** DISCONTINUED ** Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

I have the generic template all ready, not adjusted it yet. I'll post here once I have done it. I'll include SB too but would like to confirm, if they prove otherwise this will not affect the rest of my no document defence?

Thanks again Jon.

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...t-Court-Claims

Examples of generic defences, adjust as necessary

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, no if you claim several points you only need one to succeed for your defence to win. In the Santander v Mayhew case she lost on the S78 request but won on the other points .

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Thanks again.

Regarding the CCA, I do not have proof of delivery per se as it has yet to be signed for, I have proof of posting in the form of a tracking number which shows the item as being posted from my local PO on 7th, then nothing. I trust this is enough?

It's worth noting there is time for tracking status to change yet although this looks less likely with each passing day.

It would have to be the CCA request that RM have possibly lost!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

I have the generic template all ready, not adjusted it yet. I'll post here once I have done it. I'll include SB too but would like to confirm, if they prove otherwise this will not affect the rest of my no document defence?

Thanks again Jon.

This is an example that combines both the no documents defence and the fact the debt is SBd: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...011#post494011

The burden of proof is on the claimant to show the debt was not SBd when the claim was issued, not on you to show that it was. The idea of asking for the documents is to have a back-up plan in case they can come up with something showing you made a payment in the last six years (as long as it's legit and not a phantom payment). You can still argue non-compliance with your CCA request if that's the case. That in itself is a bar to enforcement for as long as the breach remains.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks again.

Regarding the CCA, I do not have proof of delivery per se as it has yet to be signed for, I have proof of posting in the form of a tracking number which shows the item as being posted from my local PO on 7th, then nothing. I trust this is enough?

It's worth noting there is time for tracking status to change yet although this looks less likely with each passing day.

It would have to be the CCA request that RM have possibly lost!

It should be, as above, the burden of proof is on the claimant. They can still send the CCA at any point if they can find it.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Hello everyone.

Just wanted to give you all a quick update & also ask for a little more advice please, especially regarding the rather unique & potential statute barred element, as my defence has to be submitted by this Tuesday.

Hardly unique, most of the debts this dynamic duo have been issuing claims for, have been SBd!

Claim was issued on 18^th June. By my reckoning that makes the date of service 23^rd, AOS by 7^th July, defence by 21^st July. Is this correct?


I submitted my AOS/intention to defend immediately on the evening I first posted here, that being 6^th July.

It is. :thumb:

I sent the CPR to BryanCarter & CCA to Lowell first class recorded the next day on 7^th.

CPR was signed for on 8^th & the standard stock reply seen here numerous times from Bryan Carter was received a week later. I already had the response template provided by your good selves ready to roll so this was sent again 1^st class signed for the same day. This was signed for the next day and their response was received within 3 days which, surprisingly, was a carbon copy of their first response - “Practice direction 7c point 1.4 (3A) eliminates the requirement to attach documents.......matter will be allocated small claims track.....blah blah blah”. I now have two copies of this letter!

Mr Carter only knows one way to reply to every request, and that's with that very same template. :mad2:

Why are they so adamant that they do not need to provide this information? As I understand it, now I have requested it, the case is unenforceable without it. Am I correct?

Not entirely. Once you submit your defence, Mr Carter will have 28 days to respond to the court saying whether he wishes to continue with the claim, if so you'll receive the N180 directions questionnaire and later on, the court will give directions to supply the documents they intend to rely on. At that point some of his claims fall down when his client can't obtain anything and have to be discontinued. ray:

Non compliance with a CCA request is a bar to enforcement for as long as they are in default of your request. Once they supply it, the document would have to be assessed on its own merits.

The CCA to Lowell has not been signed for yet according to Royal Mail online which, having dealt with Royal Mail for a number of years myself, I know is not unusual for standard signed for post. However, I've yet to receive a response from Lowell and, despite missing post being a rarity, I'm actually starting to think the letter may well have gone missing. Should I send a follow up letter tomorrow? Perhaps I could include a copy of the original CCA letter & the tracking number?

RM Tracking doesn't work 100%. I've had replies to letters I sent and never appeared as delivered/signed for on the website. I also had the postman drop through my letterbox a letter that was supposed to be signed for, without even ringing the bell to ask me to sign for it.

Finally, regarding potential statute barred, I have been in contact with the debt management company I was using at the time & they have confirmed last payment was made in August '09. However, the plot thickens as I have been searching through boxes of old paperwork from my loft looking for my original PPI paperwork ( which I've yet to find) and I have found notes I made regarding a telephone conversation I had with Goldfish (Lloyds) in March '09. And then it all came back to me. Goldfish have, to the best of my knowledge, never received a penny the whole time I was on DMP. I'll explain. I started my DMP in early spring '08. By the end of the year all letters from my creditors had long since stopped apart from Goldfish. They continued to hound me despite the DM company telling me to ignore them. By March '09 I decided I'd had enough & called them myself only to find they had never received a penny from the DM company & indeed didn't even know I was on a DMP. What followed was a lot of toing & froing with the DM company saying they were paying & Goldfish saying the weren't. By August I'd decided they could no longer be trusted & quit the DMP.

Would it be worth adding SB to my defence? I suppose it's possible the DMC may have eventually located the money & credited it back to Goldfish, although the lady I spoke to at the DMC last week could neither confirm nor deny this. The only record she had was the same as 6 years ago ie they were paying Goldfish every month.

If they weren't paid, then it would be SBd. :thumb: At the end of the day, the onus is on Mr Carter to show that payments were made.

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

You guys are absolute legends I could marry you/engage in a civil partnership where appropriate. I don't think my wife would be too happy mind, nor the law for that matter so I'll just say thank you all very much, and I'll keep you posted.

As a side I think I might stick around here if okay. I imagine the feeling you get helping others to win cases is immense & to be honest I wouldn't mind offering a bit of advice here & there, as I learn of course.

All the best
TIM

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

You guys are absolute legends I could marry you/engage in a civil partnership where appropriate. I don't think my wife would be too happy mind, nor the law for that matter so I'll just say thank you all very much, and I'll keep you posted.

As a side I think I might stick around here if okay. I imagine the feeling you get helping others to win cases is immense & to be honest I wouldn't mind offering a bit of advice here & there, as I learn of course.

All the best
TIM

Of course it's OK to stick around, it's always good to have others sharing their experiences. :whoo:

...and you don't even have to marry me! :lol:

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Tim
I accept your proposal although I am not sure the OH would be too happy either . by the way we could get married now, just not in Church:tinysmile_twink_t2:

As for RM, whenever I do not get a signature and it shows up as "being processed through our system" I have complained and always ended up getting a POD and if memory serves me 6 first class stamps


BTW you wouldn't want to marry her, she has a sharp beak

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Hey guys. Hope everyone is well.

I need to get my witness statement sent off this week as the court date is soon. I'm going to use this one as a guide http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...282#post498282

The only thing I am unsure of is how to word the potential statute barred part. Does it not seem a contradiction to confidently state the debt is SB whilst denying any knowledge of it?

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Your defence isn't denying all knowledge of the debt so it is fine to say something like, It is my contention that any debt would be statute barred pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. - doesn't need to be complicated.


Nosing back a bit - were your DMP actually making payments to your other creditors ?

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Hey guys. Hope everyone is well.

I need to get my witness statement sent off this week as the court date is soon. I'm going to use this one as a guide http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...282#post498282

The only thing I am unsure of is how to word the potential statute barred part. Does it not seem a contradiction to confidently state the debt is SB whilst denying any knowledge of it?

Hi,

Responding to your PM
I believe as [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] says there was a DMP in place can you confirm this and when payments via a DMP ceased.
You would write something along the lines of:

The defendant avers that any such alleged debt is statute barred under the provisions of the Limitation act 1980.

It is then for the claimant to prove other wise.

nem

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Thanks for the quick response. That's great news. I would have never thought of wording it so well. Thank you for that. Would this point be best at the beginning or end of my statement? Also is the statement in the link above suitable for my statement? I thought so as it's pretty much the same as my defence, minus the SB part.

Yes DMP paid all creditors apart from Goldfish, although they were adamant they were paying them. I even have monthly invoices here that I requested. Even with all this information Goldfish still insisted they had received nothing. I called Lloyds shortly after this claim was issued to find out the last payment they received but the lady I spoke to told me this account was being dealt with by another company & she was going to put me through. I just hung up as I assumed she was putting me through to Lowells.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry Nem just seen your post. Payments ceased some time around August '09.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Thanks for the quick response. That's great news. I would have never thought of wording it so well. Thank you for that. Would this point be best at the beginning or end of my statement? Also is the statement in the link above suitable for my statement? I thought so as it's pretty much the same as my defence, minus the SB part.

Yes DMP paid all creditors apart from Goldfish, although they were adamant they were paying them. I even have monthly invoices here that I requested. Even with all this information Goldfish still insisted they had received nothing. I called Lloyds shortly after this claim was issued to find out the last payment they received but the lady I spoke to told me this account was being dealt with by another company & she was going to put me through. I just hung up as I assumed she was putting me through to Lowells.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry Nem just seen your post. Payments ceased some time around August '09.

Well worth a "punt " on SB then.
This would be best placed just after the preliminary paragraphs.

nem

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Excellent. Will do. I'll keep you all posted re the outcome.

[ThisIsMusic]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/Lloyds Claim Form Potential Statute Barred debt from 2002/03

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know I phoned the court today as I have still not received the claimants WS. I was informed that the case was discontinued the day after they signed for my WS!

Never would I have even considered fighting this had it not been for this amazing forum & the people here, in particular Nemesis, Flaming Parrot & Amethyst. The good you do for people is incredible. I will most certainly be passing this knowledge on where I can.