Lowell/Overdales

[EXC]

I've removed all the uploads & links.

[echat11]

I've removed all the uploads & links.

Many Thanks.

[Gruffolo]

See the white triangle with exclamation mark, send Admin a message, they can remove stuff.

As I said make a note of stuff that you think is wrong, wait for more information, it's pointless speculating on stuff.

Will do, thanks for your insight and advise :-)

[Gruffolo]

I've removed all the uploads & links.

Thank you.

[Gruffolo]

Good Evening, hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine.

Since my last post I took the advice from #ECHAT11 and sent SAR requests to Capital One, Eon and Hitachi. I have spoken to Capital One who confirm they are acting on the request nothing from Eon and finally Hitachi have sent all information they have on file, which I received today.

Previously I posted that I am certain that Hitachi is Statute Barred as I defaulted on the 6th January 2017 and no further contract from me. Lowell lodged their claim on 21st March 2023.

From the Statement of account sent by Overdales there was a letter dated 6th March 2017 which I suspected was a Notice of Default.

Add 14 days to 6th March 2017 - this would be 20th March 2017 which if the letter dated 6th March 2017 is a Default Notice would certainly make the debt Statute Barred by one day as the case was lodged on 21st March 2023.

So the details I have extracted from SAR information -

The letter dated 6th March 2017 iis a letter of Default, however there is a later letter sent by Hitachi stating that they made a mistake which is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act regarding issuing a Default Notice. They claim that the Default Notice should have been sent 2 months after I defaulted which would be 6th March 2017.

I'm now a bit confused!! What do I have with the letter dated 6th March 2017. Does the later letter hold weight as they are admitting they have breached the Consumer Credit Act by not issuing the correct Default Notice?

I have attached edited account statement and the covering letter received with from Hitachi and both letters referred to above.

Thanks in advance

[echat11]

Good Evening, hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine.

Since my last post I took the advice from #ECHAT11 and sent SAR requests to Capital One, Eon and Hitachi. I have spoken to Capital One who confirm they are acting on the request nothing from Eon and finally Hitachi have sent all information they have on file, which I received today.

Previously I posted that I am certain that Hitachi is Statute Barred as I defaulted on the 6th January 2017 and no further contract from me. Lowell lodged their claim on 21st March 2023.

From the Statement of account sent by Overdales there was a letter dated 6th March 2017 which I suspected was a Notice of Default.

Add 14 days to 6th March 2017 - this would be 20th March 2017 which if the letter dated 6th March 2017 is a Default Notice would certainly make the debt Statute Barred by one day as the case was lodged on 21st March 2023.

So the details I have extracted from SAR information -

The letter dated 6th March 2017 iis a letter of Default, however there is a later letter sent by Hitachi stating that they made a mistake which is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act regarding issuing a Default Notice. They claim that the Default Notice should have been sent 2 months after I defaulted which would be 6th March 2017.

I'm now a bit confused!! What do I have with the letter dated 6th March 2017. Does the later letter hold weight as they are admitting they have breached the Consumer Credit Act by not issuing the correct Default Notice?

I have attached edited account statement and the covering letter received with from Hitachi and both letters referred to above.

Thanks in advance

a) I'm now a bit confused!! What do I have with the letter dated 6th March 2017. Does the later letter hold weight as they are admitting they have breached the Consumer Credit Act by not issuing the correct Default Notice?

The letter of 22nd Jan 2019 maybe be significant, they didn't send a Default Notice when they should have.

b) I have spoken to Capital One who confirm they are acting on the request

Also don't speak to them over the phone, there is no need to.

[Gruffolo]

a) I'm now a bit confused!! What do I have with the letter dated 6th March 2017. Does the later letter hold weight as they are admitting they have breached the Consumer Credit Act by not issuing the correct Default Notice?

The letter of 22nd Jan 2019 maybe be significant, they didn't send a Default Notice when they should have.

b) I have spoken to Capital One who confirm they are acting on the request

Also don't speak to them over the phone, there is no need to.

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you for responding.

Understood about Capital One.

Can you be a bit more specific regarding the Hitachi letter 22nd Jan 2019 - will this letter stand up as a Default Notice? And because the date 6th March 2017 is so crucial regarding the Statute Barred?

Thank you.

[echat11]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you for responding.

Understood about Capital One.

Can you be a bit more specific regarding the Hitachi letter 22nd Jan 2019 - will this letter stand up as a Default Notice? And because the date 6th March 2017 is so crucial regarding the Statute Barred?

Thank you.

You can make a case that you weren't sent a Default Notice when you should have been sent one.

But it's Judges / Courts that will determine if that is the case.

[Gruffolo]

Thanks ECHAT11.

Do you think its worth making Overdales aware of the letter? I have already told them that I think the claim is statute barred. They of course say its not because the 19th April 2017 Default Notice letter they have. The 22nd Jan 2019 letter as you say changes the landscape somewhat?

Overdales have returned their DQQ and opted for mediation.

[echat11]

Thanks ECHAT11.

Do you think its worth making Overdales aware of the letter? I have already told them that I think the claim is statute barred. They of course say its not because the 19th April 2017 Default Notice letter they have. The 22nd Jan 2019 letter as you say changes the landscape somewhat?

Overdales have returned their DQQ and opted for mediation.

You could do, it deprived you of the opportunity to get the account back on track.

If Mediation fails and Witness Statements are exchanged, the Default Notice anomaly will be in your Witness Statement.

[Gruffolo]

Hi ECHAT11,

Thank you for your words of wisdom :-)

Before I send an email to Overdales and copies of the two letters I wanted to share with you the correspondence I sent regarding the statute barred for the two Capital One accounts and Hitachi.

Attached is a copy of my Hitachi Statue Barred letter; Overdales response letter; and below email contents of my reply to their letter and Overdales response to my email.

I will respond to Overdales last email with the two letters received from Hitachi. - Do you thick this okay?


Sent: 11 May 2023 14:30
To: Overdales Complex Team
Subject: Re: Lowell -v- - Reference: BY POST & EMAIL


Dear Overdales ,

I write in regard to your letter dated 10th May 2023 - response to statute barred.

Attached is the statement of account for Hitachi which you supplied.

Note letter fee of £25 dated 6th March 2017. This is for a Default Notice. Plus 14 days is 19th March 2017 - which meets the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.

The Default Notice dated 19th April 2017 is the last notice Hitachi served - note the entry on the statement.

Sincerely


From: Overdales Complex Team
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 8:55:45 AM
To:
Cc: Overdales Copy Documents
Subject: Lowell -v- - Reference: BY EMAIL


Dear Mr

Thank you for your email.

We dispute that the Letter Charge dated 6 March 2017 relates to the Default Notice.

The Claimant states that the charge dated 19 April 2017 most likely related to the Default Notice, given this is the date of the copy Default Notice in relation to the Hitachi Capital agreement which was sent to you under cover of our correspondence dated 21 April 2023. This is clearly dated 19 April 2017 and gave you until 10 May 2017 to remedy the breach. Proceedings were issued 21 March 2023, within 6 years.

The claim is not statute barred and you have been provided with the Claimant evidence in support of our stance.


Kind regards


Senior Complex Litigation Paralegal

[echat11]

You had January 2017 Debited,

You missed February 2017,

You missed March 2017 (at this point they should have issued a Default Notice (should be in their T's & C's),

In April 2017 they say they issued a Default Notice (they are relying on this in their claim against you).

The 22nd January 2019 letter explains that they made an 'error' in not sending a Default in March 2017 (after 2 months), which they should have done.

If that's correct and they are 'unaware' and as you've already started a 'dialogue' on the matter, then no reason not to continue.

[Gruffolo]

You had January 2017 Debited,

You missed February 2017,

You missed March 2017 (at this point they should have issued a Default Notice (should be in their T's & C's),

In April 2017 they say they issued a Default Notice (they are relying on this in their claim against you).

The 22nd January 2019 letter explains that they made an 'error' in not sending a Default in March 2017 (after 2 months), which they should have done.

If that's correct and they are 'unaware' and as you've already started a 'dialogue' on the matter, then no reason not to continue.

Hi ECHAT11

Thanks for your insperation

Just emailed the following to Overdales with the letters attached.


Dear

Thank you for your reply to my Statue Barred communication.

To ensure any further communication from me is based on 100% fact I sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Novuna in relation to the Hitachi account your Client has made a claim against me for.

I have received all information back from Novuna from my SAR.

Included in the information are two letters which are of important significance.

As per the account statement, my last payment and communication with Hitachi was on the 6^th January 2017.

I missed the 6^th February 2017 payment.

I missed the 6^th March 2017 payment. At this point Hitachi should have issued a Default Notice as per the T's & C's.

On 19^th April 2017 Hitachi issued a Default Notice, which your client is relying on for their claim against me.

On the 22nd January 2019 Hitachi issued a letter which clearly explains that they made an 'error' in not sending a Default Notice correctly on the 6th March 2017 (after 2 months), which they should have done as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I believe your client is unaware of this breach of the Consumer Credit Act.

Attached as one document to this email is a copy of the covering letter that Novuna included in their response to my SAR, a scan copy of the letter issued by Hitachi on the 6^th March 2017 and the letter issued by Hitachi on the 22^nd January 2019.

Add 14 days to 6th March 2017 - this would be 20th March 2017. If the correct Default Notice had been issued as per the T’s & C’s and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires; the debt IS Statute Barred by one day as the case was lodged on 21st March 2023.

I look forward to receiving confirmation in due course that your client has ceased pursuit of this Statute Barred debit.

Sincerely,

[Gruffolo]

Overdales have replied to the earlier email -

"The backdated letter you attach is a Notice of Default Sums. You can clearly see the refund as noted on the statement as NoSIA refund of £486.66, attached. This stands for Notice of Sum in Arrears and is different to a Default Notice. You were refunded the charges incurred related to this error. The Default Notice, of which only 1 was issued, is dated 19 April 2017.


We therefore remain of the view that the claim is not statute barred.

Kind regards"

Are Overdales trying it on or are they correct that the April 2017 Default Notice is correct? They seem arrogant and have completely over looking the letter from the 22nd January 2019 admitting a Default Notice should have been issued?

[echat11]

Overdales have replied to the earlier email -

"The backdated letter you attach is a Notice of Default Sums. You can clearly see the refund as noted on the statement as NoSIA refund of £486.66, attached. This stands for Notice of Sum in Arrears and is different to a Default Notice. You were refunded the charges incurred related to this error. The Default Notice, of which only 1 was issued, is dated 19 April 2017.


We therefore remain of the view that the claim is not statute barred.

Kind regards"

Are Overdales trying it on or are they correct that the April 2017 Default Notice is correct? They seem arrogant and have completely over looking the letter from the 22nd January 2019 admitting a Default Notice should have been issued?

They are missing the point, yes, there is only one Default Notice (April 2017) but by their own admission (letter dated January 2019), they failed to default the account after two months, that would have been stated in their T's & C's. It's clear that if they forgot to do something in March 2017, then do it in April 2017, there would only be one Default Notice.

What you could do is raise a formal complaint in writing, follow their complaints procedure.
They have 8 weeks to investigate, if they send a final 'response / deadlock' letter and you still aren't happy lodge a complaint with the FOS.