Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

OK that's good it been a matter of record that the claimant states that the debt arises form a regulated agreement and on that basis
I would send the defence now, use signed for post.
nem

[OhHappyDays]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

Thanks nem, do you think my defence is ok though? i wasnt sure whether it was complete enough to send as it is or if im missing anything? should i add to it that i have sent the letter saying i think it is statue barred? i mean that letter was sent on the off chance that it is statute barred as im not 100% about dates of last payments and ive received no docs from them to support either way. Thats why i left it out?

would it be easier just to email it to the court? i think it is due by the 7th, which is this wed.

Do i need to do a witness statement? or is that just if it actually goes to court?

Thanks again, youve been so much help to me.

[judgemental24]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

Not being picky but as telecoms agreements are not covered under the CCA 1974,
Why would they need to send a default notice under 87(1) to demand sums not yet due??

You have already stated as much in point 4 and 12

You are trying to defend using the CCA 1974 when it simply does not apply to mobile phone service agreements..

You are telling the court you are aware of that fact.

I would lose point 4

The lack of a consumer credit agreement or using the Act is no barrier in enforcing a claim.
It can make you look a right amateur though in trying to use it in any defence and smells of debt avoidance to the court.

Even if the claim was dismissed the claimant would issue again, this time making no reference to it being a regulated agreement. Res judicata will not apply in this case

Only my opinion though

[OhHappyDays]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

so what would you suggest... like i said, i am an amateur, first time time for me, just been obviously taking advice from people on here and researching quite a bit about the whole system of debt and courts and legal practices that iv never had to deal with.

I think i just thought the CCA route was the way to go because thats what they are claiming the agreement is regulated under.

[judgemental24]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

As i have said, by all means go with the defence but lose point 4

Make Lowell/BW Legal look the amateur to the Judge

My own opinion so wait for more replies

You are a litigant in person, an amateur/novice.

You do not want to make it look like a cut and paste defence off an internet forum

[OhHappyDays]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

Yea, point taken. Thanks....

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

I'd go with the statute barred defence, if you have had no contact with them since the last payment was made in July 2009. It probably defaulted November though so you might have an argument on when exactly Stat barr time starts from, but they will have to evidence it. Don't just copy/paste/use this I've just stuck the kind of thing I think I'd go with in these circumstances here - not meaning to butt in/confuse you etc, just think you're over complicating matters.


1: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

2: The Claimant's statement of case states their claim to be for a Mobile Telecoms Agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

3: The Defendant denies having entered into a Consumer Credit Agreement with Three Mobile . He has not purchased any Mobile Telephone on credit terms.

4. The Defendant has in the past owned a mobile telephone. He was charged for calls, texts and internet use on a monthly basis. The Defendant is not aware of any outstanding sums owed to Three Mobile and the Defendant has not had any contact with Three Mobile since July 2009.

5. The Defendant contends that any alleged debt would be statute barred by virtue of section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980. Should the Claimant contend the debt is not time barred they are required to evidence any payment or acknowledgment of any debt made within the six years prior to the date of this claim.

6. The Defendant has requested further information from the Claimant since receipt of this claim. However despite requests made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement, and a request made under CPR 31.14 for copies of documents mentioned in the statement of case, the Claimant has failed to provide any further information.

7: 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.

[dicklett]

Re: Lowell/BW Legal - Three Mobile

Hi, how did this pan out in the end ?