**DISCONTINUED** Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Sorry, just re-read this.

If Lowells now have been assigned the debt, would it not matter that I pursue a CCA request with Lloyds (Ref post #8). Surely they wouldn't inform Lovell?

Thanks again.

You can send a CCA request to Lloyds, they have no reason to inform Lowell.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Just the overdraft at present.

On a positive note, I assume I can start a PPI claim against Lloyds as the longer hold title?

PPI reclaims always have to be addressed at the original lender who mis-sold the PPI as the debt purchaser would have had nothing to do with it, the don't sell insurance.

With regards to any redress being paid to you vs offsetting the debt, there have been mixed results when debts have been sold. Although you can reclaim at any time, if there isn't long to go before SBd I'd rather wait till it's SBd to start the ball rolling.

If Lowells now have been assigned the debt, would it not matter that I pursue a CCA request with Lloyds (Ref post #8). Surely they wouldn't inform Lovell?

Llowell would have to ask Lloyds for the documents anyway, this means it would be much harder for them to comply with the request. It all depends on what your real aim is here, if it's information you're after, i.e. you want to know what sort of agreement (if any) there was/is for this card, then sending the request to Lloyds should give you an idea, however, if you want to use non-compliance with your request to dispute the account and buy yourself some time whilst it goes SBd, :clock: I'd wait for Lowell to contact you and then send the CCA request to them who wouldn't be able to comply with it in a timely manner.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Lowell never have any paperwork and can only get it from the OC when they need to produce it. By sending CCA request to the OC you know exactly what exists and that's all that Lowell will be able to get if you later challenge them.

That's very reassuring, thanks!

With regards to any redress being paid to you vs offsetting the debt, there have been mixed results when debts have been sold. Although you can reclaim at any time, if there isn't long to go before SBd I'd rather wait till it's SBd to start the ball rolling.

Forgive my ignorance, but surely a creditor passing on monies to a DCA for a PPI claim would be like a consumer paying money to the wrong bank for a loan etc!? How do they argue that one?

It all depends on what your real aim is here, if it's information you're after, i.e. you want to know what sort of agreement (if any) there was/is for this card, then sending the request to Lloyds should give you an idea, however, if you want to use non-compliance with your request to dispute the account and buy yourself some time whilst it goes SBd,

I'd wait for Lowell to contact you and then send the CCA request to them who wouldn't be able to comply with it in a timely manner.

I've had had my BC letter turn up today for the CC, although it's not entitled 'letter of claim', it just inform me that litigation proceedings will be issued in 48 hours. So I guess my aim now is irrelevant! As for all cases, I'd like them gone, at least away from courts. Off my credit file as soon as possible and with as little cost outlay to me as I can.
Could someone briefly explain the SB'd angle? I'm aware it's 6 years but what starts/ends the clock as I've heard mixed explanations? I always assumed it was from letter of default etc?
Thanks for the input. Starting to get to me now - Looks like I have nearly £6k cued up for the county courts.

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

followed by a N1 form from Northampton?

[Kafka]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Statute barred relates to the Statute of Limitations, which dictates that any civil action brought must be started within 6 years of the cause of action (5 in Scotland). For a defaulted credit account, the registering of the default is normally taken to be the start of the 6-year clock.

For the account to become statute barred, you must not have paid anything towards the account for 6 years, or formally acknowledged the account in writing. It is common practice for DCAs to start legal action on debts they own just before the 6 years ends so that it doesn't allow you to plead Limitation.

If you go for a SB its an absolute defence, but you need to be sure you haven't missed anything that they could turn up. The onus is on the Claimant to prove that it isn't SB, rather than on you to prove that it is.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

followed by a N1 form from Northampton?

I assume that was a question? If so, no it hasn't, not yet. I'll keep you posted.

Statute barred relates to the Statute of Limitations, which dictates that any civil action brought must be started within 6 years of the cause of action (5 in Scotland). For a defaulted credit account, the registering of the default is normally taken to be the start of the 6-year clock.

For the account to become statute barred, you must not have paid anything towards the account for 6 years, or formally acknowledged the account in writing. It is common practice for DCAs to start legal action on debts they own just before the 6 years ends so that it doesn't allow you to plead Limitation.

If you go for a SB its an absolute defence, but you need to be sure you haven't missed anything that they could turn up. The onus is on the Claimant to prove that it isn't SB, rather than on you to prove that it is.

I'd say I've paid into both accounts as late as 2012 so SB' is a long way off. I have another 2 accounts (paid into 2012?) with other creditors which cannot be pursued through courts (a claims management company sorted that out). They are a long way off being SB'd but they drop off Credit file within 2 years. Wanted to do a PPI claim on them but if I decide to wait for SB status then I'll sacrifice the claim too. Anyway, I digress.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Forgive my ignorance, but surely a creditor passing on monies to a DCA for a PPI claim would be like a consumer paying money to the wrong bank for a loan etc!? How do they argue that one?

There are cases where buy back agreements are in place precisely for this purpose. You may want to look at what the FOS has to say here: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...ress.html#page

where the business has “written off” or “sold on” the consumer’s debt

Some businesses make a commercial decision to “write off” or “sell on” a consumer’s debt when it is significantly in arrears. But different businesses use different terminology. For example, a business may say that it has “sold on” or “written off” a debt when it has actually transferred it from one part of its own business to another.
Where a business has genuinely “written off” a debt – meaning that it has agreed not to seek repayment in any circumstances – it might say that it is unfair for it to pay compensation to the consumer for the mis-sale of the PPI when the consumer did not pay the contractual payments on their debt. The business might say that the compensation should be offset against the amount of the debt it has written off. Where this happens, the consumer will usually say that because the debt does not exist any more they should receive all of the compensation.

In order to fairly compensate the consumer we will consider the position they would have been in if they had not taken out the PPI. We might conclude that the consumer would have fallen behind with the payments to their debt anyway and the debt would ultimately have been written off – but we will consider any evidence that the consumer has that this would not have been the case.

Where we decide that the debt would ultimately have been written off anyway we will usually tell the business to restructure the loan to remove the effect of PPI – that is, reduce the amount written off to what would have been written off if the consumer had taken out the loan without PPI. If there is any remaining compensation owed to the consumer because they have paid more than they would have done without PPI, we would usually say it is fair for the business to offset that compensation against any remaining amount it wrote off.

Where a business simply moved a consumer’s debt from one part of its business to another, rather than selling it on, we would usually apply the approach we take when a consumer is in arrears – set out above. We would also apply this approach if a business chose to buy back a debt it had previously sold on to a third party.

But if the debt was sold on to a third party and it cannot be bought back, or the business chooses not to buy it back, we might take a slightly different approach. That is because the consumer does not owe the business money – it owes money to the third party that bought the debt instead. When selling the debt the business made a commercial decision and accepted an agreeable price for the debt. In those circumstances, we would usually tell the business to calculate the compensation as normal at the point it sold on the debt – and to pay all parts of the compensation to the consumer. The business should also consider the possibility that the consumer might have incurred further losses since the debt was sold on as a result of PPI being included on their debt.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I've had had my BC letter turn up today for the CC, although it's not entitled 'letter of claim', it just inform me that litigation proceedings will be issued in 48 hours. So I guess my aim now is irrelevant! As for all cases, I'd like them gone, at least away from courts. Off my credit file as soon as possible and with as little cost outlay to me as I can.

I thought they were no longer sending out those letters which just make a mockery of the pre-action conduct. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Could someone briefly explain the SB'd angle? I'm aware it's 6 years but what starts/ends the clock as I've heard mixed explanations? I always assumed it was from letter of default etc?
Thanks for the input. Starting to get to me now - Looks like I have nearly £6k cued up for the county courts.

That has been the subject of much discussion, since the LA only states "the cause of action" but it doesn't say what it is. It has often been considered as just over one month after your last payment, i.e. when you first missed a payment, however, there was a recent judgment where the judge decided that the cause of action starts to run from the default notice you refer to above. I believe this judgment is being appealed at the moment and it's still very early days. :noidea:

There was also the infamous BMW v Hart judgment: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...e-Barred-Debts, you may want to have a read of that thread because some interesting arguments are put forward on there.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
There was also the infamous BMW v Hart judgment: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...e-Barred-Debts, you may want to have a read of that thread because some interesting arguments are put forward on there.

Thanks for that, I'll take a look today. Lowells have signed for their letter, but BC haven't as yet. Back to work tomorrow so I've got to pop out for a bit.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Thanks for that, I'll take a look today. Lowells have signed for their letter, but BC haven't as yet. Back to work tomorrow so I've got to pop out for a bit.

If you really really want to read more about the cause of action:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...red#post399097
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...red#post400620

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

If you really really want to read more about the cause of action:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...red#post399097
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...red#post400620

Are you trying to F*** with their brain-lets face it even judges can't decide

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Hi all,

I've received (Wednesday 26th) a follow up letter from Bryan Carter (no response from Lowell's yet).

It contains the usual rubbish:

'We confirm this matter will most properly be allocated to the Small Claims Track as this is a simply contractual matter and part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules will therefore not apply. In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you.

It is the original creditors policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

We confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing defence.

As you are aware a claim was issued in this matter on 14th August 2015. Please respond to the claim using the response pack provided by the court. You should comply with the deadlines outlined by the court in order to avoid default judgement being entered against you.

We recommend you seek independent legal advice'.

How should I respond, using a format already outlined on here when replies like this are received?

Appreciate the input as always.......

Nor

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Hi all,

I've received (Wednesday 26th) a follow up letter from Bryan Carter (no response from Lowell's yet).

It contains the usual rubbish:

'We confirm this matter will most properly be allocated to the Small Claims Track as this is a simply contractual matter and part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules will therefore not apply. In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you.

It is the original creditors policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records.

We confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing defence.

As you are aware a claim was issued in this matter on 14th August 2015. Please respond to the claim using the response pack provided by the court. You should comply with the deadlines outlined by the court in order to avoid default judgement being entered against you.

We recommend you seek independent legal advice'.

How should I respond, using a format already outlined on here when replies like this are received?

Appreciate the input as always.......

You are right, it's his usual rubbish! :blah: :blah: :blah:

...and this is our usual response: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...385#post410385 :thumb:

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

You are right, it's his usual rubbish! :blah: :blah: :blah:

...and this is our usual response: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...385#post410385 :thumb:

Great thanks, and what about Lowells as they haven't responded at all!?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Great thanks, and what about Lowells as they haven't responded at all!?

That's fine, don't chase up the CCA request. :nono:

Non-compliance with a CCA request is a bar to enforcing the account whilst they are in default and you'll make a note of that when you file your defence. :thumb: