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

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

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.

Can revisit the PPI issue? Reading other forums/threads, I would have to agree: How can an original creditor pass on monies to a DCA? Whatever agreement they have in place is irrelevant, it would be tantamount to theft at best?
The PPI forms part of another separate contract and even when a debt is assigned, it does not follow. Or am I missing something here?

After reading some other threads, I'm preparing for the worst - trying to 'bank' funds ready for paying out and I'm considering negotiation when the time comes!

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:

Although I remain hopeful, I'm a little concerned as shouldn't the case in this thread have been barred due to non-compliance with a CCA request?:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?60621-Court-Claim-lowell-portfolio-lloyds-bank-Bryan-carter-20-01-2015

If this is the case, what's to stop us mortals taking DCA's to court with no evidence and little more than spurious allegations'!?


Can I also enquire as to the relevance of any charges that make up the balance? How could that help my case as it is entirely possible there are charges.


I've sent my response to BC today - recorded. I'll let you know.

Also now received a letter from Lowells, only a 'Statement of account' pertaining to the credit card but no N1 as yet. What are they waiting for!?

Thanks as always!.....

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

They have to send you a yearly statement of account - that is what they have done as many of us received lately>

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I have always maintained and agreed that PPI premiums front loaded to an account have sweet bugger all to do with the actual debt.
The creditor has no call or right in my opinion to offset PPI refunds to pay towards the debt not does the creditor the right or obligation to pass any refund to a debt purchaser as has been said two entirely separate contracts, raising also the question of commission paid by ot to the insurer.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Can revisit the PPI issue? Reading other forums/threads, I would have to agree: How can an original creditor pass on monies to a DCA? Whatever agreement they have in place is irrelevant, it would be tantamount to theft at best?
The PPI forms part of another separate contract and even when a debt is assigned, it does not follow. Or am I missing something here?

After reading some other threads, I'm preparing for the worst - trying to 'bank' funds ready for paying out and I'm considering negotiation when the time comes!

Part of the outstanding balance would consist of PPI, and the entire balance would have been assigned (including the PPI). There are cases where buyback clauses are in place and others where the refund has been paid to the creditor, just reporting what has happened.

Although I remain hopeful, I'm a little concerned as shouldn't the case in this thread have been barred due to non-compliance with a CCA request?:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ter-20-01-2015

If this is the case, what's to stop us mortals taking DCA's to court with no evidence and little more than spurious allegations'!?

Overdrafts are not covered by ss.77-79 of the CCA so the CCA requests do not apply and you cannot use non-compliance as a bar to enforcement in those cases. If I read this correctly, yours is also an overdraft but they put it was an agreement regulated by the CCA in the particulars of the claim which was the reason for sending a CCA request to Lowell, to see what they respond with. If they knew exactly what the account is, they'd respond saying the CCA request does not apply to current accounts.

Can I also enquire as to the relevance of any charges that make up the balance? How could that help my case as it is entirely possible there are charges.

There isn't much mileage in that since the courts ruled in favour of the banks with regards to charges, a few years ago. :mmph: You'll find that there were also a lot of charges making up the balance of the account you've linked to. :ohwell:

I've sent my response to BC today - recorded. I'll let you know.

Also now received a letter from Lowells, only a 'Statement of account' pertaining to the credit card but no N1 as yet. What are they waiting for!?

Thanks as always!.....

Credit cards are easier to defend because you can use non-compliance with s.78 of the CCA (a CCA request) in your defence, and Lowell are often unable to get their hands on the documents, and the agreements themselves may be non-compliant. ray:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I have always maintained and agreed that PPI premiums front loaded to an account have sweet bugger all to do with the actual debt.
The creditor has no call or right in my opinion to offset PPI refunds to pay towards the debt not does the creditor the right or obligation to pass any refund to a debt purchaser as has been said two entirely separate contracts, raising also the question of commission paid by ot to the insurer.

nem

You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

My understanding is that refunds are nor exactly passed to the debt purchase but the relevant amount of the debt is bought back. PPI charges are, from what i have seen a separate loan and therefore are part of the debt, in fact I have seen a loan that is unenforceable in law because the loan was not broken down into two parts, PPI and non PPI as required.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

My understanding is that refunds are nor exactly passed to the debt purchase but the relevant amount of the debt is bought back. PPI charges are, from what i have seen a separate loan and therefore are part of the debt, in fact I have seen a loan that is unenforceable in law because the loan was not broken down into two parts, PPI and non PPI as required.

I believe that would fall under s.18 of the CCA although I don't know of any case law that used that argument as a defence, in fact there was a case that allegedly "shut that door", although it wasn't related to PPI. :mmph:

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Hi all,

I've had the reply to my last letter to BC reminding them of their obligations for disclosure.

The content is identical to the first letter they sent - verbatim! Is this usual as it's appears they haven't read my previous letter correctly, or even at all? Would pasting what I have sent be any use too? I was a little short tempered when I drafted it and therefore may have come over a little aggressive.....

Also regarding the PPI angle; I think I'm going to pursue it. Either way it makes no odds to me what happens to the funds as it's likely to end up going in the same direction anyway.

If I start a PPI claim, can the amount claimed by Lowells be disputed which would then halt court proceedings?

Part of the outstanding balance would consist of PPI, and the entire balance would have been assigned (including the PPI). There are cases where buyback clauses are in place and others where the refund has been paid to the creditor, just reporting what has happened.


Overdrafts are not covered by ss.77-79 of the CCA so the CCA requests do not apply and you cannot use non-compliance as a bar to enforcement in those cases. If I read this correctly, yours is also an overdraft but they put it was an agreement regulated by the CCA in the particulars of the claim which was the reason for sending a CCA request to Lowell, to see what they respond with. If they knew exactly what the account is, they'd respond saying the CCA request does not apply to current accounts.

May I ask why? Forgive my audacity but is the overdraft not a 'running account credit' and will subsequently becovered under s78 CCA? Or is this the (black) magic 2007 date which I hear bandied around?

You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

My understanding is that refunds are nor exactly passed to the debt purchase but the relevant amount of the debt is bought back. PPI charges are, from what i have seen a separate loan and therefore are part of the debt, in fact I have seen a loan that is unenforceable in law because the loan was not broken down into two parts, PPI and non PPI as required.

I have a similar situation with some other loans; I used a CMC many years ago (never paid anything up front fortunately) and two loans are unenforceable - apparently the solicitors couldn't even work out what I was paying in PPI it was so well buried! . They claimed one could be recovered but the CMC came under the wrath of MoJ before it could be pursued.

On a [nearly] unrelated note, I have ALL the information pertaining to an old vehicle credit hire agreement in 2005, is it worth chancing anything on that or not worth the effort? If so, shall I start another thread?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I've had the reply to my last letter to BC reminding them of their obligations for disclosure.

The content is identical to the first letter they sent - verbatim! Is this usual as it's appears they haven't read my previous letter correctly, or even at all? Would pasting what I have sent be any use too? I was a little short tempered when I drafted it and therefore may have come over a little aggressive.....

Yes, that is usual for him, he never supplies any documents nor does he ever agree to an extension. :rant: :rant:

Also regarding the PPI angle; I think I'm going to pursue it. Either way it makes no odds to me what happens to the funds as it's likely to end up going in the same direction anyway.

If I start a PPI claim, can the amount claimed by Lowells be disputed which would then halt court proceedings?

You would reclaim the PPI from the bank who mis-sold it to you not from Lowell so it wouldn't halt the proceedings, however, if you are lucky, you could get any redress paid back to you rather than offset from the debt.

May I ask why? Forgive my audacity but is the overdraft not a 'running account credit' and will subsequently becovered under s78 CCA?

No, the running accounts referred to are things like credit cards and catalogue accounts that have set repayment dates and amounts (the minimum monthly repayments).
Overdrafts fall under ss74A and 74B of the CCA: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VA which were added by the The Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010

Or is this the (black) magic 2007 date which I hear bandied around?

No, nothing to do with that one, as you have seen above the directive in question was from 2010. What you may have heard regarding 2007 refers to agreements regulated by the CCA such as loans, credit cards, HP agreements and catalogue accounts. S.127(3) of the CCA was repealed with effect from April 2007, that was the bit that prevented a court from enforcing an account unless there had been a properly executed agreement with all the prescribed terms to start with: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...on/127/enacted

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

I have a similar situation with some other loans; I used a CMC many years ago (never paid anything up front fortunately) and two loans are unenforceable - apparently the solicitors couldn't even work out what I was paying in PPI it was so well buried! . They claimed one could be recovered but the CMC came under the wrath of MoJ before it could be pursued.

How old are those loans? Are they statute barred now?

On a [nearly] unrelated note, I have ALL the information pertaining to an old vehicle credit hire agreement in 2005, is it worth chancing anything on that or not worth the effort? If so, shall I start another thread?

Yes, do start a new thread. :typing:

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

No, the running accounts referred to are things like credit cards and catalogueaccounts that have set repayment dates and amounts (the minimum monthlyrepayments).
Overdrafts fall under ss74A and 74B of the CCA: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VAwhich were added by the The Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010

Apologies for keeping on, but I still cant see how this section doesn't apply to an overdraft. I understand what is 'meant' by the 2 sections, however it is what is said that matters. My agreement was in 2008, before the 2010 amendments' and therefore I feel should fall under s10. I signed a consumer agreement, for credit. It is also an account and as far as I can see ticks the boxes.

Sorry to come over desperate, I'm sure I'm not the first!

How old are those loans? Are they statute barred now?

Unfortunatelynot, I was 'daft' enough to make payments. :doh: Although they stopped a couple ofyears ago. NatWest still own the overdraft & loan so no chance of a PPIclaim on those for a few years at least. The other is Cahoot in which the contract is laughable at best!

Can I put in my defence that he is deliberately withholding information pertinent to thecase? If I may refer to the thread I mentioned above - if a claimant does not provide any documentation to support their claim, then you can only surmise that there is no 'evidence'!?
Impeccable information as always thanks Parrot. New thread to be started shortly re. vehicle finance.

Thanks for putting up with me..... :tinysmile_grin_t:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Apologies for keeping on, but I still cant see how this section doesn't apply to an overdraft. I understand what is 'meant' by the 2 sections, however it is what is said that matters. My agreement was in 2008, before the 2010 amendments' and therefore I feel should fall under s10. I signed a consumer agreement, for credit. It is also an account and as far as I can see ticks the boxes.

It was the 2010 amendments that brought overdrafts more in line with the requirements of the CCA if you see what I mean, rather than the other way round. An overdraft is a facility attached to a current account so you would have signed a current account agreement rather than an credit agreement regulated by the CCA.

Sorry to come over desperate, I'm sure I'm not the first!

Nope! Even debt purchasers Arrow can't always see the difference between an overdraft and a credit agreement regulated by the CCA. :grin:

Can I put in my defence that he is deliberately withholding information pertinent to the case? If I may refer to the thread I mentioned above - if a claimant does not provide any documentation to support their claim, then you can only surmise that there is no 'evidence'!?

You will say that they have not supplied you with the documents required to assess your position and to evidence their claim, however, you can't say he is DELIBERATELY withholding information simply because that wouldn't be true, debt purchasers buy accounts as job lots without any paperwork and rely on the original creditor to supply any documents requested. That means they are not withholding anything deliberately, they just haven't got the documents. Your argument will be mostly based on the fact that they should have had the documents before issuing a claim. :thumb:

Impeccable information as always thanks Parrot. New thread to be started shortly re. vehicle finance.

Thanks for putting up with me..... :tinysmile_grin_t:

No worries, that's what we're here for.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

It was the 2010 amendments that brought overdrafts more in line with therequirements of the CCA if you see what I mean, rather than the other wayround. An overdraft is a facility attached to a current account so you wouldhave signed a current account agreement rather than an credit agreementregulated by the CCA.

I think the penny's dropped - it depends entirely on how the agreement you sign is regulated as apposed to how the CCA definition fits. It's obvious now I've read it back..... Although it then begs a further question, given the description in s10 , should it not have been a regulated agreement prior to 2010 amendments'!?

You will say that they have not supplied you with the documents required to assess your position and to evidence their claim, however, you can't say he is DELIBERATELY withholding information simply because that wouldn't be true, debt purchasers buy accounts as job lots without any paperwork and rely on the original creditor to supply any documents requested. That means they are not withholding anything deliberately, they just haven't got the documents. Your argument will be mostly based on the fact that they should have had thedocuments before issuing a claim.

I did my best to [not so] covertly imply that by not sending them was as good as...... :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Is it worth putting in my defence the possible lack of s78 response as Lowells/BC aren't aware of the account type? :whistle:

A slightly (as yet?) unrelated question: What happens 'if' I win? That is with regards to recovery and statute barred status? Can it ever become statute barred as I'm confused as to whether the clock stops permanently or just resets! And does the registered default just remain for its 6 years as normal?

Can I also just check my defence date, due in by 16th I believe? (24/08 + 33 = 16/09). I'd best get on with it! I'll post Monday pm for review and input.

Thanks for the time spent.

Nor

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I think the penny's dropped - it depends entirely on how the agreement you sign is regulated as apposed to how the CCA definition fits. It's obvious now I've read it back..... Although it then begs a further question, given the description in s10 , should it not have been a regulated agreement prior to 2010 amendments'!?

No, the 2010 amendments didn't un-regulate them, if you see what I mean.

I did my best to [not so] covertly imply that by not sending them was as good as...... :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Is it worth putting in my defence the possible lack of s78 response as Lowells/BC aren't aware of the account type? :whistle:

Uhmmm, a tricky one because on the particulars of claim they do mention an agreement regulated by the CCA, however, down below they say it was a current account overdraft.

Issue Date: 14-08-2015
Amount: £1945.77 + £105/£80
Claimant: Lowell Portfolio
Solicitor: Bryan Carter

Particulars of Claim:

THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR THE SUM OF 1801.63, BEING MONIES DUE FROM THE DEFENDANT TO THE CLAIMANT UNDER AN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND Lloyds, UNDER ACCOUNT REFERENCE xxxxxxxxxxx AND ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT ON 30/06/2014, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT.
THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTRACTUAL REPAYMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND A DEFAULT NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1801.63 THE CLAIMANT ALSO CLAIMS STATUTORY INTEREST PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY ACT 1984 AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM
FROM THE DATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE AGREEMENT TO DATE BUT LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE YEAR AND A MAXIMUM OF 1000 AMOUNTING TO 144.14

Original Credit: Lloyds - Current & Overdraft. Opened 05/03/2008
Last payment to account: 20/03/2012
'Default': 01/01/2010

A slightly (as yet?) unrelated question: What happens 'if' I win? That is with regards to recovery and statute barred status? Can it ever become statute barred as I'm confused as to whether the clock stops permanently or just resets! And does the registered default just remain for its 6 years as normal?

There is more than one way to 'win' so to speak. A win in the strict sense of the word would mean appearing in court and having the judge rule in your favour, however, they could also discontinue the claim due to lack of paperwork, it may be struck out if they can't comply with the court's directions to provide you with documents at least 14 days before the hearing date or it could be left stayed due to lack of response to your defence. There are many scenarios. If you appear in court and win then there's no need to worry about the clock. If the claim is discontinued due to lack of paperwork another claim could be issued if they manage to obtain the paperwork in the future.

None of this would affect the default on file which should still drop off 6 years after it was recorded, that's got nothing to do with SBd, however, a CCJ would stay on file for 6 years from the date of judgment.

Can I also just check my defence date, due in by 16th I believe? (24/08 + 33 = 16/09). I'd best get on with it! I'll post Monday pm for review and input.

Was the date on the claim August 24th? If so it would be due on the 26th, not the 16th: http://www.timeanddate.com/date/date...aw=&ad=33&rec=

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I am beginning to wonder if they actually know it is an overdraft and not a credit card or loan.

Sorry I haven't read back but have they given you any indication that they know the CCA request is pointless?

I too wonder if it is worth putting in your defence that they have no complied. I will have a quick read back

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I assume that you are putting in the generic non disclosure defence?
As there is a line in there saying that you request permission to amend your defence should the documents turn up and that you request the claimants pay that cost then I see no reason why you shouldn't use the failure of S78 as part of your defence after all you do have a credit card with them and therefore you just assumed it was the credit card because they said a regulated consumer credit agreement

Do you see where i am going with this?

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Evening to you both

Apologies for not 'quoting', but I'm a newbie on forums and I usually cut & paste the parts I need to re-quote but as there's two of you I'm going to just refer and answer if that's ok?

Parrot: Under the particulars of claim, that is my addition about "current & overdraft" and not theirs (particulars in capitals) - it was information for forum members and to the best of my knowledge BC have no idea its an o/d (I'm franticly double checking though!)!

So a judge laughing them out of court is what I'm after then? Claim dead and buried and [both] defaults off by March 2016!!!

And my dates are a typo - claim issued 14th and NOT 24th. So Wednesday it is!!

Bernie:

They have no idea I expect - they 'own' both (C/C and O/D), however it is just the O/D they are pursuing at this time. Maybe they were just testing the water to see what I'm like?

The only reason they have volunteered so far for non-disclosure is that they aren't required to because of the small claims track, and not because it's an O/D.

Yes, I was putting in a generic defence; I can't think of another! I agree completely - I can only base my defence on [what little] evidence they provide. They claim it's regulated so one must assume they are correct!?

Thanks again, I'll sort draft one of defence out soon.....

Nor