Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

[Kati]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

so ... O2 closed the account on 22/05/12 and transferred it to Lowells on 31/01/13 (which I take to mean that it should have been defaulted sometime close to the earlier date IMO) :



Lowells agree they got the account on 31/01/13:

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Have you sent the SAR to Telefonica?

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

The SAR is on its way out too.
What information am I looking for when all this comes back and as it stands currently, what kind of defence do I actually have?
Obviously every reply sent is sent in my partners name as I'm dealing with all this but I just feel like he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Those dates that the letters were sent to a different address to where we were living annoy me too because we didn't receive anything to our new address and we've always stayed signed up to the electoral roll etc also, we could have sorted this years ago.
And it wouldn't be statute barred until next May if I've read the paperwork correctly. Which would explain why within the space of a week we were bombarded with the notice to take us to court and then the court letter itself. Moving fast.

[R0b]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Hello, sorry for not getting back to you any sooner.

Based on the current information I would be inclined to agree that your partner will struggle to put up any defence in court and the fact that you never received the letters is unlikely to win you the case as the debt is still live and owed. Unless O2 confirm that you default months before they closed your account, its not going to be statute barred. They've not mentioned in the particulars that a default notice was served so you can't rely on them proving it was not regulated by the CCA - this is therefore a simply contract for services.

Unless I've missed it, there doesn't seem to be evidence that the amount stipulated is in fact owed. This is a valid defence but I wouldn't call it a solid one, though it is common ground that if your going to claim damages you need the evidence to prove it. Whilst your partner may have entered into a contract with O2 that doesn't mean to say that the debt owed is correct.

Of course this is my own view and others may have a different opinion but at the moment, it doesn't look too good for your partner.

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Thank you for replying.

This was my thoughts on the matter too.

Aside from hoping the SAR request comes back to us in time, what other options do I have left or am I pretty much weeing into the wind from this point onwards?

Where do I go from here as far as entering anything into the defence column as we don't want a CCJ against him obviously.

Any help is appreciated at this point moving on as I've followed everything else I could do to this point, it's become very stressful and tiring and we really could do without it but there's also the issue of the court fees too. It's a sizeable extra sum of money on top.
Many thanks in advance x

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Also thank you to Kati for uploading the paperwork. If I haven't said it I apologise. I'm very grateful for all the help provided and all replies given. X

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

If it were me I'd continue defending for the time being (based on lack of disclosure/refusal of same) & wait to see what the SAR reveals.
If nothing useful comes to light, deal with any offer at the mediation stage of proceedings.
@R0b? (Hi R0b )

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Do you dispute the amount owed? There doesn't appear to be any breakdown or discussion of how the debt with O2 came to be £500+ ?

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Initially I would dispute the entire amount as explained at the beginning because during the period of time that's given we both would have defaulted on any contracts and that wasn't the case so obviously there's an issue somewhere.
I can only imagine there was possibly 10 months left on the contract to make it a feasible amount per month on the contract too as neither of us have ever paid more than £50 a month for a contract.

They've given me a date of 3rd of July to place my defence too so I'm hoping and praying that the SAR does return with enough time to spare.

If not and we have to deal with meditation to come to an agreed payment plan I will be pushing to make sure it's the least possible amount we can give a month, however much that may be 😰

[Kati]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Also thank you to Kati for uploading the paperwork. If I haven't said it I apologise. I'm very grateful for all the help provided and all replies given. X

you are more than welcome hun ... that's why I'm here xx

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Hey guys. Me again.

The defence needs to be in today, SAR request not returned, no other paperwork provided by Lowell to aid in the case.

I think the only hope I have it to go with the defence Rob suggested that there's no actual proof of this debt etc.
Please can someone help me write this up?

[Hatch92]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

So I came across this defence which was for a Vodafone account.

can someone help me edit it to suit me please?


1: I received the claim D9XXXXXX from the Northhamton County Court on 25^th January 2017

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 Vodaphone Account 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. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Vodaphone to Lowell Portfolio I LTD on 31/07/2015. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. It is denied that Vodaphone 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.

8: On the 2^nd February 2017 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.

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

10. On the 2^nd February 2017 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio I LTD pursuant to section[77 or 78]??? of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee to which I have received no reply.

11. The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)]??? Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)]??? Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

12. Section 78 (6) consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out the consequences of failure to comply with such request and states:

s78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)-
(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and
(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

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 not replied.

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. It is drawn to the courts attention that the claimant has failed to comply with my request to provide ANY documentation and is in clear default of its obligations under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is averred that the claimant has no right of action until such time as the default is remedied and the true copy of the executed agreement is produced before the defendant containing the prescribed terms under Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and signed in the prescribed manner by the debtor and creditor.

16. It is brought to the courts attention that the claimantfailed to comply with the CCA request stating this agreement is not regulated I refer to the O2 CCA Fixed sum loan Agreement which proves not every agreement is not regulated.

17. Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Rules in particular practice direct 32 requires that access is granted to the original documents, therefore I require the claimant to provide the defendant sight of the original credit agreement and any terms and conditions that they seek to rely upon in this action pursuant to PD 32.

18. Notwithstanding point 13, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

19. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

20. Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to asses if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to asses if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

21. In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16 and Practice Direction 16.

22. Alternatively if the court decides not to strike out the claimant’s case, it is requested that the court orders full disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules.

23. 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.

24. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents.

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

26. Therefore since the documents have not been supplied as requested pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I deny that I am liable to the claimant and put the claimant to strict proof that such enforceable agreement between parties exists.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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 .................................................. ....

- - - Updated - - -

Ive lost my head a bit in this as id like to state about them refusing my CCA request due to it being not regulated but not quite sure how to put it -


this was part of the original post I've just seen but the same stands and to date, I still have not received the postal order back to me.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

Do you recall whether you had your mobile device as part of your monthly contract?

A £50 a month contract seems high if just for a call / data package ( or maybe I'm just a cheapskate )

Paragraph 10 you want to quote s77 - and change para 11 and 12 and 15 to match

You may be want to simplify the last few paragraphs as it sounds a bit muddled - maybe shift 18/19 up to 13 also 26 thru 29 are repeats so can be ditched.

[slainte caragh]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

a CCA request won't apply here as this is a mobile contract ... but yes, you need to send a CPR (you can ask for the AGREEMENT and the NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT as per the particulars of claim )

The fact this claim has been sent from Northampton is not problematic at all ... it would get transferred to your local court before a hearing

What kind of contract did you have? If you have a Refresh contract then a CCA agreement IS part of this for the device plan.

When they say you missed payments, were these for the device or airtime agreement?

Were you a business or consumer customer and if business was this a lease plan?

I'm no good on the Court side of it, but I know a fair bit about the contract side and will help all I can.

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell/O2/county court business centre claim

The O2 Refresh plan which provided two separate contracts: airtime agreement (unregulated) and device plan (CCA Regulated) was launched on 12th April 2013 > https://www.o2.co.uk/termsandconditi...and-conditions

The OP's agreement was in existence before that date because the POC (post #1) state the debt was assigned to Lowells on 31st January 2013 (assuming that's true of course )

Therefore the CCA would not apply in this instance.

Di