County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

I'll give [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] a nudge for you.

Thank you

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Morning Hope you had a lovely time on holiday. Will dig out what I was working on for you xx

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Morning Hope you had a lovely time on holiday. Will dig out what I was working on for you xx

I did thank you and thanks for the help x

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Just a quicky I want to check after reading through everything - in your SAR was there ANYTHING dated before September 2008 ? any transactions etc? Anything pre-2004 ?

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Just a quicky I want to check after reading through everything - in your SAR was there ANYTHING dated before September 2008 ? any transactions etc? Anything pre-2004 ?

The only paperwork with any dates before 2008 are a collections activity log ,log notes for specific customer and customer account transactions .ive also got 3 sample letters to me but there's no name, account number or date on them

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

okay but there isn't a way they can shout ' typo' on that agreement and say ''it's meant to say 27/09/2008" as there is evidence of account use before that date? ( there's reference to a change introduced by the CCA 2006 which came into force 1st Oct 2008 - so I think that would be the only date they could say it should have been to claim typo)

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Okay [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] + [MENTION=106551]Leego59[/MENTION] check this over pls.



In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: [XXXXX]

*

Lowell Portfolio Ltd

Claimant

And

*

[Defendants Name]

Defendant

DEFENCE

*

1.The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all.

2.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.

3. The Defendant has previously made purchases from a catalogue ( Studio) owned by Express Gifts Ltd between approximately 2000 and 2011. No debt is acknowledged.

4. The Defendant denies entering into the consumer credit agreement with Express Gifts Limited Studio as set out in paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim.

5. This claim appears to be for a Catalogue Account (running account credit agreement) regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

6: In order to find out more information about the claim and the alleged agreement and the terms of that agreement, on the 8th September 2017 the Defendant sent a formal request pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, along with the statutory payment of £1.

7: The Claimant responded in a letter dated 21st September 2017 and enclosed a copy of an agreement. It is denied that the document enclosed in the Claimant's letter is a true copy of the agreement in that;

i) The Agreement is dated as signed on 27/09/2000. There is no signature displayed on the agreement and it is denied the Defendant signed such an agreement either on 27/09/2000 or at any other time.

ii) The Document refers to the Financial Services ( Distance Marketing) Regulations 2004 which came into force on 31st October 2004. The document can not have been printed nearly 4 years before the Regulations were made.

iii) The Document refers to interest not being charged on Default sums incurred after the 18th September 2008. It is believed this is due to an change in the rules introduced by Consumer Credit Act 2006 and in force 1st October 2008. This further evidences the agreement can not have been signed in September 2000.

8: It is therefore contended that this agreement could not have been signed by the Defendant on or about 27/09/2000 and therefore the Claimant has failed in its duty as Creditor (pursuant to s.189 of the CCA 1974) to comply with a formal request under s.78(1) and under s.78(6) cannot enforce the agreement.

9: The alleged agreement refers to 'Additional Terms and Conditions' contained "within your catalogue" and states that "the policy pages of your catalogue contain specific terms and conditions" however there is no reference to which catalogue the terms are contained within ( Studio published a number of different catalogues throughout the year ) and copies of the terms are not included with the alleged agreement.

9: In Addition or in the alternative the Defendant contends the alleged debt would be statute barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 in that no payment or acknowledgment has been made for over 6 years.

10: It is denied that the Defendant received a Default Notice pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974 was served as set out in paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

11. It is denied that the Defendant received a notice of assignment as set out in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

12. On the 08/09/2017 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Lowell Solicitors .

13. The Claimant has failed to provide a copy of the Default Notice, and the Agreement provided is denied.

14. 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* ________________________________

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

okay but there isn't a way they can shout ' typo' on that agreement and say ''it's meant to say 27/09/2008" as there is evidence of account use before that date? ( there's reference to a change introduced by the CCA 2006 which came into force 1st Oct 2008 - so I think that would be the only date they could say it should have been to claim typo)

All of the paperwork I've got dates back from 2001

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Nice one That's what I was checking xxx

[charitynjw]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION]

Yep.

(I might have added the address issue just to be awkward.....but that's just me! )

But it will certainly give them pause for thought when they see how they've blown it big time, lol!

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

Nice one That's what I was checking xxx

I've also noticed one of the sample letters states that details of the account are being transferred to Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION]

Yep.

(I might have added the address issue just to be awkward.....but that's just me! )

But it will certainly give them pause for thought when they see how they've blown it big time, lol!

I only haven't put the address issue in as they did use that address as a postal address long before they changed their registered office address - and the ony requirements under the CCA is for a postal address, so felt it was a little bit of a non-issue ? If it helps draw doubt though we can add it in.

I'm not sure how to put in something saying ' don't let them try fix it by creating another fake CCA ' .... or if we need to do that?


On Moorcrodt - they generally collect FOR creditors rather than own then debt and collect for themselves ( so debt collection agency rather than debt purchasing company ) - but we have included the assignment issues.

[charitynjw]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

I'm not sure how to put in something saying ' don't let them try fix it by creating another fake CCA ' .... or if we need to do that?

I don't think you need to.
Trying to change the evidence, esp after the Defendant has pointed out an out-&-out forgery?
Would they risk it in court?
Would you?

[Leego59]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

I only haven't put the address issue in as they did use that address as a postal address long before they changed their registered office address - and the ony requirements under the CCA is for a postal address, so felt it was a little bit of a non-issue ? If it helps draw doubt though we can add it in.

I'm not sure how to put in something saying ' don't let them try fix it by creating another fake CCA ' .... or if we need to do that?


On Moorcrodt - they generally collect FOR creditors rather than own then debt and collect for themselves ( so debt collection agency rather than debt purchasing company ) - but we have included the assignment issues.

So am I good to go with the defence you've done for me?

[Amethyst]

Re: County court claim from Lowell Portfolio for a Studio Gifts debt

I reckon so, if there's no other bits you can think of ? Obvs check the dates of letters and whatnot and that I have got the facts correct ( I've only been going off what's on the thread of course )

Others might feel you just say ' non compliant' but not give the reasons so they don't have opportunity to remedy. So it is just my thoughts on things ok.