Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

[aemilius]

I have received a court claim this morning.

"The claimants Claim is for the sum of £2xx.xx being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a Telecommunications agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the defendant and Three Mobile under account reference xxxxxxxxxx and assigned to the Claimant on 29/12/2011 notice of which has been given to the defendant.

The defendant failed to maintain the contractual payment under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served and not complied with.

The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.0% per annum (a daily rate of 0.04 from the date of assignment of the agreement to 28/12/2012 being an amount of £1x.6x"


The account referenced does not appear on my noodle account.

What would be the next steps to take and how can I deal with this situation without getting a CCJ on my credit record.

I am willing to follow advice given, as I would like to sort this out but I am literally clueless about what I should do.

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

The account does actually appear on my noodle file, however under a different account number to that stated on the court claim.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

Hi Welcome to LB.
Lowell tend to use there own account numbering system.

What exactly are the details showing on your Noddle file?
Lowell are claiming this is CCA Regulate Agreement so send a CCA Request Direct to Lowell with the £1 statutory
fee, use a cheque or postal order endorsed " For Statutory Fee Only" there's a template in the forum library for this.

Send by signed for post.

Next a request under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 (CPR31.14) this is for the documents mentioned in the particulars of claim i.e. the regulated agreement, the Notice of assignment, and the default notice. This goes to BW there is no fee for this.

When did you last make any payment to this account?

nem

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

Hi Nem,

Thanks so much for the quick reply.

Noodle shows the following;

Lowell £187
account type: Telecommunications supplier
account number: (different to court claim)
account start date: xx/11/08
Opening Balance £88
Repayment Frequency: monthly
date of default: 13/02/2010
default balance £88.00

There is no payment history recorded on noodle prior to april 2012.

This debt is a throw back from a time in my life when I made a mess. I do not know when the last payment was made but I imagine it was early-mid 2009.

I will research and produce the letters you have stated above and update the thread accordingly.

Thankyou for your assistance!!!

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

To update the thread.

I acknowledged the claim with the court on line and requested extra time to prepare my defence on Thurs 25 June 2015.

I posted CCA request and £1.00 postal order to Lowell on Fri 26 June 2015 by recorded/signed for Royal Mail 1st Class.

I posted the 31.14 request to BW legal on Fri 26 June 2015 by recorded/signed for Royal Mail 1st Class.

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

I received the following letter from bw legal on the 3rd July 2015.

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

I also received the following letter from Lowell Financial on the 4th July 2015.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

I also received the following letter from Lowell Financial on the 4th July 2015.

That is correct, you have a Service Contract there is no credit element. BUT
The Particulars of Claim mention an agreement " regulated by CCA 1974"
You could inform Lowell/BW as that as their statement of claim is in regard
to a regulated to an alleged debt arising from an Agreement Regulated by
CCA 1974 then any such agreement should be supplied.

This happens all to frequently and the last excuse I've seen was that a " wrong"
template was used.

Push them if you wish, quoting BW's letter dated 30 June 2015: IMO BW should have
been aware of the type of account when it issued the claim.

In reality now you will have to look towards what you have as a defence to this.

nem



nem

[aemilius]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

Hi Nem,

"The claimants Claim is for the sum of £2xx.xx being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a Telecommunications agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the defendant and Three Mobile under account reference xxxxxxxxxx and assigned to the Claimant on 29/12/2011 notice of which has been given to the defendant."

The Particulars of claim refer to an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974, is this a mistake?

If so, is the mistake significant in any way?

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio / BW Legal / Three (telecoms) Court claim 22/06/15

Hi Nem,

"The claimants Claim is for the sum of £2xx.xx being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a Telecommunications agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the defendant and Three Mobile under account reference xxxxxxxxxx and assigned to the Claimant on 29/12/2011 notice of which has been given to the defendant."

The Particulars of claim refer to an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974, is this a mistake?

If so, is the mistake significant in any way?

BW Legal should have been aware, they POC should
be amended before any hearing.
There's games that can be played with " mistakes" like
this but in the end I suspect they will amend the POC
when challenged.
My personal approach would be to reply " in all innocence" to Lowell's
letter saying that as their POC says an agreement regulated by CCA 1974
you expect to receive it asap.

As said what is your plan for a defence putting the agreement matter aside?
nem