Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

[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

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

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

The dates imo cannot be right.

nem

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.

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

You're right, I haven't received a DN. However, the witness statement sent to me my BC states that the account defaulted on the 2nd October and that it was assigned to Lowell on the 4th October. That seems like an awfully quick turn around. I would have had no time to action the notice even if it had been sent. The exact wording on the WS sent by BC says:

• ********The account fell into default on 2nd October 2014. A default notice would have been sent to the defendant at the time.*************** To my mind this is not possible when linked to the assignment date below***********
  

*************The debt was assigned to the claimaint on or around 4th October 2013 and a copy of the Notice of Assignment sent to the defendant on or around the 15th October 2013. The Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant at his current address *********************** Timescale is improbable to say the least.



Just to clarify point 2, in my original defence I asked the court to instruct them to send me the documents. I was thinking that, even if they deny they ever received letters from me, my initial defence response clearly indicates that I want the paperwork per the CCA/CPR rules. Would that in itself be a good backup when i see the judge?

The dates imo cannot be right.

nem

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

When this is all over and you have time to think, I feel a complaint to the FCA would be in order. Now they will not take on individual cases but they may well add it to the pile of evidence against Lowells who have sailed pretty close to the wind over the last few years

[illustriousmuz]

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.

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.

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.

[Berniethebolt]

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.

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.

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

If you haven't got a DN how do you know they assigned it two days after that? If you are going by the default date on your credit file that would have been recorded AFTER the DN had expired and CRA data is not relevant to court claims.

You're right, I haven't received a DN. However, the witness statement sent to me my BC states that the account defaulted on the 2nd October and that it was assigned to Lowell on the 4th October. That seems like an awfully quick turn around. I would have had no time to action the notice even if it had been sent. The exact wording on the WS sent by BC says:

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

The debt was assigned to the claimaint on or around 4th October 2013 and a copy of the Notice of Assignment sent to the defendant on or around the 15th October 2013. The Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant at his current address

Definitely, if you have a copy of the letter you sent as a CCA request that should be an exhibit in itself even if you haven't got proof of postage, the law doesn't make it a legal requirement to send them recorded.

Just to clarify point 2, in my original defence I asked the court to instruct them to send me the documents. I was thinking that, even if they deny they ever received letters from me, my initial defence response clearly indicates that I want the paperwork per the CCA/CPR rules. Would that in itself be a good backup when i see the judge?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

OK now we've got my account sorted we can continue

This is a rough draft of my initial WS - feeback would be appreciated.

Some issues that are bothering me though

1. If a Default Notice is designed to get you to put your account in order, how can they default it and assign it only 2 days later? I maintain I still have no Default Notice for this account but even so could never have resolved the issue if it was assigned immediately.

If you haven't got a DN how do you know they assigned it two days after that? If you are going by the default date on your credit file that would have been recorded AFTER the DN had expired and CRA data is not relevant to court claims.

Hi
The default date is not the date of the DN. It could be some time after the expiry of the DN.

Yes, that was precisely my point above and it doesn't mean much.

2. BC claim that they have never received a request however my initial response/defence makes a point of saying that I've not seen the documents required to meet CCA/CPR rules and I even ask the court to order they issue documentation. Would this not have been done when I filed my defence back in January

Definitely, if you have a copy of the letter you sent as a CCA request that should be an exhibit in itself even if you haven't got proof of postage, the law doesn't make it a legal requirement to send them recorded.

3. Should I mention that I had no notice of intention to launch legal proceedings. The claim was filed on the 22nd and the letter I got from BC to say they were taking me to court is dated 23rd. Seems a bit suss to just launch into legal proceedings without attempting to negotiate in the first place, (they're bullies though)

With thus type of account they need to terminate it prior to sale so a DN is the easiest way.
It is certainly worth mentioning their failure to act in the previous action protocols. I will leave it others to fill in the gaps.

You could argue they did not comply with the pre-action conduct, however, that in itself doesn't make much difference, it's effect is mostly on costs which are not awarded in small claims anyway. :ohwell:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Sorry auto correct on my phone!

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Hi
The default date is not the date of the DN. It could be some time after the expiry of the DN. With thus type of account they need to terminate it prior to sale so a DN is the easiest way.
It is certainly worth mentioning their failure to act in the previous action protocols. I will leave it others to fill in the gaps.

It's Pre (before) Action Protocols!
The short time between claimed default date/ date of assignment that is being queried.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

Hi
The default date is not the date of the DN. It could be some time after the expiry of the DN. With thus type of account they need to terminate it prior to sale so a DN is the easiest way.
It is certainly worth mentioning their failure to act in the previous action protocols. I will leave it others to fill in the gaps.

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

I'm going to send this off to the court today. It would be awesome if I could just get the nod from anyone who's maybe written one of these before so I can feel confident that I am on the right path.

Cheers everyone

[illustriousmuz]

Re: Court Caste Lowell/Bryan Carter - Worried sick

OK now we've got my account sorted we can continue

This is a rough draft of my initial WS - feeback would be appreciated.

I, xxxxx, of xxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case make the following statement believing it to be true.
1. On the xx^th Januray 2015, I received a claims form from the County Court Business Center, Northampton for the amount of £850.36.
2. There were no details about when the alleged default occurred.
3. The particular of claims fail to state when the agreement was entered into.
4. On xx^th January 2015 I made a formal, written request to the Claimant solicitors requesting that the Claimant provides copies of all documents mentioned in the statement of the case [EXHIBIT A], pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 31.14
5. On the xx^th January 2015 I sent a formal request for the copy of the original agreement to the claimant [EXHIBIT B], pursuant to Sections [77-79] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with a postal order for the statutory £1 fee.
6. Civil Procedure Rule 34.15 requires documents are provided within 7 days from receipt of a written request. The claimant has failed to provide any of the documents I have requested.
7. In May 2015, I telephoned the Claimaints solicitors to try and resolve matters. I mentioned the failure to comply with my requests for documentation to be told by the lady I was speaking to that they don’t respond to those requests on the grounds that the original creditor should have provided the information. They made no representation to me that they had not received the requests but were simply ignoring them.
8. On the xx September 2015 I received a Witness Statement from the Claimants solicitors.
9. The Claimant states that the account fell into default on the 2^nd October 2013 and that a Default Notice would have been issued. I deny that any such notice was issued to be.
10. The claimant claims that the account was assigned to them on the 4^th October 2013. Even if a Default Notice had been issued, the assignment took place before any action to rectify the default could have occurred.
11. The Claimants Witness Statement contains a purported Notice of Assignment, dated 15^th October 2013. This is the first time I have seen this document and deny any such document was sent to me.
12. The Claimants Witness Statement contains a purported letter from the original creditor, also dated 15^th October 2013, notifying me of the assignment. This is the first time I have seen this document and deny any such document was sent to me.
13. The Claimants Witness Statement denies having received any documentation from me. This is the first time that I have been made aware of this despite speaking on the telephone to the Claimants solicitors.
14. I am still awaiting the claimant to comply with [s77 (1) / s78 (1)] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement until they have complied with requests for all pertinent documentation.
15. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed by providing pertinent documentation.

Some issues that are bothering me though

1. If a Default Notice is designed to get you to put your account in order, how can they default it and assign it only 2 days later? I maintain I still have no Default Notice for this account but even so could never have resolved the issue if it was assigned immediately.
2. BC claim that they have never received a request however my initial response/defence makes a point of saying that I've not seen the documents required to meet CCA/CPR rules and I even ask the court to order they issue documentation. Would this not have been done when I filed my defence back in January
3. Should I mention that I had no notice of intention to launch legal proceedings. The claim was filed on the 22nd and the letter I got from BC to say they were taking me to court is dated 23rd. Seems a bit suss to just launch into legal proceedings without attempting to negotiate in the first place, (they're bullies though)

Any help greatly appreciated.