Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

**MIKE770** · 9th September 2016, 10:32:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

unfortunately vanquis ignore do tend to ignore payment problems and ignore e-mails etc, many of us just make token payments direct to the account, but in this case sold to lowells, did you get notification of transfer of this alledged debt? did you apply on line in 2011/12? or before? if before maybe have a chance on the CCA1974 ie, prior to 2007, have you acknowledged the claim on line? that will give you extra time to sort things out >?

**MIKE770** · 9th September 2016, 10:37:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

see you already sent the required request incl pre action and parts are still outstanding, they can still go ahead at this stage as they have stated they have issued N1 have you got it in order the acknowledge claim on line, when you do tick dispute all gives that extra time.

- - - Updated - - -

have asked Ame to look in for you!

**MrMojo** · 9th September 2016, 10:42:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Hello, thanks for replying.

I don't recall receiving notification of the transfer but it's certainly possible I did, things were very difficult at the time for a while and I didn't pay as much attention to some matters as I probably should have.

I can't remember how I applied but it may well have been online but either way would certainly have been after 2007.

I'm in the process of acknowledging the claim now but unsure whether to say I am defending it or not if I have no valid defense.

Thanks again

**MrMojo** · 9th September 2016, 10:45:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Ok I've ticked I intend to defend, do I need to contest jurisdiction? It is in the County Court Business Centre.

Thanks

**MIKE770** · 9th September 2016, 10:50:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

no - jurisdiction means if you live in England but case came from scotland or vice versa,

**MrMojo** · 9th September 2016, 10:53:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Doh, sorry, not with it at all today. Ok AOS done.

Thanks again for your help.

**MrMojo** · 26th September 2016, 22:42:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Please would someone look over this and tell me if it is a valid defence based just on the lack of CCA.

I have received a copy of a default notice and some statements from Lowells but not the CCA which they say they have requested.

As I said in my original post I did have repayment protection on this, charges for which make up about a third of the initial debt but Vanquis never acknowledged my letter telling them our circumstances however I don't think from reading other posts there is any defence value in this?

Claim No. xxxxxxxxxx

Between

Lowell Portfolio 1 Limited

and

MrMojo

1: I received the claim xxxxxxxx from the County Court Business Centre on 3^rd September 2016.

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

3: This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4: The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

5: The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.

6: On the 3^rd March 2016 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio LTD pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

7: The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s 78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

8: 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.

9: I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.

10: In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

11: It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Thank you for reading.

**Amethyst** · 27th September 2016, 06:46:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

I think you could include the PPI issue in there.

I did have a Vanquis Card back in 2011/12 but wasn't able to keep up payments on it due to having to give up work to care for my partner who is now registered as disabled following a long illness. I did have a 'repayment option plan' on the card and wrote to Vanquis at the time telling them of the circumstances but never received a reply and stupidly because of the circumstances at the time didn't chase up on this.

I've just put something very brief in at para 9. Just so PPI is mentioned so if need be that can be expanded on later.

Claim No. xxxxxxxxxx

Between

Lowell Portfolio 1 Limited

and

MrMojo

1: The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxxx from the County Court Business Centre on 3rd September 2016.

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

3: This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement between Vanquis and the Defendant regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4: The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess his position with regards the claim.

5: The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.

6: On the 3rd March 2016 the Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio LTD pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

7: The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s 78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

8: 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.

9. The Defendant has held a credit card in the past, however he is unable to assess whether this claim is for the same credit card. That account included a payment protection plan and was closed in 2011. The Defendant requires the original agreement and terms and conditions of the account to be in a position to plead further.

10:The Defendant requests the court orders the Claimant to provide the necessary documentation in order for him to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

11: In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

12: It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

**MrMojo** · 27th September 2016, 08:08:AM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Originally posted by Amethyst View Post

I think you could include the PPI issue in there.

I've just put something very brief in at para 9. Just so PPI is mentioned so if need be that can be expanded on later.

Thank you very much, Amethyst.

**MrMojo** · 30th October 2016, 15:06:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Thanks again Mike and Amethyst for your help.

I've now received the Directions Questionnaire along with a short form from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, I've read on most other similar threads to accept the mediation offer however one of the statements on the HMCTS form is "I can confirm that I have enough information about the claim, to enable me to enter into negotiations".

As a large part of my defence is that I do not have enough information to assess my position as Lowell have not provided a copy of the original agreement is it safe for me to tick the HMCTS form box?

**MIKE770** · 30th October 2016, 21:06:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

if not got the required info then state no

accept mediation

**MrMojo** · 30th October 2016, 21:19:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

Originally posted by MIKE770 View Post

if not got the required info then state no

accept mediation

Thanks Mike however I don't think I explained very well, the form states that if I answer no to the statement then the case is not suitable for mediation.

**MIKE770** · 30th October 2016, 21:22:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

you sure it is not from mediation as they ask and if you state no they will say not suitable for mediation

**MrMojo** · 30th October 2016, 21:33:PM

Re: Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis

They're stapled together, a Directions Questionnaire from the Court which asks if I agree to mediation and a form from HMCTS with the above question.

I assumed both had to be completed and returned together as they arrived together but looking closer perhaps the HMCTS form is just for information.

Thanks again.

Lowells Solicitors/Vanquis