statutory demand from lowell financial

[Rameses]

Firstly my thanks to those who defended me.

 

Interesting that certain persons want my threads deleted because they are supposedly inaccurate, (it was not, see below), but rarely whine and moan and request other inaccurate threads be deleted from those supporting/siding with a debtor.

 

Was I inaccurate? No. Sadly too many persons think they are experts because they read a few practise notes and are skilled at cutting and pasting. The legislation says, " Where it is not possible to effect prompt personal service, service may be effected by other means such as first class post or insertion through a letter box". Does it say, "must". No it does not. Does it say, "only by". No it does not. Let us read it again, "such as". As a process server I have access to countless solicitors and their opinions. Not one I have spoken to says the basic stat demand MUST be served by 1st class post. Why? Because that is not what legislation says!

 

I look forward to full apologies from 'Vampyra', 'Toddle' and 'ODC' .

 

Finally, I am a process server and do undertake work for DCA's, Sols (amongst others). I am not a salaried employee of any DCA.

[ICO]

The legislation says, " Where it is not possible to effect prompt personal service, service may be effected by other means such as first class post or insertion through a letter box".

 

 

I refer to the "where it is not possible" . . . . I would assume they can find my house with sat nav, so maybe I just don't understand that

 

I had one served second class .... So where does that leave me, cause I find that a little strange . . .

[dom2]

Hello Rameses,

I've been following a few threads with interest.

Respect to you for getting involved. Good to have a different perspective and should be valued.

Please though, however tempting, let's keep the temperature down!

I'm enjoying the discussions:)

[Rameses]

Thanks dom 2, I assure you I am chilled!!

 

Ever tried to get process server to 'promptly'?

 

Also, do you think turning up at Court and stating that the stat demand you received and looked at was only posted 2nd class is a good defence? You received it, it was served!

[ICO]

Thanks dom 2, I assure you I am chilled!!

 

Ever tried to get process server to 'promptly'?

 

Also, do you think turning up at Court and stating that the stat demand you received and looked at was only posted 2nd class is a good defence?

 

It is also wrong to send it if you have no intention of going ahead with it. I had mine sent months ago, strangely at a time when everyone did, it seems as though DCA's are using this as a scare tactic, which I think is wrong !!

[tomterm8]

Thanks dom 2, I assure you I am chilled!!

 

Ever tried to get process server to 'promptly'?

 

Also, do you think turning up at Court and stating that the stat demand you received and looked at was only posted 2nd class is a good defence? You received it, it was served!

 

Wow… unprecedented… I actually agree with Rameses.

 

The statutory demand is served on you when you recieve it. Improperly served is only a valid reason where you don't recieve it...

 

In order to use this defence, you would have to lie to a court.

 

I wouldn't advise that.

 

I would advise going to court and getting the stat demand overturned, however. it's generally quite easy, as almost every stat demand is going to contain an unlawful penalty charge and since judges hate granting bankruptcy orders to creditors.

[ODC]

Thanks dom 2, I assure you I am chilled!!

 

Ever tried to get process server to 'promptly'?

 

Also, do you think turning up at Court and stating that the stat demand you received and looked at was only posted 2nd class is a good defence? You received it, it was served!

Posted 2nd class . Unless a debtor admits receiving it what proof is there that the debtor has actually received it. The preferred method of service is PERSONAL SERVICE. What possible reason could a process server have for not serving a statutory demand by personal service. After all the DCAs have been writing to the alleged debtor for months before thinking of issuing a SD, so they know the addtess of the alleged debtor, I have served many summonses for court in my life and have 99% of the time been able to effect personal service. Any time I could not personally serve I was required to swear in front of the court a valid reason why perosnal service was not possible. You IMHO are twisting the rules of law to suit your point of view. I still maintain with good reason that second class post is not lawful service. If as you say you are a process server what is to ail you calling at the alleged debtors door and hand the stat demand on someone apparently over the age of 16 yrs in the premises. This IMHO would be regarded as better and more lawful service than a mass mailing by second class post. Please do not treat me as some idiot doling out the wrong advice. Second class post would only ever be considered in real life if the process server was incapable of serving thne document and satisfied the courts that he/she had tried every method of PERSONAL SERVICE.

[ODC]

I look forward to full apologies from 'Vampyra', 'Toddle' and 'ODC' .

 

.

 

Keep looking

[Vampyra]

I will be surprised if people that read through the thread don't know exactly (rhetorical) what I mean. I can't be bothered to qualify and elaborate my post. No point. I have a background in philosophy. Meaning can always be dissolved and distorted.

 

Then you would also agree that it would not be sensible to take the first opinion you are given as gospel.

 

Yes, meaning can always be dissolved and distorted by those with a remit to!

[Vampyra]

Posted 2nd class . Unless a debtor admits receiving it what proof is there that the debtor has actually received it. The preferred method of service is PERSONAL SERVICE. What possible reason could a process server have for not serving a statutory demand by personal service. After all the DCAs have been writing to the alleged debtor for months before thinking of issuing a SD, so they know the addtess of the alleged debtor, I have served many summonses for court in my life and have 99% of the time been able to effect personal service. Any time I could not personally serve I was required to swear in front of the court a valid reason why perosnal service was not possible. You IMHO are twisting the rules of law to suit your point of view. I still maintain with good reason that second class post is not lawful service. If as you say you are a process server what is to ail you calling at the alleged debtors door and hand the stat demand on someone apparently over the age of 16 yrs in the premises. This IMHO would be regarded as better and more lawful service than a mass mailing by second class post. Please do not treat me as some idiot doling out the wrong advice. Second class post would only ever be considered in real life if the process server was incapable of serving thne document and satisfied the courts that he/she had tried every method of PERSONAL SERVICE.

 

Just making an observation, but as 2nd Class post may be considered a pretty unsafe way to serve any form of court papers, so would ordinary 1st class, surely?

 

How many times have any of you not recieved post either on time or at all that you know has been posted 1st class? In my time many DCA's have claimed to send me certain letters and I genuinely didn't recieve them.

 

Remember people, what you do unto others returns to you three fold, good and bad!

[toddle2u]

Ramses

Although your second posting has slightly more details and merit than your earlier one your arguement is still fundamentally flawed as pointed out by ODC. You certainly won't be getting an apology from me. If you are indeed a process server what merit does that give to your supposed legal knowledge? After all you only do what your boss tells you to!

[renegotiation]

I am not making this post in relation to the argument on this thread. I have made my point. It is solely directed at the being Rameses. I can't believe that you spend your leisure time on here mate. You work as a process server and then come on here in your leisure time? Wow! What is your agenda? You say you are just being moralistic. I for one don't believe a word of it. Lawfulness of bank charges challenged... C.C.A. requests to challenge debts... How about we all club together to think of one to make the life of a process server more difficult? Ha ha. I hope you find some 'real' happiness in life, as I certainly don't believe it is supplied by doing what you do on this site.

 

So people am I making some fair points here, albeit with a joke thrown in? Or am I being nasty and this is an 'attack'? Maybe just describing the man 'sounds' nasty to the people that read the description? I'm not going to be on here for a few weeks so won't have the luxury of reading your response (if any). Adios.

[livelylad]

I note with interest that my post pointing pointing out that the information posted by Rameses has been deleted but his has not. This is a disturbing trend as I would have thought it better to delete postings that are factually and legally incorrect and therefore the people seeking advice and clarification would not be misled and possibly act on the false information.

Dannyboy I think the contents of your post defending Ramses is at best misguided. Why should he have a voice when the advice he has given is wrong. I do not see anything in his post that 'argues the case for the DCA's' - just an incorrect statement

 

Ok just to clarify, we are not here to censor people. We are here to moderate threads and enforce the rules and guidlines set out by the site owners. We all here to promote healthy debate, come up with the facts/best option and proceed. To that end the post by Rameses that you refer to has been left because the post by ODC rebuffs his arguement. This allows people to decide which is correct so that should this question arise again there is a reference.

I think you can guess where I am going with this one.

[toddle2u]

Livelylad - Point taken.

 

Renegotiation - I think you are right Rameses just seems to come into discussions make some obtuse comment and then make no further comments when he is shot down in flames. Just the sort of constructive member CAG needs!

[varbene]

Rameses would you actually process byway of second clas or first clas post or would prefer to establish a moreelaborate yet secure way of serving a stat demand or other set of papers?

 

In the caseof mostof the dca's refered to in thesethreadsitisnot relevant given that they clearly have no intention of processing the statutory demand but merely use it as another threat which is presumably why they opt for second class post initially rather than employing the serivces of someone such as yourself.

 

If I were a process server (and beleive me when i say i see nothing wrong with that as a profession) I would be equally cheesed off with the tactics of the dca's who are effectively doing you out of a job by not using you to serve papers.

 

I have no doubt that factually and legally you are correct but as these dcas opted for 2nd class post at the outset no attempt has been made to follow due process so they would not stand in court but it doesnt really matter as the dca is not trying to take it to court they are just trying to frighten people.

[rory32]

no attempt has been made to follow due process so they would not stand in court but it doesnt really matter as the dca is not trying to take it to court they are just trying to frighten people

 

Maybe that's why over 90% of SD's never lead to bankruptcy petitions.

[plymouthvictim]

STATUTORY DEMANDS CAN BE FOUGHT SUCCESSFULLY.

 

I recently sent this long e-mail to Lowell Financial.

 

You have contacted us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by ourselves.

 

We would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

We would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

 

The last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

 

We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

Please supply me with All my personal data you hold including a complete list of transactions and charges (or alternatively a set of statements) relating to my account history with your organization or any you are representing. I also require a complete breakdown of each Late Payment fee and Over Limit fee charged to this account, or any similar related charges. The complete breakdown of each charge must contain the following:

 

Hourly rate of each member of staff involved with each administration of the fees / charges. The time each member of staff spent on the administration of the fees/charges. Details of the work carried out and completed by each member of staff involved with each administration of the fees/charges. Total cost of the paper, envelopes, ink, and postage of each automated and manually written letter relevant to the issuing of the fees/charges, and any other costs incurred in each fee/charge including other employee’s involvement, their hourly rate, time spent on the involvement, and what their involvement consisted of.

 

Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person or any that you represent, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you or any that you represent. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response.

 

Furthermore please provide me with a copy of my contracts with you and any company you represent, and a copy of my original terms and conditions. I make this request under the Data Protection Act 1984 and 1998, and including the right of subject access under these acts.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, I am entitled to receive a true SIGNED copy of any credit agreements and a statement of account on request.

 

I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12 working days.

 

I further understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account under these sections of the Act.

 

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing. I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls.

 

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only. I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine. Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded.

 

Following recent contact with your company before I am prepared to take this matter of outstanding balance and make ANY payments I would like you to provide me with the following information.

 

I do not acknowledge ANY debt to your company.

I require you to supply the following documentation before I will correspond further on this matter.

 

1. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged agreement you refer to. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of the agreement under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77 (1) for fixed sum credit) - your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account.

 

2. A signed true copy of the deed of assignment of the above referenced agreement that you allege exists.

 

3. You are notified that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not under S189 of the CCA 1974.

 

Non-compliance with my request is a criminal offence under the above Act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory authorities.

 

As you are aware, a credit agreement that is not properly documented and signed by the customer is totally unenforceable under the CCA and therefore is a complete defence to any court claim that is issued.

 

Take note at this stage, that any legal action you may contemplate will be both vigorously defended and contested. Plus take notice that this Capital One account was dealt with by way of an admin order at the County Court, which ended two years ago, and is now therefore statute barred.

 

Our researchers have been doing some digging into the unlawful behaviour of your company, Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd / Lowell Financial Ltd / Red, and have discovered some interesting facts. These we now intend to bring in a group civil action in the High Court case against you. This research has included interviews with present and past employees of your companies. Take notice that a complaint has been filed with Devon and Cornwall Police.

 

1. That the aforementioned companies are in breach of their licence with the OFT, number Z8222569 which covers them for the tracing of consumer and commercial debtors and the collection on behalf of creditors, and the purchasing of trade debts, including rentals and instalment credit payments, from business only. Therefore, the attempted collection of consumer debt is not within your licence remit and therefore illegal.

 

2. That the aforementioned companies send out 'solicitors' letters when in fact they have not come from any solicitor registered with The Law Society, and details of this have been passed to The Law Society for action to be taken, which will result in severe penalties and fines being levied on Lowell Portfolio / Lowell Financial / Hamptons / Red, whatever you call yourselves.

 

3. That the aforementioned companies failed to satisfactory respond to consumers Section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 requests and fail to produce genuine copies of credit agreements or the like, which is again an illegal act under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and therefore our research and findings have been passed to the Office of Fair Trading for enforcement action to be taken against you. You agree and are aware that under law, such requests must be satisfied in full within 12 working days. In fact that is such requests are not fulfilled within 40 days, this becomes a criminal offence. A complaint has been filed with Devon and Cornwall Police log 319 of 22-02-08

 

4. That the aforementioned companies sent out threatening Statutory Demands that are signed by an individual claiming to be a Government Minister, when in fact that person is not. Again, this is highly illegal, and a file with the assistance of the Police is being prepared and will be sent to The Crown Prosecution Service for action to be brought against your companies. Further, the service of such Statutory Demands by 2nd class post is in breach of the rules, and therefore not enforceable in court. This is in direct breach of Administration of Justice Act 1970, Section 40 onwards.

 

5. That the aforementioned companies repeatedly telephone consumers chasing payments that are not owed, or are in dispute, despite being warned by the telephone regulator not to, and thus is in direct breach of Communications Act 2003, Section 127, and Human Rights Act 1990, Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life, and Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, misuse. All telephone calls to us have been recorded for use as evidence in the High Court, where we intend to claim for substantial damages against the aforementioned companies. A report is also being compiled and will be sent to the telephone regulator with a view to having the phone lines of the aforementioned companies cut off under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

I have just got off the phone with a Nigel Bevan at Lowell Financial, and he has stated that he has withdrawen the Statutory Demand, and that they have no entitlement to collect the alleged sum, and that a full letter of apology will be with me on Monday morning.

 

I await the letter before I stop the set aside court action I have taken, and then I will issue court proceedings against them for damages.

 

I'VE WON!

[plymouthvictim]

I have today recieved by recorded delivery a letter from the directors of the Lowell Group, saying that they have withdrawn the SD, and have no entitlement to collect the alleged debt. To me that is an open admission that they are in the wrong.