Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Hi Jon,No, by no means wealthy, but no benefits or such.

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Oh well it was just a thought

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Hello PJ I've PM'd you some " suggestions " for you to take a look and decide if it is
an approach you would like to try.

nem

[Roland]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Hmm advice via pm. Is that OK on here?

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

I'd prefer it if all help could be given on the thread please. The site policy is that everything should be public unless there is anything particularly sensitive. This is for everyone's protection. Thanks.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

P-Jay will post the information when he has decided what to do with my suggestion either use it or discard it.
nem

[Kati]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

I've been asked to post this xx

For the Personal Attention of:
Bryan Carter
Principal Bryan Carter LLP.
address.


Date: Re: County Court Claim No.....................................
Your Client Lowell:

Dear Mr carter,

I refer to your letters regarding the above mentioned claim, both dated 28 July 2015.

I will deal with your letter regarding my request made under CPR 31.14 in which you decline to comply with the request as " the claim is most likely to be allocated to the small claims track" as you are well aware this CPR still applies to the claim until it is so allocated, therefore please provide the documents request by return of post.

Failure to comply will be brought to the notice of the court and appropriate regulatory bodies.

I will now deal with your second letter in regard to may belief that the alleged debt is statute barred, as " the account fell in to default in February 2010. and your client claims that this is the date that the 6 year period laid down in the Limitation Act 1980 commence.

Now I will address this point in more detail, the alleged debt arises from an account with the now defunct Welcome Finance, having been in touch with Welcome I have confirmed that the last payment made on this account was made in August 2008 and Welcome omitted to file a default until February 2010 an unacceptable delay.

The ICO Technical Guidance on defaults states that defaults should be recorded no more than 6 months after the cause of action say in the case after 3 missed contractual payments meaning a default should have been recorded latest November 2008.

My research shows that Welcome has shown a tendency to place very late defaults often very close to the point that the sale of delinquent debts has taken place.

Given the information above I am making a Formal Complaint regarding this unfair and unreasonably late default. I will seek to have the default back dated to November 2008.

I respectfully suggest that you refer to your client and suggest that at this point it withdraws the claim in the interest of saving court time and costs.

I would of course place the evidence of the late default before the court which I believe on the balance of probabilities would agree with my submission that the alleged debt is statute barred.

OK P-JAY have a read and let me know what you think.

We'll leave this off the open forum for now to avoid it being diverted into a discussion thread.

Your decision after all no one else's !!

nem.

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Thanks Both,

Hopefully it'll do the trick!

[Kati]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

It may well do [MENTION=69858]P-Jay[/MENTION] keep us updated xx

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

I've been asked to post this xx

Thank you Kati xx

nem

[Roland]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

A obvious point to me anyway is that this seems to infer that the default date on the credit file has something to do with the default on the account, in regards to SB, it doesn't of course.

Something that could have been corrected perhaps ?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

A obvious point to me anyway is that this seems to infer that the default date on the credit file has something to do with the default on the account, in regards to SB, it doesn't of course.

Something that could have been corrected perhaps ?

Being Masters of Dirty Tricks, Lowell often argue that a debt is not SBd and refer to the default date on the CRAs. I posted about that on another thread a couple of days ago, it's something they often do when they don't make up a phantom payment. :mad2: :mad2: There is also a thread where the OP got a CCJ the other day because the judge agreed that the clock started on the date the DN was issued, apparently based on the infamous Hart case, even though the case in question relates to specific contractual terms. Even then, the two dates could never be the same, a DN states that a default will be recorded, however, it can be recorded at any time after the DN is issued.

There is no legal obligation to report to the CRAs, nor do creditors report equally to all of them. Anything to do with CRA reporting is just 'principles' and it all falls under the remit of the ICO and relates to the DPA 1998, nothing whatsoever to do with the Consumer Credit Act (which requires DNs to be issued) or the Limitation Act. Lowell and the lawyers they employ would know this very well, however, they expect LIPs not to have a clue and to be as gullible as five year olds. Furthermore, they often 'update' the original default date themselves, sometimes moving it forward a few years. How they keep their CCL is a mystery to a lot of us. :noidea: :mmph:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Also , just so we can all learn who is this authority we can report ignored cpr requests to, it would be very useful.

As far as I know, if you want to enforce them you need an unless order, which you have to pay for (unless you qualify for fee remission). I've just posted on another thread that a year or so ago we used to do quite a few on here and some produced good results but then some OPs came across unfriendly judges. With claims below £10k you can only apply for one before you submit a defence, otherwise the case will be allocated to small claims and the application will be dismissed on the grounds that Part 31 does not apply to small claims. I didn't know there was any other recourse, other than to mention that they didn't comply in your defence. :noidea:

Also you do know that the burden of proof is reversed and on the creditor in a case like this, something that the OP may have found useful to mention.
You see this is the beauty of an open forum people who know things you dont. can contribute for the best interest of the OP.

Yes, when someone says a debt is SBd the onus is on the creditor to show it isn't, not on the debtor to show it is. There was a case here, I think it was only yesterday, when someone appeared in court after the lowlifes argued a payment was made and their 'proof' was a statement of account created by themselves, the judge dismissed that and the OP won. :whoo: :whoo:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

There was a case here, I think it was only yesterday, when someone appeared in court after the lowlifes argued a payment was made and their 'proof' was a statement of account created by themselves, the judge dismissed that and the OP won. :whoo: :whoo:

I've just found the thread I referred to above where the OP WON against the lowlifes on the SBd front, I simply suggested they should be put to strict proof that it wasn't SBd:

The way I would word it is that the defendant denies having made the alleged payment and the claimant is put to strict proof that a payment was actually made. The burden of proof is on the claimant and putting it like that makes that point without making any accusations.

Yay... time to chalk up another victory for the Beagles!
I just had my hearing where Lowells were represented, nevertheless the judge was not satisfied they had discharged their onus of proof that this matter was not statute barred.
The document they called a statement of account was not accepted as an accurate record, neither was it proved any alleged payment had been made therefore the claim was dismissed.
Grateful thanks to you all... @nemesis45, @FlamingParrot, @MIKE770 and @Kati I couldn't have done this without your help.

[P-Jay]

Re: Lowell Portfolio v P-Jay

Thanks again @nemesis45

I've just checked and Bcarter signed for my letter today - hopefully I'll have positive news (to me, not them) soon.

No word from Lowell yet, the 12+2 deadline is today - however I haven't seen the post yet.

I've picking up the vibe that, should this go to court it would be better for me to turn up in person? Do they allow you to change venue? it's 200 miles or so each way - although I'd certainly make the trip if I had to.