Claim 2 (Lowells)

[warwick65]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

I know it isn't always recommended but you could ask the solicitors for an extension and if they agree that would allow you to wait until you got back from your holiday. Not ideal but its maybe an idea

Not sure who the solicitors are but some are less likely than other to grant the extension.

[MrMRJ]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

I was told by Diana I believe that asking for an extension would be pointless and won't be granted on the basis I am going on holiday. I think I will just wait to see what else turns up prior to Saturday 13th and just put in a defence recommended on what has been said.

Thanks again

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

It wouldn't be granted on the basis you are going on holiday ( they'd more likely rub their hands with glee lol ) but it could be granted to allow them more time to obtain documentation - have a look here http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...filing-defence

But regardless you'll be fine putting in your defence on the 13th - it's very unusual for anything to happen 2 weeks after that, even if the claimants come straight back and say they want to proceed you have to be sent a directions questionnaire and usually have 7 days to complete and return that so if worst came to worst that'd be due back just after you got back from holiday. More usual is for the claimants to fart about for months letting the claim be stayed by the court while they wait for docs to come from the original creditor.

[pt2537]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Hi
It is impossible to say what will happen- if I could I would make a fortune

Yes - you have a defence if they do not provide anything
You may have a defence if they do provide something as it may be rubbish

The deed is a complicated issue but if you word your defence correctly it is possible a Judge would order the disclosure

If you defend you can stop the process by admitting liability but why should you if they can not prove their rights. There is a long way to go before it is even listed for court.

You do not have to attend court if it gets that far but i would recommend you do

The SAR is one more letter to the original creditor with a fee for £10 . If you want to defend well worth it.

If it helps focus then remember they probably paid under £100 for it so would be making lots of profit out of you

It is of course entirely up to you, I can only say at this point I would carry on defending

The deed is an issue which creditors like to try and make complicated, it is not, it is simple, the deed and any subsequent offer letters served under the cover of the deed will be part of the evidence the claimant will be required to provide to prove their standing in the claim. Companies try and hide the deed from public viewing mainly in my experience because the deeds dont prove what the creditors think they do. There has been a few cases on this, PRA v Brunt where the deed was found not to prove their assignment and i understand although havent seen the judgment, that there is a case called PRA v Mayhew where the deed was found to be lacking.

Dont let them gloss over the deed, its quite important.

[Joanna C]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

The deed is an issue which creditors like to try and make complicated, it is not, it is simple, the deed and any subsequent offer letters served under the cover of the deed will be part of the evidence the claimant will be required to provide to prove their standing in the claim. Companies try and hide the deed from public viewing mainly in my experience because the deeds dont prove what the creditors think they do. There has been a few cases on this, PRA v Brunt where the deed was found not to prove their assignment and i understand although havent seen the judgment, that there is a case called PRA v Mayhew where the deed was found to be lacking.

Dont let them gloss over the deed, its quite important.

Yes PT is correct. In the PRA Group (UK) Limited v Brunt case the Deeds of Assignment were so heavily redacted that the court found no evidence of assignment. In our recent case of PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew we had obtained disclosure of all 3 Deeds of Assignment (after a lengthy disclosure battles in another of our PRA cases) except for the actual pence per pound price paid and the court still found no evidence of our clients debt being assigned to PRA Group UK Limited.

[pt2537]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Yes PT is correct. In the PRA Group (UK) Limited v Brunt case the Deeds of Assignment were so heavily redacted that the court found no evidence of assignment. In our recent case of PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew we had obtained disclosure of all 3 Deeds of Assignment (after a lengthy disclosure battles in another of our PRA cases) except for the actual pence per pound price paid and the court still found no evidence of our clients debt being assigned to PRA Group UK Limited.

Hi Jo

A friend of mine practices in the USA, he is in California i believe, he was aware of the PRA group over there, and he was saying about the US investigation, and the issues they have with their assignments over there. Seems to be a global problem for them

[Joanna C]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Hi Jo

A friend of mine practices in the USA, he is in California i believe, he was aware of the PRA group over there, and he was saying about the US investigation, and the issues they have with their assignments over there. Seems to be a global problem for them

Yes it does seem to be.

[Diana M]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

there is a case called PRA v Mayhew where the deed was found to be lacking.

This is true.

I know that because I was the Defendant in the case you mention (PRA v Mayhew) where ironically I was also part of my own legal team since I work for the firm who represented me.

Sight of the un-redacted deeds was pivotal in the decision to dismiss the claim.

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW – WIN

‘“RECONSTITUTED AGREEMENT – IRREDEEMABLY UNENFORCEABLE”
“UNREDACTED DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT – NO ASSIGMENT PROVED”

So, held Recorder Bellamy in PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017, at the end of a 3 day multi track trial, when dismissing PRA’s claim against our client.

Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”.

After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved.

Efforts, over many months, in earlier cases to force PRA into disclosure of un-redacted deeds and deep and sustained forensic challenge to the provenance of documents needed to prove regulatory compliance, finally drew back the veil. The reality behind bulk debt purchasing was revealed.


. . . . Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.

Debt purchasers need to provide proof. If that means the pitifully few pence in the pound they pay for stale debts will increase because banks will now have to start keeping original evidence complying with regulatory consumer protection measures, it is hard to imagine many tears being shed, outside the City of London.

Di

[MrMRJ]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

So does this mean I need to write back to them asking for it again? Or just wait for them to send the rest of the documents they say they have requested.

Thanks

[warwick65]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

No I don't think so

You have asked for it and they have not produced it

You use this in your defence and if they take it further in your Witness statement

Once you have submitted your defence and had your holiday you could sent a well worded Part 18 request asking a few specific questions

[Diana M]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

So in the letter they say they are not required to supply deed of assignment? Is that incorrect?

. . . . If I'm honest we was on the verge of just admitting liability. And the thought of sending out yet another letter and hoping I get a response back in time is just putting me back towards that direction.

Unless you belive there maybe a defence if we do not recieve any more documents?

If we do not recieve anything else and we defend as you suggest. Does that then mean my partner will be required to attend court, or could lowells just drop it and what are the chances of them doing this?

No one has a crystal ball to answer those questions. There are so many 'what ifs' to consider.

I think you have to look at things in proportion.

This is a claim for £758.

If you want to press the point and try to force disclosure you may need to make an Application to the court which could cost you £255 in fees.

Once you file a Defence that will be served on the Claimant who will be given 28 days to inform the court if they want to continue with the proceedings. If they don't inform the court then the claim is stayed (a pause button).

If they do inform the court that they intend to keep going you will be sent a Directions Questionnaire to complete (it's a form asking questions about your availability etc).

One of the questions will be do you agree to their free telephone Mediation service. If you and Lowells both agree (they usually do) then you can settle this claim without the need to go to court and you won't get a CCJ. You can haggle hard if there are no documents produced by the Claimant.

See what arrives in the post before you go away on holiday and then have a think about how best to manage the situation so you can enjoy your holiday.

Di

[MrMRJ]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Hi everyone,

So we have not recieved anything further from this other than the documents previously attached.

I need to get my defence in tonight. What would you advise my defence is based on? There is a change this is statute barred but we cannot be sure. Is it worth adding that in as well?

Thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Hi MrMRJ

The 'defence due' date is 33 days after the court claim issue date.
The 14 day period for a CCA request is a separate matter.

Edit
You appear to have 2 claims, both appearing on 2 different threads.
I foresee confusion!

As previously posted, use the defence example (top of this thread), tweak to suit your circumstances & if SB is an issue, include it in the defence.

[MrMRJ]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

Yes, I am putting my defence in a little early as we go on holiday for 2 weeks on Monday.

OK I will post later my draft defence based on templates, and hopefully someone will be around later to confirm it is ok.

Thanks for the help

[Diana M]

Re: Claim 2 (Lowells)

I was told by Diana I believe that asking for an extension would be pointless and won't be granted on the basis I am going on holiday. I think I will just wait to see what else turns up prior to Saturday 13th and just put in a defence recommended on what has been said.

That sounds like a plan!

I'm not sure I would have said it's 'pointless' to ask for an extension of time to file your Defence, but the point I was probably trying to make is this >

The longer you let them have to obtain or "reconstitute" documentation the weaker your defence becomes. The quicker you force them into a position where they have to disclose the documentation the easier it is to force them to discontinue or make a mistake. Restons, Howard Cohen, Mortimer Clarke etc will happily stay cases for months because it is giving their client the time to provide the evidence they should have had before they issued the claim in the first place,

Enjoy your holiday

Di