Lowell/Overdales

[Gruffolo]

Hi Echat11

I replied to Overdales email with the following -

"Thank you for your response and for correctly pointing out the difference between a Notice of Default and a Default Notice.

Your response has overlooked an important point, the Default Notice should have been issued on the 6th March 2017. The attached letter dated 22nd January 2019 admits this and the fact there was a breach of the T & C and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

If the breach had not occurred then the correctly dated Default Notice would have been issued, dated 6th March 2017.

I'm sure the court will not view this breach very favourably.

I'm happy to present this fact to the court and the fact that a Statue Barred debt is being pursued.

Sincerely"


I agree with you Echat11, Overdales are missing the elephant in the room.

When you suggested raise a complaint, you mean with Hitachi?

Are there any templates for this?

[echat11]

Hi Echat11

I replied to Overdales email with the following -

"Thank you for your response and for correctly pointing out the difference between a Notice of Default and a Default Notice.

Your response has overlooked an important point, the Default Notice should have been issued on the 6th March 2017. The attached letter dated 22nd January 2019 admits this and the fact there was a breach of the T & C and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

If the breach had not occurred then the correctly dated Default Notice would have been issued, dated 6th March 2017.

I'm sure the court will not view this breach very favourably.

I'm happy to present this fact to the court and the fact that a Statue Barred debt is being pursued.

Sincerely"


I agree with you Echat11, Overdales are missing the elephant in the room.

When you suggested raise a complaint, you mean with Hitachi?

Are there any templates for this?

Raise the Complaint with Lowell's as they now own the account. There isn't a template, you've already explained it concisely in a couple of emails, just layout the facts so they understand what you are saying and the letter of 22nd January 2019 can have no other meaning. You can state that Hitachi themselves has stated in their letter of 22nd January 2019 that an 'error' was made and that the account defaulted actually defaulted in March 2017.

[Gruffolo]

Raise the Complaint with Lowell's as they now own the account. There isn't a template, you've already explained it concisely in a couple of emails, just layout the facts so they understand what you are saying and the letter of 22nd January 2019 can have no other meaning. You can state that Hitachi themselves has stated in their letter of 22nd January 2019 that an 'error' was made and that the account defaulted actually defaulted in March 2017.

Hi Echat11

Again I've acted upon your words of wisdom - below is the letter I have emailed and sent via recoded delivery.

29^th May 2023

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to raise a formal complaint regarding the following account Lowell reference: This account was acquired by yourselves from Hitachi Capital (UK) plc (Novuna); original Hitachi Reference:

This account forms part of County Court Claim No:

After receiving notification of the County Court Claim and filing my defense I sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Novuna as I strongly believe this account is now Statute Barred under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5.

On the 24^th May 2023 I received an information pack from Novuna containing all information they hold for Hitachi Reference:

Contained within the pack is a significantly important letter dated 22^nd January 2019. Accompanying this complaint letter is a copy of the 22^nd January 2019 letter and the covering letter from Novuna.

On the 26^th May 2023 I sent an email to Overdales Solicitors ( Senior Complex Litigation Paralegal) who is my point of correspondence at Overdales to notify Overdales that the Hitachi account is Statute Barred and provided a copy of the 22^nd January 2019 letter.

Ms and I exchanged several emails on the 26^th May 2023; which copies of our emails accompany this complaint letter.

You will see from the email exchange with Overdales Solicitors; they are missing the point, yes, there is only one Default Notice (19^th April 2017) but by Hitachi’s own admission (letter dated 22^nd January 2019), they failed to default the account an send the correct Default Notice after two missed payments (6^th March 2017) which is stated in their T's & C's; and is also a clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (again their own admission). It's clear that if Hitachi forgot to do something in March 2017, then do it in April 2017, there would only be one Default Notice - which is 6^th March 2017.

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.”

Also, the Financial Conduct Authority's Consumer Credit sourcebook states the following -

"...a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period." 7.15.4

"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8

Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the amount you allege I owe.

Please confirm in writing that you will not make any further contact about the above claim and confirm that this matter is now closed.


Yours faithfully

[echat11]

Thanks, update when they respond.

[Gruffolo]

Hi Echat11

Below is a reply received earlier from the email (#46) I sent to Overdales

They are completely missing the point or playing "hardball"

I just think they are being arrogant. Let's see what happens with the complaint sent to Lowell.

"Your comments regarding the Default Notice and Notice of Sums in Arrears have been noted. The file has been reviewed and our client remains of the view that the claim is not statute barred and you have been notified of the reasons for this.

The claim will proceed and we strongly suggest you obtain independent legal advice as additional charges will be incurred, should the matter proceed to hearing, and any reduced offers of settlement may be withdrawn.

We reserve the right to produce this correspondence at any hearing should the issue of costs arise.


Kind regards"

[echat11]

Hi Echat11

Below is a reply received earlier from the email (#46) I sent to Overdales

They are completely missing the point or playing "hardball"

I just think they are being arrogant. Let's see what happens with the complaint sent to Lowell.

"Your comments regarding the Default Notice and Notice of Sums in Arrears have been noted. The file has been reviewed and our client remains of the view that the claim is not statute barred and you have been notified of the reasons for this.

The claim will proceed and we strongly suggest you obtain independent legal advice as additional charges will be incurred, should the matter proceed to hearing, and any reduced offers of settlement may be withdrawn.

We reserve the right to produce this correspondence at any hearing should the issue of costs arise.


Kind regards"

See what Lowell's response is, if your not happy with it consider lodging a complaint with the FOS.

[Gruffolo]

See what Lowell's response is, if your not happy with it consider lodging a complaint with the FOS.

Hi ECHAT11

Hope you are well.

Update time:

My complaint to Lowell is still within the 8 weeks; only a letter received stating they are still looking into; so nothing to update here.

I have received responses for the SAR's from E.ON and Capital One. I'm not sure what I need to be looking for with the information received. None of these accounts are statue barred, on the surface I can't see anything obvious that I can counter back. My only hope is advise from here that can point me in the direction of what I need to check/look for - if anyone can chip in here I would be very grateful.

Today I have received the DQ and confirmation the claim is to be allocated to the small claims track. I have until the 14th July 2023 to return the completed N180. I have downloaded the form; is there an email that it can be returned electronically?

What do I enter onto the form and how to complete it; any advice.

I assume because there has been a complaint made to Lowell that this would need to be mentioned and the fact that part of the claim is suspected of being statue barred?

Thank you

[Gruffolo]

in Section D1 I have added the following: Currently there is an active complaint lodged with the claimant as evidence obtained via a Subject Access Request indicates part of the claim should be Statue Barred. If the claimant doesn't agree, a complaint will be further lodged with the Financial Conduct Authority.

Rest of the form I have completed!!!

[atticus]

Statute (not statue!).

[echat11]

Hi ECHAT11

Hope you are well.

Update time:

My complaint to Lowell is still within the 8 weeks; only a letter received stating they are still looking into; so nothing to update here.

I have received responses for the SAR's from E.ON and Capital One. I'm not sure what I need to be looking for with the information received. None of these accounts are statue barred, on the surface I can't see anything obvious that I can counter back. My only hope is advise from here that can point me in the direction of what I need to check/look for - if anyone can chip in here I would be very grateful.

Today I have received the DQ and confirmation the claim is to be allocated to the small claims track. I have until the 14th July 2023 to return the completed N180. I have downloaded the form; is there an email that it can be returned electronically?

What do I enter onto the form and how to complete it; any advice.

I assume because there has been a complaint made to Lowell that this would need to be mentioned and the fact that part of the claim is suspected of being statue barred?

Thank you

a) My complaint to Lowell is still within the 8 weeks; only a letter received stating they are still looking into; so nothing to update here.

That's o.k.

b) I have received responses for the SAR's from E.ON and Capital One. I'm not sure what I need to be looking for with the information received. None of these accounts are statue barred, on the surface I can't see anything obvious that I can counter back. My only hope is advise from here that can point me in the direction of what I need to check/look for - if anyone can chip in here I would be very grateful.

Look at the agreements, letters of assignment, Default notices etc. In your earlier post, you wrote 'One thing I am certain of is I have not made any payments to any of the credit accounts for over 6 years. However Overdales claim I made a payment of £5 on each two of the accounts in early 2018; The time line for these payments is odd as it would have been nearly a year from me defaulting the accounts in the first place... something is not right here.'

You know have the information to check.

c) Today I have received the DQ and confirmation the claim is to be allocated to the small claims track. I have until the 14th July 2023 to return the completed N180. I have downloaded the form; is there an email that it can be returned electronically?

The same email address you used to lodge your Defence with the Court. Again write Directions Questionnaire etc.

d) What do I enter onto the form and how to complete it; any advice.

Link posted for info only - https://www.lawble.co.uk/directions-questionnaire/

e) I assume because there has been a complaint made to Lowell that this would need to be mentioned and the fact that part of the claim is suspected of being statue barred?

in Section D1 I have added the following: 'Currently there is an active complaint lodged with the claimant as evidence obtained via a Subject Access Request indicates part of the claim should be Statue Barred. If the claimant doesn't agree, a complaint will be further lodged with the Financial Conduct Authority.'

Remove the bit that's underlined, I'm no sure what the Court will make of that. It might also mean that you can't mediate. Hold off sending the Directions Questionnaire (but don't forget) as you have time. See if Lowell's get's back to you.

[Gruffolo]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you so much for your detailed reply and helpful advice.

1- I will hold off sending the DQ as advised; I have the court email address to send it.

2- I have amended the DQ as advised

3- Going through all of the SAR information from Capital One, E.on and Hitachi:

Hitachi is Statute Barred

Capital One payments from early 2018 were automatic DD's which were returned unpaid as I had earlier cancelled both DD's.

Both Capital One accounts and the E.on account are not Statute Barred as the 3 accounts defaults arte less than 6 years.

The only observations I can make are:

E.on
Lowell Notice of Assignment letter dated 10/01/2020 - states debt purchased 17/12/2019

E.on SAR data states debt sold 28/10/2019 to Lowell


Capital One – both accounts

Capital One SAR data states both debts sold 19/02/2019 to Lowell

Lowell Notice of Assignment letter for each account dated 08/03/2019 states debt purchased 21/02/2019


Is the following of importance - Copies of the 3 above accounts Notice of Assignment sent from Overdales are not on any headed paper?
Are the above date discrepancies important?
Should E.on and Capital One have wrote to me to advise the debt has been sold? - there are no letters in any of the SAR packs.

Thanks

[echat11]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you so much for your detailed reply and helpful advice.

1- I will hold off sending the DQ as advised; I have the court email address to send it.

2- I have amended the DQ as advised

3- Going through all of the SAR information from Capital One, E.on and Hitachi:

Hitachi is Statute Barred

Capital One payments from early 2018 were automatic DD's which were returned unpaid as I had earlier cancelled both DD's.

Both Capital One accounts and the E.on account are not Statute Barred as the 3 accounts defaults arte less than 6 years.

The only observations I can make are:

E.on
Lowell Notice of Assignment letter dated 10/01/2020 - states debt purchased 17/12/2019

E.on SAR data states debt sold 28/10/2019 to Lowell


Capital One – both accounts

Capital One SAR data states both debts sold 19/02/2019 to Lowell

Lowell Notice of Assignment letter for each account dated 08/03/2019 states debt purchased 21/02/2019


Is the following of importance - Copies of the 3 above accounts Notice of Assignment sent from Overdales are not on any headed paper?
Are the above date discrepancies important?
Should E.on and Capital One have wrote to me to advise the debt has been sold? - there are no letters in any of the SAR packs.

Thanks

All of the debts should have letters of assignment. Normally both the seller and buyer will send letters of assignment. So you should have 6 in total (Seller telling you they've sold the debt, the buyer welcoming you, telling you they bought the debt). It sounds like the letters of assignment have been constructed from copies.

Should E.on and Capital One have wrote to me to advise the debt has been sold?

Yes.

[MIKE770]

Usually 2 letters in one envelope from purchaser

[Gruffolo]

All of the debts should have letters of assignment. Normally both the seller and buyer will send letters of assignment. So you should have 6 in total (Seller telling you they've sold the debt, the buyer welcoming you, telling you they bought the debt). It sounds like the letters of assignment have been constructed from copies.

Should E.on and Capital One have wrote to me to advise the debt has been sold?

Yes.

Hi Echat11

There are no letters of assignment in any of the SAR information received from the original creditors. If ALL information has been disclosed then I would have expected a copy in each pack.

The letters of assignment received from Overdales on behalf of Lowell in my opinion are copies which have just been typed out on plain A4.

Should I have received copies of the original letters or are the copies on plain paper sufficient for the court?

My argument here is anyone with a computer and printer can populate a letter! Surely headed paper is a must?

Thanks

[echat11]

Hi Echat11

There are no letters of assignment in any of the SAR information received from the original creditors. If ALL information has been disclosed then I would have expected a copy in each pack.

The letters of assignment received from Overdales on behalf of Lowell in my opinion are copies which have just been typed out on plain A4.

Should I have received copies of the original letters or are the copies on plain paper sufficient for the court?

My argument here is anyone with a computer and printer can populate a letter! Surely headed paper is a must?

Thanks

You would think that Courts would require letters of Assignment to be the same as when they were sent, but the Courts are 'fickle' in this regard. I think it is a 'vaild' point you make. Typed up Letters of Assignment, where did the information in the letters come from? See if there are any images of letters of assignment from the sender online.