Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

[ncf355]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Re original document at the hearing, this is the written advice given to me by the barrister I hired on direct access a few years back:

The requirement to attach a copy of the agreement to the Particulars of Claim and have the original available at the hearing is in paragraph 7.3 of the Practice Direction to Part 16.

[nemesis45]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Re original document at the hearing, this is the written advice given to me by the barrister I hired on direct access a few years back:

The requirement to attach a copy of the agreement to the Particulars of Claim and have the original available at the hearing is in paragraph 7.3 of the Practice Direction to Part 16.

Not If issued via Northampton CC MCC, documents cannot be attached, a CCA request to the claimant is the best move.

[ncf355]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Yep, agree re the CCA request being the best move, but prior to getting into the court room they are still required to supply a copy of the agreement they rely on and its enforced by that PD

As for the original, if they cant supply it the onus is on them to prove its validity

Though of course its always a good idea to be able to show things like a lack of connectivity between T and C's doc and the signed agreement

[nemesis45]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Yep, agree re the CCA request being the best move, but prior to getting into the court room they are still required to supply a copy of the agreement they rely on and its enforced by that PD

As for the original, if they cant supply it the onus is on them to prove its validity

Though of course its always a good idea to be able to show things like a lack of connectivity between T and C's doc and the signed agreement

Standard Disclosures 14 days prior to the hearing date all should be disclosed by both parties.

Indeed the onus is entirely upon the claimant to prove that a "recon" is fully compliant with the criteria, especially the Ts & Cs in all aspects, inception, closure, amendments all must be clearly relevant to the original particulars.

If one is unsure that any part of the "recon" is in fact the data relevant to the agreement, it must be challenged one can neither confirm nor deny the authenticity so the claimant is put to " strict" proof of the validity.

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Okay cool, those V ones are from the leaflet ( http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...e-1997-leaflet ) just reconstructed. Have you posted up yours ? If you have them scanned in can you put them in the library for me marked with the V number and year - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...and-Agreements

[Kafka]

Re: BC/Lowell - v - Kafka

Following the request immediately above, I have now posted the T&Cs I described in post #7 in the Library for T&Cs.
These are what BC send for the CCA request and are V10# and V14#, supposedly for inception (2005) and default (2009), though neither are dated.

Stapled to V14# is the attached document called 'Terms of your Cap 1 credit card agreement'. This is a 2-sided document that has been personalised with name, address and credit limit, so intended to represent an actual agreement even though (again) undated. The clinching ace with this is that the default fees are stated as £12, when V10# clearly lists them as £20, which was what they were charging in late 2005.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Some movement with this one.

This is the draft of a letter sent on 15 Nov

Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP
11 De Havilland Drive
Weybridge
Surrey
KT13 0YP

15 November 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

Account no: xxxx
Your xxxx

Thank you for your letter dated 3 November 2014, which is not identified as being either a response to the CCA request for disclosure or similar under the CPR sent to yourselves. Whichever, it follows that certain items requested are still forthcoming. I further draw your attention to the fact that the documentation provided is unenforceable and will be vigorously contested, should you continue with this claim.

If your client is indeed the legal owner of this account, then they should be aware from my correspondence with Capital One that I have been unable to work for several years due to severe health problems, including breast cancer and – more recently – loss of mobility due to two major surgeries for joint replacements. As a result of this I am now registered disabled and am unlikely to be able to earn a living as things currently stand. I am also no longer a houseowner, circumstances having forced me to move into rented accommodation

Yours faithfully,

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Received this letter from Lowell dated 2 Dec. I've never seen one like this before

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Indeed, they almost sound nice.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

This is an update on the thread as the registered default is due to fall off in 2 weeks time.

29 Jan - letter from Lowell asking for update on circumstances.
10 Feb - similar letter
12 March - as we have not heard from you...we offer the following:

• 75% discount
• Monthly amount of 50p per day
• Plan based on what you can afford

I'm surprised that Lowell have made an offer as low as 25%, but then the original documentation is invalid and they are aware that they have failed to comply with both CCA and CPR requests.

The registered date of the default was 6 years ago in 2 weeks time, and as early posts on the thread cover, it should really have been defaulted a year or tow earlier. This doesn't have any bearing on Limitation in this case, because the debt has been acknowledged.

They know the debt is unenforceable and that any claim will be resisted, so I'm wondering what Lowell will do now if there is no response to their 75% offer? It might be possible to settle this at 25%, but I'm just looking at all the options.

[nemesis45]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

This is an update on the thread as the registered default is due to fall off in 2 weeks time.

29 Jan - letter from Lowell asking for update on circumstances.
10 Feb - similar letter
12 March - as we have not heard from you...we offer the following:

• 75% discount
• Monthly amount of 50p per day
• Plan based on what you can afford

I'm surprised that Lowell have made an offer as low as 25%, but then the original documentation is invalid and they are aware that they have failed to comply with both CCA and CPR requests.

The registered date of the default was 6 years ago in 2 weeks time, and as early posts on the thread cover, it should really have been defaulted a year or tow earlier. This doesn't have any bearing on Limitation in this case, because the debt has been acknowledged.

They know the debt is unenforceable and that any claim will be resisted, so I'm wondering what Lowell will do now if there is no response to their 75% offer? It might be possible to settle this at 25%, but I'm just looking at all the options.

Hello Kafka, Lowell seem desperate to get a few pennies ot of this, could mean they know it's going nowhere, string them along as along as possible if the get " heavy" they are going to have to move pretty fast to get a claim issued now. Could always offer 2.5% as a " gesture of goodwill without any admission of liability."

nem

[BLUEOTTER]

Re: Kafka - v -BC/Lowell

Subscribing , looks very similar to my current issues with Lowell and will read in full later on, thank you