Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi All,

Finally received a somewhat interesting mail back from the Claimant today:

Dear ***********

We are in receipt of your recent written request for a copy of your executed credit agreement under Section 77(1) and / or 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Please note that the balance requested for payment is a service agreement and not a credit agreement as defined by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Our client has no obligation to provide a signed agreement under the provisions of the Act. For this reason we are returning the £1 fee sent with your letter.

All future correspondence with regards to this account should be addressed to Frederickson International who are acting on our behalf with regards to this matter. Their contact details are as follows:-

*******
*******
*******
*******

Yours Sincerely

Couple of questions/thoughts off the back of this would be A) Although the CCA request may be invalid as the underlying agreement is not a credit agreement, my CPR request still stands and should be responded too as normal? B) How does a CCJ work with a Service Agreement and C) The Claimant is palming me off too Frederickson International. I have no idea who this is and they are not mentioned on the Court Claim Form. Only BC and Lowell. Surely it should be the Claimant I should be dealing with?

I'm going to write back to them advising of the same. Am I right in thinking I should not be dealing with a company I am not familiar with and who are not mentioned in the Claim?

Thanks x

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi All,

Quick update here . . . I wrote back to the Claimant advising that I dont recognise Fredrickson Int as a party in my case as per the details outlined in the Court Claim Form. Also accepted their point on the CCA but advised that my CPR request is still valid and their duties and compliance under CPR 31 remain. Finally, emailed Court to advise Claimants Solicitors unwillingness to provide docs under CPR 31 and rejection of extension.

Soon as I hear anything more Ill be back on here!

Thanks x

[mystery1]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

http://neva.li/post/121393693

They may be wrong on the CCA point. Without sight of the contract it's hard to tell.

Writing a letter to the court is most likely useless. You need to make an application or defend. They can and probably will apply for a default judgement if you let the deadline pass without either an application or defence.

M1

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi mystery1,

Thanks for that post - I wonder if the author ever heard back from the OFT? There is a chance then that the contract could fall under the CCA 1974 and therefore my CCA request would be valid (but I cant tell without being given the original contract?)

I dont intend to let the deadline pass. When you say make an application, do you mean application for an extension or something else? I'm waiting to hear back from Claimant and Claimants Solicitor on my latest mails to them requesting they comply with the original CPR letters.

Also spoke to the court today who advised that an extension request can be made directly to them (for £45) and that I'd need to provide detailed info as too why. They also advised that when filing my response the details around failure to comply with CPR 31 can be stated as part of my defence.

x

[gallahad]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

The court are probably referring to N244 application and if making this you can include in it a draft order asking the court to order them to supply relevant documents.
G

[mystery1]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi mystery1,

Thanks for that post - I wonder if the author ever heard back from the OFT? There is a chance then that the contract could fall under the CCA 1974 and therefore my CCA request would be valid (but I cant tell without being given the original contract?)

I dont intend to let the deadline pass. When you say make an application, do you mean application for an extension or something else? I'm waiting to hear back from Claimant and Claimants Solicitor on my latest mails to them requesting they comply with the original CPR letters.

Also spoke to the court today who advised that an extension request can be made directly to them (for £45) and that I'd need to provide detailed info as too why. They also advised that when filing my response the details around failure to comply with CPR 31 can be stated as part of my defence.

x

By application i mean an application for whatever you need. You can apply for extra time, disclosure etc etc however if the cpr's don't account for it then it's unlikely you'll get it and it costs.

It may be best just to deny the claim and amend if required once they produce stuff to back up their claims.

It is difficult to help with a claim where virtually nothing is known and cpr 31 is likely to not apply and the defendany knows nothing. In reality what else can you do but deny the claim ?

Trouble is if they prove the case you lose or you amend your defence which can cost you.

M1

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses.

mystery1 - Why would the CPR 31 be unlikely to apply? I recognise having an account with the original party but the amount they are claimining is what I dispute. How can I be expected to form a defence if neither the Claimant nor Claimants Solicitor will provide the documents outlined in the PoC? Furthermore, how can they bring a case if they cant supply the documents on which their case is reliant upon? Surely the balance has to be substantiated? If I felt the requirement to F&F I couldnt because at it stands the amount owed could be plucked out of the air without anything to back it up?

A CPR 31 request must be valid here because the claim is yet to be allocated and the Claimant must be able to supply the docs to support their Claim?


Im going to try requesting an extension from BC again.

I have just over a week left now and beginning to get quite anxious x

[mystery1]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses.

mystery1 - Why would the CPR 31 be unlikely to apply? I recognise having an account with the original party but the amount they are claimining is what I dispute. How can I be expected to form a defence if neither the Claimant nor Claimants Solicitor will provide the documents outlined in the PoC? Furthermore, how can they bring a case if they cant supply the documents on which their case is reliant upon? Surely the balance has to be substantiated? If I felt the requirement to F&F I couldnt because at it stands the amount owed could be plucked out of the air without anything to back it up?

A CPR 31 request must be valid here because the claim is yet to be allocated and the Claimant must be able to supply the docs to support their Claim?


Im going to try requesting an extension from BC again.

I have just over a week left now and beginning to get quite anxious x

Because judges don't always take rules literally and it could cost you a bit to force the issue making it redundant. You may lose an application to try and force the issue, would you then appeal the point ?


M1

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Thanks mystery1 - I just dont see how I can be expected to defend without the evidence that the claimant is using to base their case on.

In terms of an F&F, I guess its too late in the day now.

Received the below today from Claimants Solicitor:

We write further to your letter dated ********** 2013 the content of which has been noted.

We refer you to our previous letter dated ********* 2013 and reiterate its content.

This claim will most likely be allocated to the Small Claims Track. Accordingly Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply.

In any event it is the original creditors policy to issue agreements on or around the date of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and therefore you have already been provided with validation of the debt. In this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

Evidence will be provided in accordance with the directions of the Court should this Claim proceed to hearing.

We recommend you seek legal independent advice.

Funny how they state 'original creditor' but then claim the CCA request is invalid.

I've also received a letter from the Claimant noting my comments from the CPR request on my account and confirming understanding that I have responded to the claim issued by them.

They then go on to advise me to again contact Fredrickson International who they have 'outsourced' the claim too - But again, this firm isn't stated anywhere in the Court Claim Form?!

x

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Further to the above, if CPR does not apply because a case is allocated to the Small Claims Track how is one ever to obtain disclosure of docs in order to build a defence? I'm lost with all this, looks ominous to me x

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Bwyan Carter's performing monkeys do that with all claims requesting documents under CPR.

I just hope that someday a judge will see those bloody-minded antics for what they seem to be - a determination to obstruct the course of justice.

[mystery1]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Further to the above, if CPR does not apply because a case is allocated to the Small Claims Track how is one ever to obtain disclosure of docs in order to build a defence? I'm lost with all this, looks ominous to me x

You could have asked when you got the letter before action. There is also nothing to stop you going down the 31.14 route, i'm just warning you that you might encounter problems. There are also the overriding objectives in cpr 1 but again it's up to a judge.

M1

[charitynjw]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

Thanks mystery1 - I just dont see how I can be expected to defend without the evidence that the claimant is using to base their case on.

In terms of an F&F, I guess its too late in the day now.

Received the below today from Claimants Solicitor:

We write further to your letter dated ********** 2013 the content of which has been noted.

We refer you to our previous letter dated ********* 2013 and reiterate its content.

This claim will most likely be allocated to the Small Claims Track. Accordingly Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply.
We have seen this evasive tactic now on a number of occasions.
Could dudleydog contact the court & ask, in the event that should CPR 31 not be applicable,could the court issue special directions under CPR 27 Practice Direction* for the asked-for evidence?

In any event it is the original creditors policy to issue agreements on or around the date of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and therefore you have already been provided with validation of the debt. In this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

Evidence will be provided in accordance with the directions of the Court should this Claim proceed to hearing.

We recommend you seek legal independent advice.

Funny how they state 'original creditor' but then claim the CCA request is invalid.

I've also received a letter from the Claimant noting my comments from the CPR request on my account and confirming understanding that I have responded to the claim issued by them.

They then go on to advise me to again contact Fredrickson International who they have 'outsourced' the claim too - But again, this firm isn't stated anywhere in the Court Claim Form?!

x

* http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rt27/pd_part27

[dudleydog]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

I'd reached out to the Court this morning to confirm costs for both application for disclosure and strike-out so will follow up on PD CPR 27 when they get back to me. Looking at CPR 27 though, I dont see anywhere that it notes the Court having the ability to force the Claimant to provide the requested docs/evidence?

Also, I called Lowell today with the intention of requesting an extension on my defence. Lady on the phone was very polite but said that Lowell could no longer discuss or make any decisions re the claim as they had passed onto Fredrickson International. I advised that Fredrickson International were not noted as a party on the Claim Form but she couldnt give me an answer that. All she could do was transfer me to Fredrickson International. I stated I was reluctant to discuss the claim with this firm because of them not being on the form but agreed to be transferred. Upon getting through to Fredrickson International I was advised I'd come through to the wrong department and transferred again 'to the correct department'. Eventually a young man picked up the phone and declared himself as non other than Bryan Carter Solicitors. After the data protection formalities I explained that I'd twice requested disclosure from BC under CPR 31 but they had refused and therefore I wanted them to agree an extension. He advised that BC cant agree extensions (to which I reminded him that they can and I pass on details to the court) then he put me on hold for no less than 10 minutes then came back stating that the Solicitor for my case was away until next Tuesday and only he/she could agree to an extension so I'd have to wait till then. I then advised that the deadline for defence was 22nd Dec and I was pushed for time. Due to BC refusing to provide docs it would be difficult for me to put together a fair defence, plus how do I know BC even have the docs declared in their PoC if they wont disclose them. He then put me on hold for another 5/10 minutes advising that he would see if anyone else could agree before returning and asking me to call back at 4pm. I got an email address to contact and also the gentlemans name.

[charitynjw]

Re: Bryan Carter (On behalf of Lowells) CCJ Threat / Claim Form

I'd reached out to the Court this morning to confirm costs for both application for disclosure and strike-out so will follow up on PD CPR 27 when they get back to me. Looking at CPR 27 though, I dont see anywhere that it notes the Court having the ability to force the Claimant to provide the requested docs/evidence?

Practice Direction 27.
Appendix B
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rt27/pd_part27