Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 67 of 67

Thread: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,457
    Mentioned
    517 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Quote Originally Posted by studly View Post
    would that indicate that they are confident to proceed so soon after receiving the defence?
    Not necessarily. It could mean that they know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on so hope you'll agree to free telephone Mediation where they'll hope to secure a settlement without the need to test their evidence (such as it is) in court.

    I never like to raise or lower expectations, so just fill in the form and go with the flow

    Di
    I am a Litigation Executive at Joanna Connolly Solicitors a firm which specializes in consumer credit.

    This forum’s site rules don’t allow me to give advice by PM but if you need to contact me please email di@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk . Our initial advice is always free.

    Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability. If you are unsure please seek formal legal guidance or contact your local citizens advice bureau at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Quote Originally Posted by warwick65 View Post
    Not necessarily - it may mean they are trying to make you blink first

    By the looks of your defence they haven't complied with your S78 request , have not supplied the Default Notice and have not supplied the notice of assignment

    Did you ever send a Subject Access Request to JD Williams - thats the one which requires the £10 fee

    Try not to worry- easier said than done I know

    My case is a couple of weeks ahead of you, DQ's sent and returned etc . I wouldn't be fighting it if I thought they realistically had a chance
    Hi @warwick65 , thanks for replying

    Yep, the SAR (& £10) was sent to JD Williams the same day as the CCA and CPR request.

    There'll be no.blinking from these ere parts! Haha

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana M View Post
    Not necessarily. It could mean that they know they haven't got a legal leg to stand on so hope you'll agree to free telephone Mediation where they'll hope to secure a settlement without the need to test their evidence (such as it is) in court.

    I never like to raise or lower expectations, so just fill in the form and go with the flow

    Di
    Thanks Di, will just role with it as advised If it goes to hearing I may well get in touch with your firm.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    496
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Glad to hear it @studly

    I know it is easy to let these things take over your life but it really isn't worth it

    As the saying goes 'Take my advice because I'm not using it' :-)

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Morning Peeps!

    Well ... Still no sign of the Directions Questionnaire that MCOL indicated was sent on 26 Apr 17. On a secondary note, the 40 days for JD Williams to respond to the SAR is now up. As a result I have now drafted the following letter using the ICO website template as a quide, albeit worded slightly firmer!
    ..........................

    Data Protection Compliance Officer
    JD Williams Group
    Griffin house
    40 Lever Street
    Manchester
    M60 6ES


    Dear Sir / Madam

    Non Response to a Subject Access Request (SAR)

    I am writing further to my letter dated [dd mmm yyyy] in which I made a subject access request as I have not received any response whatsoever from your organisation. An additional copy of the original SAR is provided at Enclosure 1 for your reference

    As the statutory time limit of 40 days for responding to the SAR has now expired, I would be grateful if you could now provide an immediate response to the original request.

    If I do not receive a response from your organisation within 14 days, I shall report this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) with a further view to taking legal action if necessary.

    You can find advice on the ICO’s website on how to deal with a subject access request and information on their powers and the action they can take using the references below. Alternatively you may call them on 0303 123 1113.

    Yours faithfully

    [My name]

    References


    1. ico.org.uk/sar
    2. ico.org.uk/action


    Enclosures


    1. Copy of SAR Request dated [dd mmm yyyy]

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    496
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Do you have proof that the letter was delivered. It might help with your complaint

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Quote Originally Posted by warwick65 View Post
    Do you have proof that the letter was delivered. It might help with your complaint
    Yes, I got it sent recorded delivery. Have just emailed Royal Mail today as well to trace if the Postal Order has been cashed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, and the DQ and Notice of Proposed Allocation arrived in this afternoon's post!

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Morning!

    Quick question ... Is there any point in delaying the response to the DQ until nearer the deadline, or should I just fill it in and get it sent off at the earliest opportunity?

    Have a great Sunday!

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    496
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    I really don't see any point in delaying completing the DQ

    One more job ticked off the to do list

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    DQ has been sent off and is now showing as filed on MCOL. Also received a copy of the Claimant's DQ through the post with a covering letter advising of a change of solicitors from Cohen Cramer to their in house outfit. Also included a copy of the relevant court form.

    What was interesting is that the letter stated something about them waiting for the relevant information from Orange?!? I could have sworn JD Williams was the original creditor!

    Clearly a bulk letter template being used?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    496
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Lowell deal with so many claims it's not surprising they make mistakes. Good for you though if I'm honest.

    Twice thry hey wrote to me saying they were enclosing the notice of assignment and reconstituted default notice, even when I replied saying it wasn't there they couldn't get it right.

    Then they said they were waiting for the agreement which turned into 'we have already stated we will not be supplying the agreement'

    Let's hope they keep asking orange

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Morning All!

    Received a letter from JD Williams this morning re: SAR in response to my 'follow up' letter. They had sent the response to my original SAR to my partner's previous address, albeit on 20 Apr 17, 1 month after I submitted it. Basically we need to fill in the enclosed questionnaire and provide proof of ID (copy of photocard driving licence or passport). It will then be processed as a matter of 'urgency'.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Here's the Change of Solicitor letter received from Lowell Solicitors .... with an additional DQ attached?!?
    20170428-SolicitorChange_R_P1.jpg20170428-SolicitorChange_R_P2.jpg20170428-SolicitorChange_R_P3.jpg20170428-SolicitorChange_R_P4.jpg20170428-SolicitorChange_R_P5.jpg

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    And an additional letter received the same day, serving a copy of their DQ .... which is slightly different (witness box). I wonder which one they actually filed with the court?!?
    20170430-SolicitorDQ_R_P1.jpg20170430-SolicitorDQ_R_P2.jpg20170430-SolicitorDQ_R_P3.jpg20170430-SolicitorDQ_R_P4.jpg
    Last edited by studly; 6th May 2017 at 12:17:PM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    I wonder why their Solicitors address is in Northampton by chance ... Must be quite handy for last minute filing of papers to the CCBC?

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Good afternoon LB's!

    Am I right to assume then that the next stage will be to receive a Notice of Allocation, along with any relevant directions from the local court?

    If this doesn't direct the claimant to produce the documents requested in the CPR request is that when I should look to obtaining a court order or shall I just roll with it up until the hearing date?

    If I do make an application for an order, can the fee for this be recuperated from the claimant?

    Sorry ... so many questions for a Monday, haha!

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    Good evening! :-)

    Just logged into MCOL and noticed that Lowell's filed their DQ on 17 May, 2 days after the deadline of 15 May.

    I don't suppose there'll be any sanctions for them missing this deadline?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,696
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)

    Default Re: Lowell Portfolio Ltd v Studly

    no they get away with it no doubt = rule for one and a rule for you

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Lowell solicitors (shop direct, Lowell portfolio)
    By Ellalass in forum Welcome Forum
    Replies: 36
    : 25th March 2017, 12:17:PM
  2. Claim form - Lowell Portfolio / Lowell solicitors.
    By captain sam in forum Received a Court Claim?
    Replies: 77
    : 24th March 2017, 21:21:PM
  3. Claim form - Lowell Portfolio / Lowell solicitors.
    By captain sam in forum Money & Debt
    Replies: 0
    : 17th February 2017, 09:52:AM
  4. Lowell Solicitors / Lowell Portfolio / Lloyds Letter of Claim
    By WoZLinGToN in forum Received a Court Claim?
    Replies: 18
    : 24th February 2016, 17:09:PM
  5. Lowell Portfolio 1 / Lowell Financial & Bryan Carter - Fraud
    By Sharkie in forum Debt Collection Agencies
    Replies: 5
    : 29th December 2014, 18:22:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2016
Hosted by Lodge Information Services Ltd
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
TOP