Lowell V MarcToystory

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Well they would need to apply to amend.

Regardless, look up Foster Burnell v Lloyds ref the charges.

I'm not sure I understand the direct debit paid out and not credited issue - have you checked with the DD caller whether they received the money ?

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Good morning Marc,

These statements you have received looking at a different approach, do these statement indicate/ prove that the alleged debt is made up solely of charges?

nem

Morning, yes it's all charges every penny . Either unpaid dd or bank charges

- - - Updated - - -

Well they would need to apply to amend.

Regardless, look up Foster Burnell v Lloyds ref the charges.

I'm not sure I understand the direct debit paid out and not credited issue - have you checked with the DD caller whether they received the money ?

Morning,

Do I inform them they have to resubmit ?
I have had a look at that case and it's all a bit confusing
I rang 02 and they don't keep the records that far back.

Thanks for all your help

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Afternoon all,

Sorry to mither but this whole episode is sending my stress levels trough the roof. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do now.
Mediation have rang today to book a slot. I told them about the letter yesterday and she said no to Mediation and will process to court. she said it's down to lowells to amend the claim as it's their error and to produce that letter to court
[MENTION=42011]Nem[/MENTION]esis what's the theory on the statements with charges on? I sent lowells the letter that you helped me draft and that was their response yesterday nearly a month later

This site is excellent and without it i would have lost my mind when this all began ��

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Yep the court is correct

So next you will get a court date and opportunity to put in your witness statement Don't worry about Lowells response they are purely trying to worry you and make you feel court is a big scary process that only they know how to deal with. It isn't and they aren't.

You can mention all the issues in your witness statement.

Just having another look at your statements - you had a 'Silver Account' at Lloyds and paid £7.95 a month for it. Have you looked at the packaged bank account charges and potentially reclaiming them ? What benefits did that account give you ?

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Yep the court is correct

So next you will get a court date and opportunity to put in your witness statement Don't worry about Lowells response they are purely trying to worry you and make you feel court is a big scary process that only they know how to deal with. It isn't and they aren't.

You can mention all the issues in your witness statement.

Just having another look at your statements - you had a 'Silver Account' at Lloyds and paid £7.95 a month for it. Have you looked at the packaged bank account charges and potentially reclaiming them ? What benefits did that account give you ?

Hi, thank you.
That package fee was supposed to have been removed in October 2010 when I had a meeting with the bank. I haven't looked a reclaiming yet I paid it for years on this account when it was a joint account we used it for breakdown but when I tried to claim for my mobile is wasn't able as I hadn't filled in some form about the imei numbers! Not that I was aware of any form.
It's all such a mess. I really can't imagine paying over a 1000 pound for something I haven't had
With reference to your question about the DD that went out and didn't come back in . I can't understand why it went out or was allowed to go out there was no money there. 02 were being paid by card at the time by my nana, I have rang 02 but they can't help .

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Good afternoon all.

Hope everyone is well.

Just a quick update.

Recieved a letter this morning from court saying that upon reading the court file it is ordered that unless the claim entry files are court and serve on defendant by the 17th Nov 1 copy contract and assignment 2. Detailed statement of account with defendant the claim be struck out.

What does this mean ?

Thanks all

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Good afternoon all.

Hope everyone is well.

Just a quick update.

Recieved a letter this morning from court saying that upon reading the court file it is ordered that unless the claim entry files are court and serve on defendant by the 17th Nov 1 copy contract and assignment 2. Detailed statement of account with defendant the claim be struck out.

What does this mean ?

Thanks all

Hello Marc,

The court has ordered the claim to disclose/ file a copy of the agreement/contract and the notice of assignment or the actual assignment, and a full statement of the account, if the claim fails to comply with the order the court will strike out the claim, i.e. stop it, chuck it out, bin it.

nem

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Hello Marc,

The court has ordered the claim to disclose/ file a copy of the agreement/contract and the notice of assignment or the actual assignment, and a full statement of the account, if the claim fails to comply with the order the court will strike out the claim, i.e. stop it, chuck it out, bin it.

nem

Thanks nem, great advice as always.

They will have the statements as they sent them me but I've not had they other stuff the court is asking for

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Thanks nem, great advice as always.

They will have the statements as they sent them me but I've not had they other stuff the court is asking for

It's seems ( at least from what I'm seeing) that more judges are ordering production of docs when claimants are playing silly buggers with agreements.

I hope it lasts.

nem

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

If it gets stuck out can lowells refile with new poc's? As stated in their last letter to me? As they have already conceded that the poc's were incorrect and they would simply refile. They know they have no contract or assignment so they can't produce that. They do have statements made solely of charges.

It seems they are so incompetent

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

It seems they are so incompetent

Must not say that they will start to cry and break their crayons!

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

If it gets stuck out can lowells refile with new poc's? As stated in their last letter to me? As they have already conceded that the poc's were incorrect and they would simply refile. They know they have no contract or assignment so they can't produce that. They do have statements made solely of charges.

It seems they are so incompetent

They could in theory but any new claim would have to be completely different in the particulars. Also would it be worth the extra cost. I think not.

nem

[marctoystory]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

Morning all.

Just a quick update.

After receiving the letter in November from the courts stating that the claiment had to produce documents to us and the courts by 17 November we have heard nothing. The letter states if these are not recieved then the case would be struck out.

We have had nothing from Lowells and nothing from the courts. What does this mean ?

Thanks

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell V MarcToystory

I'd give the court a call and ask them the status of the case - then you will know where you stand and can decide what to do next (if anything )