Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

[Lyla]

"Claim for 183.89 amount due under an agreement

three mobile

this debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell portfolio ltd on 8.3.11 and notice served....."

i have are never had a three mobile account!!

letter as per your advice sent on 30.11.15

thank you

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

"Claim for 183.89 amount due under an agreement

three mobile

this debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell portfolio ltd on 8.3.11 and notice served....."

i have are never had a three mobile account!!

****letter as per your advice sent on 30.11.*15****** Do you have a thread on this already?***********

thank you

Is this the " dongle " contract?

In your name?
It seems that this is probably unpaid cancellation fees, the manner of the return of the dongle would not have ended the contract.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

"Claim for 183.89 amount due under an agreement

three mobile

this debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell portfolio ltd on 8.3.11 and notice served....."

i have are never had a three mobile account!!

****letter as per your advice sent on 30.11.*15****** Do you have a thread on this already?***********

thank you

Is this the " dongle " contract?

In your name?
It seems that this is probably unpaid cancellation fees, the manner of the return of the dongle would not have ended the contract.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

"Claim for 183.89 amount due under an agreement

three mobile

this debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell portfolio ltd on 8.3.11 and notice served....."

i have are never had a three mobile account!!

****letter as per your advice sent on 30.11.*15****** Do you have a thread on this already?***********

thank you

Is this the " dongle " contract?

In your name?
It seems that this is probably unpaid cancellation fees, the manner of the return of the dongle would not have ended the contract.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

"Claim for 183.89 amount due under an agreement

three mobile

this debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell portfolio ltd on 8.3.11 and notice served....."

i have are never had a three mobile account!!

****letter as per your advice sent on 30.11.*15****** Do you have a thread on this already?***********

thank you

Is this the " dongle " contract?

In your name?
It seems that this is probably unpaid cancellation fees, the manner of the return of the dongle would not have ended the contract.

nem

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi nem

i have no idea!

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi nem

i have no idea!

Who provided the Dongle?

nem

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi nem

ive never had a dongle.

thanks

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi nem

ive never had a dongle.

thanks

Looks like I have got threads crossed here sorry.

What is the letter sent 30/11/ (15) should be 14? please a thread on the same subject?

nem

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Sorry, date I sent letter is today - 30.5.15

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Thanks.
No account with 3 ever is a pretty good defence.

Have you acknowledge the claim? you can do this online at Money Claim Online.
Sent a CPR 31.14 request to Carter. This is to request all the documents mentioned
in the Particulars of Claim there is a template in the forum library for this.

You can write to Lowell/Carter after doing the above.

I suggest this.

FAO Bryan Carter
Principal Bryan Carter LLP.

date

Ref: CC Claim No...................

Dear Mr Carter,

I refer to the above mentioned claim issued on .... date...... on behalf of Lowell in the matter of debt arising from an account with 3 Mobile.

Please take note: I am not now nor ever have been a customer of 3 Mobile and have no knowledge of the alleged debt and all liability is denied.

Given this information I suggest that in the interest of saving cost and court time you inform your client of these facts and withdraw this claim any continued action will be robustly defended.


use signed for post and check delivery.

nem

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Thanks very much. I will get onto this.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Thanks very much. I will get onto this.

Just come back to this thread if you need any further help!

nem

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi. Letter received from carters:

"confirm this his matter will most properly be allocated to the small clai,s track as this is a simple contractual matter and part 31 of the civil procedure rules will therefore not apply.

it is the original creditors policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

we confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing your defence."

okay, where do I go from here, please?

thank you

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Are you around nem?

thanks

[Lyla]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Can anyone help, please?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi. Letter received from carters:

"confirm this his matter will most properly be allocated to the small clai,s track as this is a simple contractual matter and part 31 of the civil procedure rules will therefore not apply.

it is the original creditors policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

we confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing your defence."

okay, where do I go from here, please?

thank you

Standard template response from Mr Carter to ALL requests he receives.

This is our standard response to his letter: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...385#post410385

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter v lyla

Hi. Letter received from carters:

"confirm this his matter will most properly be allocated to the small clai,s track as this is a simple contractual matter and part 31 of the civil procedure rules will therefore not apply.

it is the original creditors policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

we confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing your defence."

okay, where do I go from here, please?

thank you

Hello Lyla,

Apologies for the delay in replying it's been a very hectic week!

You have received the standard reply re 31.14, however this still applies until the claim is allocated to the SCT, it's also irrelevant what may or may not have been supplied by the original creditor when an account is opened.

You mention this " reply" in your defence and WS.

nem