**CASE DISMISSED** BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

[FlamingParrot]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

just a quick update... I have now heard from Northampton court that my case is being transferred to my local court, however they seem to have lost the paper file so have requested I provide my local court with a copy of my defence!

How 'efficient'!

At least it's being transferred to your LOCAL court, I know someone had to trawl half way across the country for a hearing they refused to transfer.

[Sandy Ago]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

Further in this matter I have heard from my local court that a hearing is set for the end of this month. The claimant was given until last Friday to pay the £170 hearing fee and when I checked yesterday, the fee had not been received by the court. I was advised by the court that, when they get round to dealing with this case, an unless order will be sent to the claimant giving them another 7 days to pay the fee otherwise their claim will be struck out... I guess that could therefore take a couple weeks!
Incidentally I have lodged a formal complaint against Lowells and BW Legal and am ready to submit this to the Ombudsman as, of course, I remain dissatisfied with their response.
To date the claimant has still not provided me with any details of the payment they allege was made on 11th March 2009... they simply say a payment was made to the original creditor. At first they said the payment (£20.00) was made on 15th April 2009 but, after I was able to refute that (I was out of the country at that time) they changed the claimed date to 11th March 2009. In their letter to me responding to my complaint, they said they were checking with the original creditor to obtain details of the payment.
Today I received a copy of their witness statement. In it they claim the matter is not statute barred as "the defendant's last payment was made on 11th March 2009" and their claim was issued in January 2015... "the defendant's defence is therefore entirely devoid of any merit"!
Within this witness statement is a paragraph saying that the defendant alleges this debt is statute barred and that the defendant requires evidence from the claimant of written contact or payment within the last six years, under S5 of the Limitation Act 1980. Their response is that they are "embarrassed by the lack of particularity in the defence" and "the defendant has provided insufficient detail or any tangible evidence in support". I really don't understand this as I have requested they prove the payment... it is I who has the embarrassed defence!
I believe this is a very straightforward case, it is either statute barred or it is not. Their whole case is predicated on the issue of this mystery payment. I have my bank statements to show no such payment was ever made by me and, so far, they are unable to provide any supporting information.
My understanding is that, if this actually gets to court, and if the judge accepts a payment was indeed made, it will be decided on the balance of probabilities in which case it must be far more likely some other client made a payment which was applied to this account in error. It has to be extremely unlikely for someone to make a payment almost 3 years after the account was sold... the OC would certainly not be chasing payments... then no other payments/contact for a further 5 years!!
This is clearly an instance of Lowells/BW Legal deliberately trying to intimidate an individual and, perhaps, attempting to mislead the court.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

I fully agree with what you say above, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Surely it would take more than just a WS from someone who works for them to establish that a payment was made (such as a bank statement). I can't see how any judge would believe that anyone would just make a one off random payment years after defaulting on the card and one that happens to be just under six years before the claim was issued. I hope the judge doesn't just rule in your favour but also slap them with Contempt of Court! :incourt:

If they hadn't paid the fee, it's possible they may be changing their mind about proceeding and we could be looking at a discontinuance. If they had any sense, they would do just that. ray:

[Sandy Ago]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

[MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION]... thanks, I was wondering if I could ask for a certificate of unreasonable conduct on the grounds of the claimant falling short of conducting their case in a reasonable manner!
Did Lowells and BW Legal go against any CPR rules or guidelines in coming to court without supporting evidence? Up to today they are unable to provide any details of the alleged payment so clearly had no evidence back in January when they commenced their action and that is the basis of their claim.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

@FlamingParrot... thanks, I was wondering if I could ask for a certificate of unreasonable conduct on the grounds of the claimant falling short of conducting their case in a reasonable manner!
Did Lowells and BW Legal go against any CPR rules or guidelines in coming to court without supporting evidence? Up to today they are unable to provide any details of the alleged payment so clearly had no evidence back in January when they commenced their action and that is the basis of their claim.

If you look around you will find that Lowell somehow manage to break ALL the rules, not only when aided by BW Legal but also very often with the help of Bryan Carter. Of course the solicitors only act on their clients' instructions and it really falls down to Lowell to have those documents.

These claims are issued speculatively in the hope of obtaining default judgment or an admission. In fact, the vast majority of money claims never go to court, the claimant just request default judgment because the defendants fail to acknowledge the claim, I think the percentage may be as high as 80%-85%.

Lowell have resorted to issuing claims in the County Court now the FCA are in charge of consumer credit licensing, previously they used to issue Satutory Demands. :scared: We had 100s of them here in 2013! They are also all pre-dated to give the impression that the recipient had missed the deadline to apply for set-aside. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

If someone deserves to lose their consumer credit license, I know who should be at the very top of the list!

[Sandy Ago]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

My case is due soon... just drafting my witness statement

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXX
CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXX


LOWELL PORTFOLIO 1 LIMITED Claimant
XXXXX XXX Defendant


WITNESS STATEMENT OF
XXXXX XXX

1. I, xxxxxxxx of xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx say as follows:

2. I am a Litigant in Person and the Defendant in this claim.

3. I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim which is due to be heard on XXXXXX XXXXX at XXXXX County Court.

4. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.

5. The Defendant claims this matter is statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act, 1980 and as evidenced by the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim.

6. On 5^th May 2015 the Claimant alleged a payment of £20.00 had been made by the Defendant on 15^th April 2009 but was unable to provide any supporting evidence.

7. The Defendant duly refuted said claim by reference to his bank records and being able to show he was out of the country at that time.

8. The Claimant subsequently amended the alleged date of payment to 11^th March 2009, providing no explanation nor reason and, again, being unable to provide any evidence in support of said claim.

9. The Claimant has provided what is purported to be a statement of account but this document bears no authentication and has not been described as such.

10. The document contains a number of irregularities and cannot be relied upon - Page <16> shows three consecutive months (March, April and May 2002) with a decreasing “New Balance” yet no corresponding amounts “Paid In”.

11. The Defendant has requested the Claimant provide details of the alleged payment dated 11^th March 2009

12. The Claimant has responded stating the Defendant’s request lacks particularity.

Conclusion

13. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim demonstrate this claim to be statute barred.

14. The onus of proof to the contrary lies firmly with the Claimant.

15. The Claimant is unable to provide the necessary proof and it is clear the claim is without merit.

16. The Defendant believes the Claimant’s alleged payment is a fiction designed to intimidate the Defendant and mislead the Court over the claim being statute barred as evidenced through points 6, 7 and 8 above.

17. The Defendant claims that, on the balance of probabilities, if indeed the alleged payment was actually made, then it is far more likely to have been made by another individual (with or without a similar name) and applied in error to this account.

18. The Defendant therefore respectfully requests the Claimant’s claim be struck out.

19. The Defendant believes the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.



SIGNED ……………………………………………………………
Xxxxx xxx
Dated:

[Sandy Ago]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

hmmm... [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION], [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION]... despite my belief this is true, do you think it's a bit much to include para 16 in my witness statement?

[nemesis45]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

hmmm... @nemesis45, @FlamingParrot... despite my belief this is true, do you think it's a bit much to include para 16 in my witness statement?

Temper the wording a bit Sandy e.g. the claimant has failed to provide any evidence that any such payment was made
by me personally I have not at any time authorised any such payment to be made by any third party.

A bit better than actually accusing them of telling lies i.e. perjury.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

hmmm... @nemesis45, @FlamingParrot... despite my belief this is true, do you think it's a bit much to include para 16 in my witness statement?

The way I would word it is that the defendant denies having made the alleged payment and the claimant is put to strict proof that a payment was actually made. The burden of proof is on the claimant and putting it like that makes that point without making any accusations.

[Sandy Ago]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

Yay... time to chalk up another victory for the Beagles!
I just had my hearing where Lowells were represented, nevertheless the judge was not satisfied they had discharged their onus of proof that this matter was not statute barred.
The document they called a statement of account was not accepted as an accurate record, neither was it proved any alleged payment had been made therefore the claim was dismissed.
Grateful thanks to you all... [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION], [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION], [MENTION=3599]MIKE770[/MENTION] and [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] I couldn't have done this without your help.

[nemesis45]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

Yay... time to chalk up another victory for the Beagles!
I just had my hearing where Lowells were represented, nevertheless the judge was not satisfied they had discharged their onus of proof that this matter was not statute barred.
The document they called a statement of account was not accepted as an accurate record, neither was it proved any alleged payment had been made therefore the claim was dismissed.
Grateful thanks to you all... @nemesis45, @FlamingParrot, @MIKE770 and @Kati I couldn't have done this without your help.

That's a great result Lowlife strikes out AGAIN!! Just looked at BW's comment " don't think the defence will be successful" Think Again!!

Well done Sandy

nem

[Kati]

Re: BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

Yay... time to chalk up another victory for the Beagles!
I just had my hearing where Lowells were represented, nevertheless the judge was not satisfied they had discharged their onus of proof that this matter was not statute barred.
The document they called a statement of account was not accepted as an accurate record, neither was it proved any alleged payment had been made therefore the claim was dismissed.
Grateful thanks to you all... @nemesis45, @FlamingParrot, @MIKE770 and @Kati I couldn't have done this without your help.

Well done Sandy xx

- - - Updated - - -

I've edited your thread and moved it to "Concluded Cases" xx

[FlamingParrot]

Re: **CASE DISMISSED** BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

WELL DONE!:cheer2::cheer2::cheer2:

Goes to show they can be beaten despite all their dirty tricks. :grin: :grin:

It pas to put them to strict proof that a payment was made. :thumb:

[dogtired]

Re: **CASE DISMISSED** BW Legal / Lowells - Sandy Ago

Well done!