Lowell vs Reiss

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Hi @charitynjw

Good thought, don't know where that actually originated but I see 2 problems.

1. Debt Purchasers ( unless a debt was sold without being defaulted) issue DN's

My error deleted..

nem

nem***

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

*Correction for 8. Changed name to Vanquis

Sorry my bad

:okay:

###

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION] do you recommend i send upload my defence online tonight or by tomorrow? In other words will it make any difference if i do it tonight?

This will be the final of my defence before i upload online:




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I received the claim C3******* from the Northampton County Court on 20 September 2016

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

3: This claim is for a Credit agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.


4: It is admitted that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with Vanquis for provision of credit.

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

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

7. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Vanquis to Lowell Portfolio I LTD on 30/08/2012. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

8. It is denied that Vanquis served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

9: On the 02/10/2016 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Lowell Solicitors Limited. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.

10. Lowell Solicitors Limited has not sent any of these documents to me.

11. On the 02/10/2016 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio I LTD pursuant to section s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

12. The Claimant has failed to comply with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

13: I have asked the Claimant if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of my defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but they have declined.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.



Signed …………………………………………

Dated .................................................. ....


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Looks ok to me.

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Thanks for all the help [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] will be uploading on to MCOL now so its done and dusted of my shoulders.

On the "Defence Example" Above in green theres another picture of how it should be presented (the header info above the defence) Does this apply for online also? sorry if this is a stupid question i am trying to avoid any school boy errors that can invalidate things as i know stuff like this is super sensitive.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Just make sure that there are no bold characters when you send it, looks fine to me too.
Great work [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] and [MENTION=92191]Reiss[/MENTION]

nem

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

If you are using your MCOL account, I believe that it is automatically added, but I always add it anyway if the number of 'characters' allow, just to be certain.

If you send via email, put 'Lowell v Reiss' (per the claim form) & the claim ref no in the subject box.
I usually send the document as an attachment.
"Please find attached defence....." etc. in email itself.
You have previously stated that the the claim issue date was 20th September? Can you verify?
If so, I reckon you have until 23rd October to submit.

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Thanks [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION] & charitynjw

As to the above mentioned i have taken a screen shot to clarify. I accepted on the 5th and sent out the letters on the 5th. Does this still give me the extra days you possibly suggest [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

From claim issue date, 28 days + 5 days allowed for postage = 33 days for filing defence. (As claimant didn't accept your invitation for an extension of the deadline).

For MCOL
5.7 The claim form will be deemed to be served on the fifth day after the claim was issued irrespective of whether that day is a business day or not. ‘Business day’ has the same meaning as in rule 6.2(b).
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...t07/pd_part07e

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] you sure no your stuff!!!!! I have learnt so much on this forum thanks to the likes of you guys!!

So should i hold back and wait?

Many Thanks

Reiss

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

I'm just standing on the shoulder of giants.

As your defence is largely 'no documents per requests', I reckon it makes sense to leave it a bit closer to the deadline.

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Thank you [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] Top Man i will do just that!!! I know i keep saying thanks but honestly THANK YOU TO YOU ALL!!

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Hi All,

Today i received two letters from Lowel, I have scanned and uploaded please let me know your thoughts.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Hi All,

Today i received two letters from Lowel, I have scanned and uploaded please let me know your thoughts.

Hello Reiss

The 1st Letter is a standard response, but please note that Lowell's " on hold" does Not stop the court process and does not give you more time to file documents.

The 2nd letter sounds like it's been drafted by the tea boy/girl office assistant but that's typical of Lowell " Solicitors".

You have 28 days from the issue date on the claim form.

nem

[Reiss]

Re: Lowell vs Reiss

Hi @Nemises45 thanks for the rapid response back, Should i put in my defence from now obviously i would now have to change that they are complying? @charitynjw recommended that i wait and gladly so before putting in the defence.

Claim form was sent 20th September 16 (all details at beginning of thread) Should i just submit it now?