Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

I think to be honest that it only shows just how little info debt purchasers get when they buy a debt. All the will have been given is the default date and the sale date, non of the history.

They don't get any history or paperwork, just an account number, alleged amount and alleged default date. Their job is to extract money out of people with threats, not to supply information. :rant: :rant: :rant:

It does IMHO make a mockery of the legal system, they should not be allowed to issue proceedings until they actually have the evidence but alas they seem to be able to.

That's because the system allows claims to be issued electronically without any paperwork attached so they issue them in the hope of obtaining default judgment. Sadly most claims do end up that way.

The whole thing stinks. Their abuse of the legal system is absolutely shocking. I've actually just found another letter here, from Lowell, dated 15th December 2014 stating that they were going to let Frederickson chase up the debt. Exactly 1 week later, they've filed a claim at the Small Claims Court with no other correspondence or anything else and after I've received the claim form their solicitors they tell me that they've initiated court action. They couldn't care less about protocol, the situations people are in or anything else. It's greedy and they're trying to use a system that is really there to protect people as a weapon to bludgeon them into submission.

Although there is a pre-action conduct, most don't bother following it and sanctions only affect costs which are not really an issue in the small claims track. :mmph:

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

They don't get any history or paperwork, just an account number, alleged amount and alleged default date. Their job is to extract money out of people with threats, not to supply information. :rant: :rant: :rant:

That's because the system allows claims to be issued electronically without any paperwork attached so they issue them in the hope of obtaining default judgment. Sadly most claims do end up that way.


Although there is a pre-action conduct, most don't bother following it and sanctions only affect costs which are not really an issue in the small claims track. :mmph:

There really needs to be some sort of shake up of the system. I imagine issuing claims electronically is convenient for people who need to do it but if it's being misused by unscrupulous companies and their legal agents they need to redesign the system. It takes the micky that companies like this can use the legal system to scare/bully/intimidate people into paying. I just hope that I get a judge wise to the antics of these clowns.

FYI - This is what I'm thinking of closing my Witeness Statement with, advice appreciated

The Defendant submits that the Claimant does not have a valid claim because the Claimant has failed to meet all obligations under Civil Protection Rule 16.5(4) and failed to comply with S77(4)/S78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act and requests that the claimants claim be struck out

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

- - - Updated - - -

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks those dates look fishy. They're more like something someone has just randomly pulled from the air rather than facts from paperwork they actually have in place.

You would think that a judge looking at this would be of the same mind wouldn't you?

Should I raise this with the Judge? Since their own witness statement is talking nonsense you'd think that would only work in my favour?

I think my own WS is pretty much complete, so I'll get that submitted and everything else I'll take in as notes/points to raise with the judge at the hearing.

It certainly would! :grin:

I'd suggest looking at this thread where the claimant's WS was utter rubbish and guess WHO won? :thumb: :thumb:

just got back from court. Thank you all so much for your assistance.

I only found the DN last night when i was digging through some old docs trying to find something to discredit their case however, I didn't bring up the DN in the end because my argument for the most part relied on the fact that a debt could not exist as i couldn't have signed the agreement that they had supplied as evidence (as suggested by judgemental24)

I went through the case with a fine tooth comb earlier hours of this morning and picked to pieces the witness statement they provided and also the documentation they provided.

I pointed out to the judge all of the contradictions in the witness statement (there were about 6 or 7) and also discredited their documentation that they were relying on. Mainly the DOA and dates that they say it was issued. There were 3 different dates within the documentation (which they tried to justify by saying the different dates related to equity & legal assignment)

I advised that i was questioning the authenticity of the documentation as they were supported by a witness who's statement couldn't be trusted (based on contradictions etc)

Asked for the original documents that must be produced as mentioned in CPR practice directions 16, paragraph 7.3 to which they mention 'Carey v hsbc' and the need only to provide a true copy which can be reconstituted. I made them aware that this is only sufficient for information purpose and not acceptable for proof purposes.

ultimately they couldn't prove that the documents were true copies given the contradictions in the witness statement and based on the fact that i advised that i needed the original to ascertain if the signature was really mine and not lifted from elsewhere.

The judge dismissed the case mentioning that the claimants claim put forward was poor in its entirety from start to finish and given the contradictions, the lack of evidence to show authenticity in the documents etc the balance of probabilities meant that she could not find in their favour

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

I think I've pretty much got my attack plan for when I go to court. I'll list them here.

1. I've been looking at the "evidence" submitted with the WS from Bryan Carter. Attached is supposedly a copy of the Statement of Account from ShopDirect which says, clearly, date of default 2nd October 2013. From research I've conducted online, a default notice should be issued and I would effectively have 14 days to recitify the problem. Which I couldn't possibly have, (or was denied to me), by the assignment of the debt to Lowell. The WS from Bryan Carter says that a default notice would have been issued but this makes the whole system of issuing the notice utterly pointless if ShopDirect are simply going to sell the debt without giving any opportunity to either settle it or come to an arrangement. It's also presses home my insistance that no default notice was sent, I personally think they just sold it on to Lowell without going through procedure. Again, from research, it appears that the debt could only be sold to Lowell if I did not respond to the notice within 14 days - they sold it in 2 apparently.

2. BC list multiple dates for the assignment. They claim the 4th October in the Witness Statement, they claim the 11th in the Particulars of Claim. They can't seem to get any dates right at all. Like they're pulling them from a dark passage located in their rear-end. If they can't even get that right, how can they say things were sent to me that weren't.

3. Another piece of evidence they attached is purported to be a letter from Shop Direct to me, dated the 15th October, telling me the account was now in the hand of lowell. Weirdly the same date that they supposedly wrote to me as well. Neither letter hit my doormat. Just immediate demands from Lowell. However, if they're saying that ShopDirect did send that letter to me, it's been written well before the time I should have been granted to put any account in order.

I must say, I'm starting to feel better about this whole situation

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Hi
In your very first post you say that Lowell state the account defaulted on 2nd Oct, now you are saying it fell into default. I am sorry to be picky and you may have answered it but what exactly does it say in the POC and the witness statement .

Defaulted and fell into default could IMO mean two very different things

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

The Particulars of Claim make no mention of a default date, only that the account was assigned to them around the 11th October 2013

The Witness Statement from Bryan Carter states the account defaulted on the 2nd October 2013 and that a notice of default was issued. They then go on to say that they acquired the account on the 4th October 2013. The witness statement has attached "evidence" from ShopDirect confirming the default date of 2nd October 2013 (but no copies of the default notice)

The WS says, exactly, "The account fell into default on 2nd October 2014. A default notice would have been sent to the defendant at the time"

However, I should get 14 days to rectify a defaulted account and the original creditor can only assign the debt to someone like Lowell if those 14 days pass without me making arrangements to either settle the account or get the payments up to date. By their own admission, (which seems fairly hilarious for a solicitor), they are admitting that ShopDirect have sold the account without going through proper procedures in this case. As I understand it, the Default itself is now invalid since no time was given to me to arrange anything. It certainly casts doubt on the validity of their claims that a notice was issued, (at least I think so)

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

The Default Notice could have been dated 17th Sept ( or thereabouts) giving a date of 1st Oct (or thereabouts) - which would mean it would enter into default on the 2nd Oct and be assigned same/next day.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

The Particulars of Claim make no mention of a default date, only that the account was assigned to them around the 11th October 2013

The Witness Statement from Bryan Carter states the account defaulted on the 2nd October 2013 and that a notice of default was issued. They then go on to say that they acquired the account on the 4th October 2013. The witness statement has attached "evidence" from ShopDirect confirming the default date of 2nd October 2013 (but no copies of the default notice)

The WS says, exactly, "The account fell into default on 2nd October 2014. A default notice would have been sent to the defendant at the time"

However, I should get 14 days to rectify a defaulted account and the original creditor can only assign the debt to someone like Lowell if those 14 days pass without me making arrangements to either settle the account or get the payments up to date. By their own admission, (which seems fairly hilarious for a solicitor), they are admitting that ShopDirect have sold the account without going through proper procedures in this case. As I understand it, the Default itself is now invalid since no time was given to me to arrange anything. It certainly casts doubt on the validity of their claims that a notice was issued, (at least I think so)

Under s.87 of the CCA a default notice should be issued giving the debtor at least 14 days to remedy the breach from when the notice is served, which would be at least two days later, before they can terminate the agreement or demand early repayment. Imagine if you had decided to pay off the arrears and bring the account back up to date and it had already been sold! :scared:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

I think everyone is getting mixed up with terminology and I am not convinced that this an avenue worth exploring. An account can fall into default as soon as the minimum payment is not made , even when a default notice is issued it is still only in default. It can not be 'defaulted' until after the expiry of the DN and it can be defaulted sometime after that so it really is quite possible that it was defaulted on 2nd and sold on 4th . If however the witness statement says the DN was issued on 2nd and the account sold on 4th there may and I stress may be an challenge but I wouldn't put my shirt on it.

Of course a default on a Credit File can be placed without the issue of a default Notice and an account can possibly be terminated without a DN being issued or a marker placed on the credit file

If I understand correctly though, you sent a CCA request to Lowells and they have not replied , that is I think your best hope of defeating this claim . A copy of the CCA request in your witness statement and if needed a print out of the metadata as a bit of back up to support your balance of probabilities argument.

You can certainly challenge the fact that a DN was issued and it would be up to them to retrieve the log from the OC showing the details of the issue , the problem with that is that the debt could just go back to the OC, be defaulted and another claim placed although you could argue that is an abuse of process.

I bet I have confused the hell out of you with all the what ifs and different scenarios but I do think your best bet is the lack of a CCA request .

I suppose the crux of the matter is , did you have the goods, are the figures correct and did you owe the OC the dosh although I am all for you going the dirty debt dodgers club of which I am a proud paid up member.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Oh crap, I really do need my silly glasses on
I can not for the life of me find the phrase quoted by FP

The WS says, exactly, "The account fell into default on 2nd October 2014. A default notice would have been sent to the defendant at the time"

If that is the case I think they are royally fooked if you can argue the point well

They really do need to show what date the DN was issued for the claim to have a chance ( I hope)

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Oh crap, I really do need my silly glasses on
I can not for the life of me find the phrase quoted by FP

If that is the case I think they are royally fooked if you can argue the point well

What phrase?

- - - Updated - - -

What phrase?

It's from this post:

The Particulars of Claim make no mention of a default date, only that the account was assigned to them around the 11th October 2013

The Witness Statement from Bryan Carter states the account defaulted on the 2nd October 2013 and that a notice of default was issued. They then go on to say that they acquired the account on the 4th October 2013. The witness statement has attached "evidence" from ShopDirect confirming the default date of 2nd October 2013 (but no copies of the default notice)

The WS says, exactly, "The account fell into default on 2nd October 2014. A default notice would have been sent to the defendant at the time"

However, I should get 14 days to rectify a defaulted account and the original creditor can only assign the debt to someone like Lowell if those 14 days pass without me making arrangements to either settle the account or get the payments up to date. By their own admission, (which seems fairly hilarious for a solicitor), they are admitting that ShopDirect have sold the account without going through proper procedures in this case. As I understand it, the Default itself is now invalid since no time was given to me to arrange anything. It certainly casts doubt on the validity of their claims that a notice was issued, (at least I think so)

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

I swear on my mothers life that it was not there when I first looked at it.

So indeed there are two key arguments
1) The issue of the DN , on what date and they need to show that

2) The lack of the CCA request

Sorry but I know have a phone call with my new best friend to deal with something , that is if the lazy cow is back yet

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

The Default Notice could have been dated 17th Sept ( or thereabouts) giving a date of 1st Oct (or thereabouts) - which would mean it would enter into default on the 2nd Oct and be assigned same/next day.

Perhaps, but since BC/Lowell have not sent any documentation as per CPR/CCA rules or told me when the default notice was issued, I cannot say if this is the case or not. However, I take the WS as inferring the account entered that status on the 2nd October and a default notice issued at the time.

Under s.87 of the CCA a default notice should be issued giving the debtor at least 14 days to remedy the breach from when the notice is served, which would be at least two days later, before they can terminate the agreement or demand early repayment. Imagine if you had decided to pay off the arrears and bring the account back up to date and it had already been sold! :scared:

Exactly. I think the point is, none of what I've got so far makes any sense.

I think everyone is getting mixed up with terminology and I am not convinced that this an avenue worth exploring. An account can fall into default as soon as the minimum payment is not made , even when a default notice is issued it is still only in default. It can not be 'defaulted' until after the expiry of the DN and it can be defaulted sometime after that so it really is quite possible that it was defaulted on 2nd and sold on 4th . If however the witness statement says the DN was issued on 2nd and the account sold on 4th there may and I stress may be an challenge but I wouldn't put my shirt on it.

I'd say it's an avenue worth exploring, especially since the CCA request has never been fulfilled and I made it clear in my initial defence that documentation should be provided. I asked the court to direct this in my initial defence, I'm not sure what they would do but I would certainly say that part of litigation is responding properly, and timely, to a defence that's been lodged. If I asked for that in January they've had 10 months to come up with it.

If I understand correctly though, you sent a CCA request to Lowells and they have not replied , that is I think your best hope of defeating this claim . A copy of the CCA request in your witness statement and if needed a print out of the metadata as a bit of back up to support your balance of probabilities argument.

I've got this printed out ready to go, as FlamingParrot said, the proof that I sent it isn't required so much as it being likely that the request was made. I made the requests the same day I filed my defence which was, frankly, timely. I filed it on the 26th January, 2 days after receiving it in the post.

You can certainly challenge the fact that a DN was issued and it would be up to them to retrieve the log from the OC showing the details of the issue , the problem with that is that the debt could just go back to the OC, be defaulted and another claim placed although you could argue that is an abuse of process.

Hey I'd be happy for it to go back to ShopDirect, for them to let me rectify the issue and get the marker removed. I lost my job in April 2013 when the company I worked for folded overnight, (no notice), and we'd not been paid properly for 2 month prior to that anyway. I made ShopDirect aware of the situation, that I had literally not one bean to rub together and they led me to believe that they could wait. I was offered a job in September 2013 and started October 2013 and I made arrangements to pay off all of the people who'd cautiously waited for me to get back. The bank being a primary one who was put right immediately. Despite this whole affair, I like to think of myself as someone who gets things sorted out.

The fact is, I had no notice of default, if I'd had one I would have made sure it never came to this. The other fact is, I've tried to be accommodating, I've phoned Lowell and BC (thats a lesson learned, I can tell you), and I'm treat like dirt for the trouble.

I bet I have confused the hell out of you with all the what ifs and different scenarios but I do think your best bet is the lack of a CCA request

That's something else to fall back on.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

[QUOTE=illustriousmuz;577823]Perhaps, but since BC/Lowell have not sent any documentation as per CPR/CCA rules or told me when the default notice was issued, I cannot say if this is the case or not. However, I take the WS as inferring the account entered that status on the 2nd October and a default notice issued at the time.

A safe assumption to make, otherwise what are they referring to? They're not saying you missed a payment on that date.

I'd say it's an avenue worth exploring, especially since the CCA request has never been fulfilled and I made it clear in my initial defence that documentation should be provided. I asked the court to direct this in my initial defence, I'm not sure what they would do but I would certainly say that part of litigation is responding properly, and timely, to a defence that's been lodged. If I asked for that in January they've had 10 months to come up with it.

I've got this printed out ready to go, as FlamingParrot said, the proof that I sent it isn't required so much as it being likely that the request was made. I made the requests the same day I filed my defence which was, frankly, timely. I filed it on the 26th January, 2 days after receiving it in the post.

If would be for the judge to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, you would have sent the CCA request based on the fact you've got your own copy of the letter. Once more, it's a matter of appearing credible. :thumb:

Hey I'd be happy for it to go back to ShopDirect, for them to let me rectify the issue and get the marker removed. I lost my job in April 2013 when the company I worked for folded overnight, (no notice), and we'd not been paid properly for 2 month prior to that anyway.

Totally off-topic on this thread but you should have claimed the monies due to you from the Insolvency Service, including statutory redundancy pay, notice period pay, unpaid wages and holiday pay. Did you not submit a claim?

The fact is, I had no notice of default, if I'd had one I would have made sure it never came to this. The other fact is, I've tried to be accommodating, I've phoned Lowell and BC (thats a lesson learned, I can tell you), and I'm treat like dirt for the trouble.

That's something else to fall back on.

Ringing those low forms of life is not a good idea, sometimes it may be advisable to ring the solicitors dealing with a claim to chase up CPR requests and ask them to agree to an extension but that does not apply to Carter who always sends his usual template letters pre-empting himself and saying his illustrious clients are not agreeable to an extension long before anyone even asks!

I'm sorry but I got tired of trying to be diplomatic where the Dynamic Duo are concerned!

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

A safe assumption to make, otherwise what are they referring to? They're not saying you missed a payment on that date. If would be for the judge to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, you would have sent the CCA request based on the fact you've got your own copy of the letter. Once more, it's a matter of appearing credible. :thumb:

Well, I certainly hope I come across as credible. I responded to the initial claim very quickly, I didn't hang around and I would hope that the fact my defence was submitted only 4 days after they filed it would give an example of my desire to resolve the issue. Particularly, why would I say in my defence I was sending them the CCA and CPR requests only to not follow up on it. That to me, were I the judge, certainly indicate that I had the intention to do so. Mind, you can never tell though...

Totally off-topic on this thread but you should have claimed the monies due to you from the Insolvency Service, including statutory redundancy pay, notice period pay, unpaid wages and holiday pay. Did you not submit a claim?

Our boss had no assets supposedly - no house, no cars, no nothing. Despite actually driving around town in an Aston Martin. Oh and living in a huge house in the part of town where all the footballers lived. Five of us turned up for work one morning to find the place locked up, we'd actually been in work the day before too. Promises were made to get things set right but nothing ever happened. Although not proven, a security guard at the site said that someone had been in the night before an emptied the place of all computers and even the furniture. Some people are just downright crafty I suppose. [/Quote]

Ringing those low forms of life is not a good idea, sometimes it may be advisable to ring the solicitors dealing with a claim to chase up CPR requests and ask them to agree to an extension but that does not apply to Carter who always sends his usual template letters pre-empting himself and saying his illustrious clients are not agreeable to an extension long before anyone even asks!

I'm sorry but I got tired of trying to be diplomatic where the Dynamic Duo are concerned!

Well never again is all I can say - I thought I was being diplomatic in my approach. You phone BC though and you don't get a legal agent, you call a call center worker. Reading from a template. They actually offered to settle for a small ammount and when I called to pay that number doubled, instantly, on the grounds that I only had a certain number of days to accept it. Despite it saying nowhere on the letter that was the case. They try and lure you in with stuff like that. Very underhand. I'd have submitted the letter but I have no clue where it ended up..