Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Yes please!

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Yes please!

Ok PJ I'll try to get it done before the end of the day.

Nem

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Thanks Both, I'll be sure to upgrade when I'm paid in a few days.

In the meantime I've had the following responses from Bryan Carter





I'm amazed that the default was lodged that late? I'm was unemployed and hospitalised almost 12 months prior to this - and I thought the 'clock' started from the last payment, not from the default notice? I'm lost.

Nothing back from Lowell yet.

So they are claiming BMW v Hart applies basically.

Some judges may be convinced by that.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

It's a current Lowell/Carter ploy on all loan accounts, Welcome accounts are
a nightmare as so many are only defaulted just prior to sale.

In this case to use Carters terms " the account fell into default" a considerable time prior to
the default being registered. Given time this evening I have a " cunning plan" to try and
sort this.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

So they are claiming BMW v Hart applies basically.

Some judges may be convinced by that.

What does "fell into default" mean in this case? :noidea: On the other letter they are saying that the DN and NoA "left the control of the claimant when they were sent..." :mmph: That means they are not in possession of a DN so they can't show when, in their view, the clock started to run. The case above refers to a Default Notice not recording a default with the CRAs which is probably where Carter got his date from.

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Yes, I noticed that fudging of the issue in the "fell into default" phrasing. Could well be that Carter has no real clue.

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

As an aside, it strikes me that with all the consolidation in the industry and debt buyers also buying solicitors firms there is more and more misleading and unfair practice. Unsurprisingly the government and the judiciary are in on this. There is less and less recourse to justice

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Yes, I noticed that fudging of the issue in the "fell into default" phrasing. Could well be that Carter has no real clue.

Does he ever? His claims are all issued speculatively in the hope of obtaining default judgment. He has the cheek to always use that paragraph in his letters where he says that "It is the original creditor's policy to issue agreements…" How the heck would he know what the OC's policy was at the time an account was set up when his lovely clients buy debts from all and sundry, from bank loans to catalogue accounts and mobile contracts. :confused2:

I can't understand how Lowell still have a CCL. :noidea: They are always coming up with new tricks, before the FCA took over they issued SDs like confetti, all dated two or three weeks prior to being served. When someone says the debt is SBd they make up phantom payments allegedly made randomly years after default. Failing that, they argue the default date on the CRAs is the date the clock starts to run and not only that, they are the ones who very often also 'update' the default date to when they bought the account, often many years after the original date. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: They break all the rules and somehow get away with it!

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

What does "fell into default" mean in this case? :noidea: On the other letter they are saying that the DN and NoA "left the control of the claimant when they were sent..." :mmph: That means they are not in possession of a DN so they can't show when, in their view, the clock started to run. The case above refers to a Default Notice not recording a default with the CRAs which is probably where Carter got his date from.

Unfortunately until creditors are obliged to archive hard of DN's they can fall back on " internal" records of date a DN was sent. So there's plenty og games that the likes Carter and Lowell to play.



nem

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Thanks again for everyone's feedback.

I've got a little lost in some of the terminology but am I right in thinking that:

As I made the last payment in Aug 2008 it's all but statute barred - should I send a CCA to Welcome to confirm this in writing?

Bryan Carter maintain the default notice was served in Feb 2010 - but it's not recorded on my CRA and in any case Bryan Carter don't have a record of it, or in fact a record of anything by the looks of things.

Lowell - as yet haven't responded to my CCA request - I dated it the 18th and posted it on the 20th - is the "12+2" limit the 3rd of Aug - should I contact the court on that date and ask them to put the case on hold pending a statement?

I'm starting to feel cautiously optimistic about this.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Received PM P-Jay I'm on it this am.

nem

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

A formal default notice under s87 of the Consumer Credit Act and a default on your credit file are not the same thing, and don't have to happen at the same time, although they can do if appropriate. Also there can be other reasons why a default on the CRA does not show, apart from age. So I would not draw too strong conclusions due to it's lack until you have more info.

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Oh B**ger it looks as if the court has taken your comment on the AOS as all you were going to say in defence it's not the first time I've seen this happen this week.
A phone call to the court on Monday to explain what's happened and that you need to " fully particularise" your claim.

nem

On this note - I was unable to get them on the phone last week and was advised to e-mail - which I did - I haven't had a reply yet so I called them this morning.

They weren't very helpful really - they can't 'undo' my defence, the adviser explained I could send them additional information which they 'may' except, or change my defence completely (£50 fee for this) - but he said that if Lowell / Bryan to counter my defence I still have an opportunity during meadiation to add additional information and to have more evidence added during the trial - hope I haven't shot myself in the foot here...

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

On this note - I was unable to get them on the phone last week and was advised to e-mail - which I did - I haven't had a reply yet so I called them this morning.

They weren't very helpful really - they can't 'undo' my defence, the adviser explained I could send them additional information which they 'may' except, or change my defence completely (£50 fee for this) - but he said that if Lowell / Bryan to counter my defence I still have an opportunity during meadiation to add additional information and to have more evidence added during the trial - hope I haven't shot myself in the foot here...

Hello P-Jay no I think you will be ok on this!

nem

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

P jay
Are you eligible for fee remission , i.e are you on means tested benefits or a low income
Not sure if this would apply for the £50 though