Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Thanks nem. So there are no procedures I need to follow pre-trial or anything like that? It's beyond damning.

Hello Dasher,
What stage are you at now I've not been able to follow the thread closely over the past few days.?

nem

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

There is no way (surely) that if in court documents that have been submitted are shown to be deliberately forged (sorry if there is a more technical term) that the party that has submitted them can simply get away with it?

The "technical term" would be Contempt of Court which carries sanctions especially if done deliberately (in a calculated way) as opposed to disrespecting the court which can be done inadvertently.

Di

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

GB Mineral Holdings Ltd v Short [2015]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2015/1387.html

[dasher13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Hi nem,

It goes to court 19th December so a little over a week.

dasher

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Charity that is very interesting and very helpful.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Hi nem,

It goes to court 19th December so a little over a week.

dasher

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Charity that is very interesting and very helpful.

So witness statement filed. evidence collated indexed , original documents must be taken to the hearing.

nem

[dasher13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Hi nem - yes to all of the above. Thank you for the advice re taking the originals. Should I take 3 copies of everything? Also if information has come to light since the WS was submitted with evidence how do I bring this to the attention of the DJ on the day?

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Hi nem - yes to all of the above. Thank you for the advice re taking the originals. Should I take 3 copies of everything? Also if information has come to light since the WS was submitted with evidence how do I bring this to the attention of the DJ on the day?

Yep always have more copies than you need in this case especially with Lowell solicitors involved their " litigation assistants " are not the brightest beings.

nem

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

if information has come to light since the WS was submitted with evidence how do I bring this to the attention of the DJ on the day?

You would need to 'share' any new evidence with the Claimant before the hearing otherwise they may object to it being admitted in court on the day.

You may need to file and serve a supplementary WS depending on what the new evidence is.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

advice re taking the originals. Should I take 3 copies of everything?

Be selective about what originals you should take.

For example if you have an original Default Notice whilst the other side has disclosed an inaccurate reconstituted one as their evidence, then you would not disclose your original in court as proof of their error, because you would then be admitting/remedying the problem for them.

This claim is in the Small Claims Court where you are not obliged to disclose documents which could harm your case.

Evidence that the signatory of a NOA did not hold the position stated at that date/time should be from a reliable and verifiable source.

Di

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

Just a quick hark back to Notices of Assignment.

In just about every case that I've seen involving these debt purchasers, they have sent, or claimed to have sent, a NoA in their own right, usually providing some kind of proof.
In fact, I guessed (came to the assumed conclusion) that it was an automated action. (ie receive data from assignor [Cap1], input on database, NoA automatically sent).
However, in this case, Lowell/sols have been completely silent on this. (Esp as they received a SAR from dasher)
The curious incident of the dog in the night-time?
Problem is, how can one prove this anomoly?

(*Hands over to the clever ones..... @Diana M @nemesis45 @R0b )

[R0b]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

I would expect proof or some kind of proof that the NOA was sent on that date. As you say, most things these days are automated and should also be recorded on the system that it was sent on such date. It seems very coincidental that Lowell never received any documents and then suddenly they are able to produce it a few days later on a blank page without any relevant header information. Obviously a SAR to Cap One would show exactly whether a request was done and if Cap One had already responded but also the date on when the NOA was actually sent.

I would argue on a balance of probabilities taking into account the numerous anomalies it is more likely than not that the NOA is no authentic, though the only surefire way of verifying this would be to summons someone form Cap One to verify the date and why someone's name was printed on the letter when there is a real possibility he left before that date.

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

I would expect proof or some kind of proof that the NOA was sent on that date. As you say, most things these days are automated and should also be recorded on the system that it was sent on such date. It seems very coincidental that Lowell never received any documents and then suddenly they are able to produce it a few days later on a blank page without any relevant header information. Obviously a SAR to Cap One would show exactly whether a request was done and if Cap One had already responded but also the date on when the NOA was actually sent.

I would argue on a balance of probabilities taking into account the numerous anomalies it is more likely than not that the NOA is no authentic, though the only surefire way of verifying this would be to summons someone form Cap One to verify the date and why someone's name was printed on the letter when there is a real possibility he left before that date.

According to Lowell's WS, the debt was assigned 28th August 2014 (para #5 WS).
NoA served 16th July 2015. (para #6 WS). Same date as the disputed NoA allegedly sent by Cap1.
Why would Cap1 serve the aforementioned notice 11 months after having sold it?
& if Lowells served it, why wasn't it in the SAR response? Or anywhere else?

[dasher13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

....

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

do not tell Lowells.

Fraudulent submission comes to mind - seems as usual they are struggling - and no doubt at this rate will/May Discontinue last minute??? never know at this stage. but do not inform them of their fraudulent activity.

[dasher13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd v dasher13

should probably delete my post then in case they read it.

- - - Updated - - -

and thanks MIKE really appreciate it.

- - - Updated - - -

not sure they can/will discontinue as I have a counterclaim in....