County Court Claim - Overdales

[Evie007]

Thank you

[Evie007]

Good Afternoon,

I have been contacted again by Overdales who have forwarded me a copy of their Directions Questionnaire. They have said that I would receive a copy of a Directions Questionnaire from the court but to date I have not received one. I am a little anxious about this as the letter from Overdales was dated 23rd May which is 2 weeks ago and I would have expected to have received something back from the court. I may phone them to enquire.

In the meantime, in their letter of 23 May, Overdales have requested that I forward the call log from Sky and further details of the FOS involvement regarding the JD Williams account saying that Lowells want to review it.

Do I send that or do I simply correspond back to them saying that we can discuss that at Mediation?

[MIKE770]

courts are behind in paperwork await their cop . loweels (overdales) try unsettle you to save them time. the court rules not theirs.

do not send them anything they are to get proof at this stage. do not assist them .

[Zanxia]

Hi, I received my DQ from Overdales dated 8th March and it took until the 2nd April to receive one from the courts.

The courts have a backlog but any concerns do indeed ring them as they will confirm what date they are up to and give you an average date to expect yours. They told me once they send the DQ if not received back they do also send a reminder so not to worry that I had missed anything.

I also think Overdales appear to follow a set plan in these cases to try to scare people further.

[echat11]

Hi, I received my DQ from Overdales dated 8th March and it took until the 2nd April to receive one from the courts.

The courts have a backlog but any concerns do indeed ring them as they will confirm what date they are up to and give you an average date to expect yours. They told me once they send the DQ if not received back they do also send a reminder so not to worry that I had missed anything.

I also think Overdales appear to follow a set plan in these cases to try to scare people further.

In post 47, you state something different regards the DQ and dates. Very confusing.

[Zanxia]

Sorry I’m not the Original poster of this thread, I was just sharing my experience with the Original poster with regards to DQ timeframes to assist the original posters query.
Sorry for the confusion caused.

[Evie007]

Good Afternoon - after agreeing to mediation, I now have an update.

I have just had the telephone mediation and quite frankly what a waste of time!

Just to recap -

Overdales had previously requested the audio call log from Sky. I have sent this but they are saying they can’t open the file because it is corrupt (which isn’t the case as I’ve been able to open it on several devices).

They had also requested evidence that the JD Williams account is with FOS. I have sent evidence of this a few weeks ago.

In today’s call the mediator said she had spoken to Overdales who said they had offered me a settlement of £1800. This is for all three accounts. I said I was unprepared to accept this and explained I was not in a position to accept any settlement on the JD as it was with FOS and that as far as I was concerned I didn’t owe anything to Sky which the audio call log backs up. I then said I would consider a settlement on the New Day account.

The mediator put me on hold and spoke to Overdales. She then came back and said they wouldnt consider splitting the three accounts and would only accept settlement for the three combined.

She said it would now have to go to court.

I’m so mad. I honestly feel so duped by Overdales. I’ve tried to be open to mediating. I’ve got no further defence on the New Day account - they have provided all the documents etc for the CCA request etc and I’ve nothing left in the bag. How can it be that they won’t deal with the three debts on an individual basis?

[Evie007]

Literally, this is how I feel right now:

Me: 0 - Overdales: 1

[Evie007]

And the worst is that now Overdales smell victory (because I have said I would accept to settle on NewDay) they are unlikely to reduce the settlement on the three combined any further. Sorry for the rant.

[echat11]

Literally, this is how I feel right now:

Me: 0 - Overdales: 1

Clam down, do something to take your mind off things. Mediation doesn't always result in settlement or the way we want to settle things, they 'bundle' these accounts together, so if they remove one account, it kind of means they have to do other things to keep their case going.

The good thing is that you can continue making offers to Overdales to settle the
matter, but head each letter / email with 'Without Prejudice' at the very top.
So make the offers for the two accounts that you want to make, make clear
with account numbers.

Update if you receive anything.

[Evie007]

The thing is, that I have offered to settle the one account but they wouldn’t entertain it. They were only prepared to settle all three.

Im going to sit tight on the JD Williams account as I think FOS are going to uphold my complaint which would surely affect things where Overdales are concerned. And as for Sky, I’ve got strong evidence that there is nothing to pay.

Thanks for your help. I feel a little better now!!

[Evie007]

Good Evening All,

Matters are progressing.
I have now had a court date set for November.

In the meantime I have also received correspondence from Overdales. Basically a bundle of info headed Witness Statement.
I have read through and can pick out the following observations rather than writing it word for word.

Basically Overdales are saying my defence is without merit. They state - "The Defendant's Defence is a generic template commonly found on Internet forums.....blah,blah,blah!!"

JD WILLIAMS -

"JD Williams (the Assignor) has informed the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued to the Defendant under s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 however, they are unable to provide a copy of this letter to Claimant as this wasnt retained by the Assignor. Nonetheless, the Assignor has provided a screen print from their computerised system which states the Default Notice was sent on XXXXXX (date provided)."
There is a computerised print out enclosed in the bundle of documents which basically lists codes of correspondence that must have been sent to me - There are two entries on there marked as 'Default Letter'. The first dated in January 2016 and another entry dated October 2016. It seems strange that there are two entries - I suppose one could interpret that they could have simply been letters warning of a possible default should I not pay as they are not marked on the list as an actual Default Notice. On the computerised print out you do not get to see the contents of the correspondence.
You guys will remember that the JD Williams account was subject to FOS investigation. This predated any legal action. I did complain to Overdales that they shouldnt have started legal action. Up to now they seemed to have glossed over the whole FOS thing, however in their Witness Statement they have said the following:
"Upon receiving Defendant's Defence, the Claimant has obtained instructions from Assignor 2. They have confirmed that they are making enquiries as per Defendant's allegations in the Defence and will soon update us with the outcome of their investigations.

The Claimant still awaits outcome of these investigations regarding the complaint made by Defendant.
The Claimant respectfully reserves the right to file a Supplementary Witness Statement upon receipt of the above."


Again, it seems strange that they have not actually specified FOS by name. Is it because the Court would frown upon them issuing proceedings if there is FOS involvement? Anyway, it just seems strange to me.
I have actually just heard from FOS - they have part upheld my complaint, and JD Williams will have to refund some of the balance to me. Does this affect anything at all. I spoke to JD Williams today. They have told me that they have been in regular contact with Lowell about my account and that lowell are well aware this account is with FOS. JD Williams has also sent me an email today confirming they have email so I will no doubt use that in my defence.

Later on in their Witness Statement they say:

'Upon receiving the Defendants defence, the Claimant has obtained instructions from JD Williams. They have confirmed that they are making enquiries as per the Defendants allegations in the defence and will update us with the outcome of the investgation. The Claimant still awaits the outcome of these invesitgations regarding the complaint made by the defendant.

The Claimant respectfully reserves the right to file a supplementary Witness statement upon receipt of the above.



With regard to Sky, I will pick out the following:

"Although the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 3 (Sky account), the Defendant breached Agreement 3 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. Assignor 3 (Sky) therefore disconnected the services.
The original credit agreement is not exhibited because:
a) The Claimant does not have access to a copy
b) There is no legislation requiring SKY to retain a copy of the agreement.

Sky sent a Welcome Letter to the Defendant with summary of the package. A copy of this letter is exhibited.

A copy of the statement of account dated xxxx is exhibited herewith. It shows subscription details, payments made and balance due.

I need to point out here that I have had numerous accounts with SKY in the past and still cannot recall any outstanding balance due. The statement that Overdales have provided does indeed show details of a payment being made and various credits being applied to the account but the statement shows the account was actually IN CREDIT!!

Overdales go on to say in their Witness Statement:

Sky have informed the Claimant that there were further charges incurred since the statement however they are unable to forward the last statement sent to the Defendant as this was not retained by them.

This seems a little strange...why have SKY not been able to produce the last statement when they have been able to produce the one sent to Overdales??

I am also very annoyed at the following statement that Overdales have included in their witness statement:

The Defendant was sent a Letter before Claim by the Claimants solicitors on xxxxx, a copy of which is hereto exhibited.
As the Defendant failed to respond, legal proceedings were issued on xxxx.

This is incorrect. As soon as I received the Letter Before Claim I sent the CCA requests etc.

Overdales then wrote back to me stating that they would have to request that information from their client and that they would forward that information once it had been received.

I then sent them an email acknowledging this and I asked for them to confirm that legal action be put on hold until such time as they were in possession of the required information.

The next thing I received just a week or two later was the Court Summons so you can imagine I was far from happy.

I subsequently emailed a complaint to them of which they sent me a Complaint Outcome letter. This stated that they accepted that the requested documents were not provided prior to the Claim being issued and upheld my complaint. They went on to say that 'as a gesture of goodwill they have removed costs and fees incurred in issuing the claim. I think that it is Overdales standard practice to just go ahead and issue court proceedings without providing necessary documents to defendants and without following the CPR rules. Could I include something to indicate this in my witness statement.

I am further annoyed by the following paragraph in their Witness Statement:

"The Claimants intention throughout its attempt to communicate with the Defendant was to offer either an affordable repayment plan and to resolve the defendants dispute. Had the defendant contacted the claimant to explain her reason for non payment, the claimants process is to place the accounts on hold and conduct an investigation with the assignors. Should the defendants disputes have been valid, the claimant would have closed the accounts. The defendants failure to communicate has led to litigation being necessary.

The claimant submits that the defendant has been aware of her liability for the outstanding balanes prior to issuing proceedings by way of numerous attempts of contact made by the claimant but only sought to raise these allegationns once the claimant instructed solicitors to commence legal proceedings.

The Claimant submits that the defendant has been unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in that she has:
a) failed to respond to the claimants pre action communications and/or raise any dispute; and
b)Unreasonably refused to participate in settlement attempts or provide corroborative evidence.

I disagree with the above. I did respond to pre-action communications and I also engaged in the mediation that was offered by way of telephone between us. In the mediation (which was conducted by a third party) - I asked to settle on the New Day account but stated that I was unprepared to on the other two accounts as JD Williams was with the FOS and that I had not any knowledge of owing money to SKY. As soon as I said that to the mediator and she relayed it back to Overdales they wouldnt engage at all. The mediator simply said that Overdales said it was unacceptable.

So.... any advice would be greatly accepted. I am still willing to settle or arrange a payment plan on the New Day What can I do about this. What should my next step be. I am sorry for the long post but I really need to get something in writing asap now.

Many thanks once again.

[echat11]

Will take a look.

[Evie007]

Good morning - I’m hoping to get some ideas on this today - If anyone has some advice today that would be gratefully received.

[echat11]

a) Regarding JD Williams, they say the complaint to the original creditor is being investigated, but regardless, the ignored you, so you lodged a complaint with the FOS. As such they shouldn't have lodged a complaint with the Courts. Further, just because they say they sent it, doesn't mean you received it. You've asked for a copy, they can't provide it. Any how, you've stated in you Defence that you didn't receive it. So that is your position on it. The FOS clearly believe that the case against JD Williams stacks up, as they have made a partial award. The amount they are claiming would be wrong because the FOS says JD Williams owes you some monies.

b) 'I need to point out here that I have had numerous accounts with SKY in the past and still cannot recall any outstanding balance due. The statement that Overdales have provided does indeed show details of a payment being made and various credits being applied to the account but the statement shows the account was actually IN CREDIT!!'

They can't claim you owe money, when the account is in credit. Definitely worth raising with them. The following is ridiculous, that needs pointing out - 'Sky have informed the Claimant that there were further charges incurred since the statement however they are unable to forward the last statement sent to the Defendant as this was not retained by them'.

c) As to their assertions in their Witness Statement, if they are incorrect, tell them that they are factually incorrect, tell them why they are incorrect. Everything after - 'This is incorrect. As soon as I received the Letter Before Claim I sent the CCA requests etc.'