduced payment offer.

Never heard anything about that one since.

 

Out of interest, did these forms arrive by post or were they hand delivered by a process server and did the papers have a valid Court stamp on them.

 

If they were by normal post and unstamped, you could have safely ignored them.

[ODC]

To be honest, I think you all could have saved yourselves some money simply by ignoring these demands.

I am not knocking any of you though since before I found this site, I too would have been absolutely petrified at the prospect of being made bankrupt for what amounts to peanuts to these people.

There are plenty of people who have received them and heard no more as they are just a bluff in nearly all cases.

I had one from lowell ages ago followed by a "time is nearly up" letter with a reduced payment offer.

Never heard anything about that one since.

 

Out of interest, did these forms arrive by post or were they hand delivered by a process server and did the papers have a valid Court stamp on them.

 

If they were by normal post and unstamped, you could have safely ignored them.

 

Whilst not knocking anyone who fights with Clownells. I have used Belaflats plan myself. I ignore Clownells letters and threats and when they pass it to their paramiltary wing Hamptons Illegal I have done the same. I ignore their phone calls and pointless letters. Why??? you ask. The ALLEGED debt is small, and seeing what has happened here thay can never produce a CCA only an application form. The debt is almost certainly statute barred by now as we all know they bought a bunch of CApone debts that were nearing their sell by date. If in the very unlikely event they get their act together and I have to reply to them then with the advice I have learnt on here I will tie them up in so many knots that they will end up giving me money. They are W*****s and full of huff and puff.

[smarmymarmy]

Same thing happened to me- had a set aside granted and (touch wood!) haven,t heard a word from them since!

[thinksmart]

Just to say that all of the "official" advice that I could find on the net (by whch I mean sites which advise on debt problems) was most definitely NOT to ignore stautory demands. I wasn't aware they they required an official Court stamp but will try to find more about this.

[rory32]

"Here's a thought... not sure if it would be admissible but I'm wondering if it could be shown that they do this regularly and don't turn up to hearings then maybe they would be seen to be abusing the legal system, wasting court's time systematically and possibly even to be in contempt of Court. Any thoughts?"

 

thinksmart, the term you are looking for is "vexatious litigant".

[thinksmart]

Hmmm the word vexed me for a moment there - thank goodness for dictionary.com! Who would be vexing whom though? Certainly Lowell Portfolio have proven to be most vexatious. I understand that when acting for oneself a Court gives a certain amount of leeway - enough perhaps to chuck in some details of their other abuses of the legal system.

[ODC]

Courts will give ordinary members of the public a great deal of leeway because they dont know the procedures etc

 

However they will clamp down hard on Clownells solicitors who shoul after all know better. They are very severe on VEXATIOUS LITIGATION which in the case of Clownells would not be the hardest thing in the world to prove.

 

Most DCA cases never see the inside of a court because they rely on their bullying to scare people into paying. The simple truth is that if they had the proper proof of the debt and all the paperwork they would have you in Court quicker than you could say Vexatious Litigation

[rory32]

If convicted of being a vexatious litigant you can not raise any legal action against anyone without the prior consent of a High Court judge. It's always worth a try!!

[thinksmart]

Thanks guys - I hear a penny dropping somewhere in the back of my head and a letter brewing

[rory32]

If you require more info with regards to the implications of this term read here http://www.tsol.gov.uk/Publications/scheme_publications/internal_guidance/vexatious_litigants_policy.pdf

 

When I use this term solicitors suddenly don't want to speak to me, won't return my correspondence. And here was me think I was developing a pen pal

[thinksmart]

 

Out of interest, did these forms arrive by post or were they hand delivered by a process server and did the papers have a valid Court stamp on them.

 

If they were by normal post and unstamped, you could have safely ignored them.

 

Belaflat, where did you pick up information on Statutory Demands that aren't stamped by a Court being safe to ignore? I can't find anything that would confirm this is the case.

 

Kind regards,

 

Thinksmart

[Belaflat]

Its a standard tactic of DCa's.

Generally, sent by second class mail and easily downloaded from the internet.

If stamped by a court, then a process server would be the normal method of delivery.

The London gazette also carries record of authorised stat demands.

 

I have had 3 now and when it is delivered by hand I will take note, and then check first to see if it has been stamped by a Court office, but until such time, I will ignore.

 

When delivered by normal mail, unless you acknowledge its delivery, how can you say it has been duly served when procedures state that all attempts at personal service must have failed before it can be sent by post.

 

Mine and others personal experiences and passing on the same, not offering definitive advice.

[ODC]

You are quite correct Belaflat. There was a discussion on the forum last night and the relevant legislation quoted. There was a disennting voice however.

[thinksmart]

ODC is that discussion available for reading? Do you know which legislation it is?

 

Many thanks

[ODC]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/97074-statutory-demand-lowell-financial.html

 

Here you go. Make your own mind as to who is right and who is wrong