statutory demand from lowell financial

[magone]

Hi can any one advise on the following rec stautory demand from 1st credit ltd on behalf

connaught collections uk ltd

[ODC]

How did you recieve it

[Todge]

magone

 

Chances are good that you are NOT the first person to have received such a letter - have you searched the site for it?

 

(Something like '"consumer action group lowell connaught (add a few keywords from the letter)" and then press search.)

 

Have a read through some threads and, get busy.

 

(And if in doubt, ask.)

 

HTH,

T

[ODC]

A statutory demand should where possible be served in person. Recorde delivery is another acceptable method of service. If it arrived as a preprinted form in ordinary second class post I doubt that acourt would deem this appropriate service. After all Proof of postage is not proof of receipt.

[rory32]

Chances are good that you are NOT the first person to have received such a letter

You are far from the first to receive such a letter.

 

How much is the alleged debt?

 

Send them a CCA request. Even if it is a real SD (and it probably isn't) they can't do anything until they fulfill your CCA request.

[ICO]

Hi there, just to help maybe put your mind at rest, I along with many others recieved an SD from Lowell back in Feb/Mar.

 

They sent mine to an old address and since that SD I have heard nothing in nearly three months, not even a "you ignored our last letter" kind of thing.

 

Hope this helps put your mind at rest, it seems they are mass mailing these at the moment.

[Rameses]

Serving a stat d/n by 2nd class post is perfectly acceptable and fully accepted by the Courts. Only certain legal documents need to be personally delivered. (NB I am a process server).

 

Worth mentioning that as you have received it why would the Court NOT accept it as service? You received it!

 

Court rules also allow service of statutory demands at last known address. Something absconders often forget.

 

Best to accept you have been served and a bankrupcy petition may follow. Call the creditor and arrange payment!

[ODC]

Serving a stat d/n by 2nd class post is perfectly acceptable and fully accepted by the Courts. Only certain legal documents need to be personally delivered. (NB I am a process server).

 

Worth mentioning that as you have received it why would the Court NOT accept it as service? You received it!

 

Court rules also allow service of statutory demands at last known address. Something absconders often forget.

 

Best to accept you have been served and a bankrupcy petition may follow. Call the creditor and arrange payment!

 

 

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 (Practice Direction, 18 December 1986, [1987] 1 All ER 604). For this to be acceptable to the court, the creditor must have taken similar steps to those which would persuade the court to grant an order for substituted service of a petition (paragraph 45.121). In Re A Debtor (Nos 234 & 236 of 1991) The Independent 29 June 1992 it was confirmed by Blackett Ord QC that in some cases it may be appropriate to serve the statutory demand upon the Solicitors of the debtor.

 

6.11 Proof of service of statutory demand

(1) Where under section 268 the petition must have been preceded by a statutory demand, there must be filed in court, with the petition, an affidavit [or affidavits] proving service of the demand.

(2) [Every affidavit] must have exhibited to it a copy of the demand as served.

(3) Subject to the next paragraph, if the demand has been served personally on the debtor, the affidavit must be made by the person who effected that service. [Form 6.11]

(4) If service of the demand (however effected) has been acknowledged in writing either by the debtor himself, or by some person stating himself in the acknowledgement to be authorised to accept service on the debtor's behalf, the affidavit must be made either by the creditor or by a person acting on his behalf, and the acknowledgement of service must be exhibited to the affidavit.

 

(5) If neither paragraph (3) nor paragraph (4) applies, the affidavit [or affidavits] must be made by a person [or persons] having direct personal knowledge of the means adopted for serving the statutory demand, and must-

(a) give particulars of the steps which have been taken with a view to serving the demand [personally] , and

 

(b) state the means whereby (those steps having been ineffective) it was sought to bring the demand to the debtor's attention, and

 

© specify a date by which, to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person making the affidavit, the demand will have come to the debtor's attention. [Form 6.12]

(6) The steps of which particulars are given for the purposes of paragraph (5)(a) must be such as would have sufficed to justify an order for substituted service of a petition.

(7) If the affidavit specifies a date for the purposes of compliance with paragraph 5©, then unless the court otherwise orders, that date is deemed for the purposes of the Rules to have been the date on which the statutory demand was served on the debtor.

 

(8) Where the creditor has taken advantage of Rule 6.3(3)(newspaper advertisement), the affidavit must be made either by the creditor himself or by a person having direct personal knowledge of the circumstances; and there must be specified in the affidavit-

(a) the means of the creditor's knowledge or (as the case may be) belief required for the purposes of that Rule, and

 

(b) the date or dates on which, and the newspaper in which, the statutory demand was advertised under that Rule;

and there shall be exhibited to the affidavit a copy of any advertisement of the statutory demand.

(9) The court may decline to file the petition if not satisfied that the creditor has discharged the obligation imposed on him by Rule 6.3(2).

 

Or if You live in Northern Ireland

The High Court will regard an individual as being unable to pay his/her debts if either of the following occurs:

• A creditor who is owed more than £750 serves a 'statutory demand' for the money due and it is not paid or secured (for example, by a guarantee to provide something else of the same value); or a settlement is not agreed, within 21 days, and the debtor has not applied for the statutory demand to be set aside.

 

You can get a statutory demand from the Bankruptcy and Chancery Office at the High Court or from the forms section of our website. The forms for the statutory demand are:

 

• Form 6.01 - to be used for a debt for a specific amount which is payable now;
  
  
• Form 6.02 - to be used for a debt of a specific amount which is payable now following a judgment or order of court;
  
  
• Form 6.03 - to be used for a debt that is payable in the future.

The completed form must usually be served on the individual in person. The creditor must have proof of service, so it is usual to employ a process server to carry out this function (these are listed in Yellow Pages under 'detective agencies'). The High Court is not involved in the issuing of statutory demands, so no court fee is payable.

NB I am NOT a Process Server:rolleyes:

[livelylad]

I have unapproved posts in this thread, please stick to the topic of the thread. Personal attacks are not permitted. Please check advice which you post on this thread to ensure it is correct. Any user who deliberately posts misleading advice will be dealt with. Thank you.

[renegotiation]

'Serving a stat d/n by 2nd class post is perfectly acceptable and fully accepted by the Courts.' (Rameses)

 

Well from what I understand that just isn't true. I also fully stand by my deleted post. I certainly didn't see it as an 'attack'. Just being truthful. I don't see how else it could have been put. How can you leave that quote up?

 

Thank you.

[dannyboy660]

I've defended Rameses on previous threads and I'll do it again, on the grounds he has a right to be heard. The advice he gives, or comments he makes are often inaccurate or factually incorrect, but the idea that someone is prepared to argue a case for the DCA's is incredibly useful, and gives the opportunity to see things from a point of view you may not otherwise consider. To get a response from Rameses is an indication it must have riled him enough for him to react, and another pointer in the right direction. If we all agree all the time, we probably won't achieve much.

 

Let him/her be.

 

It's far easier to reply in the manner that ODC has, by discrediting your opponent with hard facts.......or by just ignoring them altogether if you're sure it's a load of old namby-pamby, shandy drinking, big girls blouse, Toadie pap.

[ODC]

'Serving a stat d/n by 2nd class post is perfectly acceptable and fully accepted by the Courts.' (Rameses)

 

Well from what I understand that just isn't true. I also fully stand by my deleted post. I certainly didn't see it as an 'attack'. Just being truthful. I don't see how else it could have been put. How can you leave that quote up?

 

Thank you.

I think I have proven the point by quoting current legislation. What proof of service could the DCA have if they send out mass mailing of so callled statutory demands. Most cases these refer to debts under the £ 750 minimum required for bankruptcy. How many of those received recently by clients with and ALLLEGED debt from the company in question have sought to hide their identity or 'abscond'. How many attempts have been made by a process server to serve the statutory demand. How many contained a witness statement to say they had ever attempted personal service. It is just another cheap and dubious ploy by this company to try to get folk to ring them. This just goes to show one of the many reasons why you should NEVER ring a DCA

[renegotiation]

I fear that people who feel vulnerable, threatened and very unsure of themselves might feel very uncomfortable after reading his words. I understand that he is the minority, but I still feel he can cause these unfortunate folk to be left with stressful, nagging and needless doubts in their minds. *Even if * we all say is he wrong. I hope no one construes this as an 'attack' on him.

[ODC]

Well lets hope that the people who come on here for HELP realise that the vast majority of posters try their best to help them cope with their problems and sort things out. Most people who have followed the simplistic advice of contacting the DCAs to negotiate with them will soon realise that they will do absolutely NOTHING to help. In fact the general advice from the DCAs contravenes so many sections of OFT guidelines its incredible they still hold licences

[toddle2u]

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

[ODC]

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

It would seem that the only way to deal with this disinformation is to continue to quote the FACTS to counter misleading posts. I did however notice the spelling of the word MOM in a certain post makes a telling point. It reminded me of a well known company who claim they are not regulated by British Law but by American Law. Maybe a freudian slip or pure coincidence. The law is easily accessible on the internet so the truth will always out.

[Vampyra]

I think personal attacks on Rameses are futile. We all know what it is like trying to reason with a DCA - to them reason and logic and the Law don't exist.

I think Dannyboy is right, allowing Rameses to express their inaccurate and often laughable opinions, (I'm sure they know it is just that and that is why they are doing it), does show how misguided people can be in the pursuit of money that is probably not theirs to claim.

 

HOWEVER, I think Rameses deliberately misleading and misguided post SHOULD have been removed initially but luckily ODC has been able to make a fool of Rameses' incorrect and misleading opinion.

 

Watch out for people trying to unsurp already clarified facts. DCA's have employees paid to sit on these forums and cause mischief. Trolls as they are known. It is a sad state of affairs that the DCA's are so desperate that they have to come onto forums like this and play childish games for their own gain.

 

Always wait to get a few answers to your queries and don't take the first answer you get as gospel.

[renegotiation]

I really hope no one gets irritated for me by just asking. However, I feel I must ask. How can the erroneous (knowingly so IMHO) comments of Rameses be allowed to remain in this thread? They have nothing to do with his supposed moral outlook. He is making a statement of FACT.

[ODC]

I really hope no one gets irritated for me by just asking. However, I feel I must ask. How can the erroneous (knowingly so IMHO) comments of Rameses be allowed to remain in this thread? They have nothing to do with his supposed moral outlook. He is making a statement of FACT.

He is not making a statement of FACT. He is claiming to. There is huge difference between actual FACT and claiming something to be a fact knowing and having been proven that it is not a fact. Think of Josef Goebells and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information and you will get the picture:grin:

[renegotiation]

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.

[ODC]

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.

Facts cant though;)

[renegotiation]

Yes they can. :)

[ODC]

Yes they can. :)

Only if you work for a DCA

[renegotiation]

And if you're female... :confused: Ooops. Last post by me on this thread. Might get dangerous. Only joking ladies!

[ICO]

May I just thank ODC for ensuring the correct facts of the matter were put out there.

 

Most people on this tread are in debt for whatever reason and are not looking for excuses or an easy way out, they are looking for HELP (as ODC stated) and maybe feel like they are not alone, everyone in debt knows the emotional stress this can actually cause.

 

So thank you ODC for clarifying the facts for everyone.

 

I am sure there are people out there who appreciate the help, even if some are willing to disregard it and bring people down.