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

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

1: I received the claim ******* from the County Court Business Centre on 15/08/2015.

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3: This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.mitted/denied] that the Defendant has [previously] entered into[an agreement/agreements] with [Original Creditor /Claimant] forprovision of credit.
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 Lloyds to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd on 30/06/2014. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. It is denied that Lloyds served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

8. On 21/08/2015 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.

9. Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP has not sent any of these documents to me.

10. On the 21/08/2015 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

11. The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

12: I have asked the Claimant if we may agree to extend the time periodallowed for filing of my defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed underCPR 15.5), but they have declined.] or [The Parties agreed to anextension to the time period allowed for filing of my defence under CPR 15.5 toallow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation toevidence their claim, however they have failed to do so.]

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or a tall.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.





Ok, first draft done. Anyone happy to give it the once over? All taken from example defence on this site.

Do I need to omit the parts in bold? No: 11 as post April 2007 (Thanks Parrot!). No: 12 as I haven't asked, although they have denied it twice.

Thanks in advance......

Nor

[FlamingParrot]

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?

Evening, or is it early morning already?

No worries, you don't need to quote, I do because I need to see what I'm replying to bit by bit as I go along.

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!)!

Ah, that makes a hell of a difference! :gin: If THEY had said it was a "current & overdraft" then you couldn't argue they didn't specify what the account was, however, if their wording was just the bit that said it was an agreement regulated by the CCA then you could be forgiven for assuming it was a credit card in the absence of anything more particular, after all they are supposed to be the PARTICULARS of the claim they're drafting. :ohwell:

I notice they even go on about a DN being issued which is a requirement for regulated agreements under the CCA rather than current accounts. The paralegal in charge has just used a generic particulars of claim template. :lol:

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!!

OK sounds good to me! :thumb:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

1: I received the claim ******* from the County Court Business Centre on 15/08/2015.

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3: This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.mitted/denied] that the Defendant has [previously] entered into[an agreement/agreements] with [Original Creditor /Claimant] forprovision of credit.
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 Lloyds to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd on 30/06/2014. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. It is denied that Lloyds served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

8. On 21/08/2015 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.

9. Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP has not sent any of these documents to me.

10. On the 21/08/2015 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

11. The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

12: 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 declined.] or [The Parties agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of my defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so.]
13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or a tall.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.





Ok, first draft done. Anyone happy to give it the once over? All taken from example defence on this site.

Do I need to omit the parts in bold? No: 11 as post April 2007 (Thanks Parrot!)

Actually a bit of a confusion here, s.78 wouldn't apply all to an overdraft but we are going along with the idea of a credit card here, in which case it would still apply. S.78 of the CCA didn't change in April 2007, it was s.127(3) that got repealed with effect from that date. That bit stated:

(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).

So it's got nothing to do with responding to a request under s.78, that one still applies equally to pre- and post- April 2007 accounts. :thumb:

No: 12 as I haven't asked, although they have denied it twice.

So you got two identical template letters with the usual wording that includes they are not agreeable... :blah: :blah: :blah: Fair enough then, if you didn't ask them to agree to extend, just take that one out.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Actually a bit of a confusion here, s.78 wouldn't apply all to an overdraft but we are going along with the idea of a credit card here, in which case it would still apply. S.78 of the CCA didn't change in April 2007, it was s.127(3) that got repealed with effect from that date. That bit stated:

So it's got nothing to do with responding to a request under s.78, that one still applies equally to pre- and post- April 2007 accounts. :thumb:

So you got two identical template letters with the usual wording that includes they are not agreeable... :blah: :blah: :blah: Fair enough then, if you didn't ask them to agree to extend, just take that one out.

I understand now: Thinking of the agreement as a stick Lowells are trying to hit me with, breach of s.78 stops them from using the stick until they comply, breach of s.127(3) permanently takes the stick away (notwithstanding April 2007...)!

Amendments' made, I'll send tomorrow though with a fresh head - just in case.

One other thing, who's the best person to speak to with regards to enforceability of CCA agreements and prescribed terms etc?

Great help. Night all.

Nor

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Once that is sent it will be up to lowlife to decide how to proceed. If they suddenly realise it is an overdraft that can be addressed at that time

Good luck

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I understand now: Thinking of the agreement as a stick Lowells are trying to hit me with, breach of s.78 stops them from using the stick until they comply, breach of s.127(3) permanently takes the stick away (notwithstanding April 2007...)!

That's correct, however, as you say, s.127(3) would only take the stick away if the agreement was pre-April 2007, while s.78 applies to accounts opened any time.

Amendments' made, I'll send tomorrow though with a fresh head - just in case.

One other thing, who's the best person to speak to with regards to enforceability of CCA agreements and prescribed terms etc?

Speak to? Are you looking for proper legal advice, i.e. solicitors?

Otherwise you can just post up your questions on the forum. :typing:

- - - Updated - - -

Once that is sent it will be up to lowlife to decide how to proceed. If they suddenly realise it is an overdraft that can be addressed at that time

Good luck

The point is that their pleadings give no indication that it's an overdraft, I mistakenly assumed the words "current & overdraft" were part of their particulars but they weren't. :grin:

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Good luck

Thank you.

Defence sent, just a waiting game now. I expect to be in court in time for Christmas!

Speak to? Are you looking for proper legal advice, i.e. solicitors?


Otherwise you can just post up your questions on the forum. :typing:

I have two other loans, one with NatWest, one with Cahoot. Both opened around 2005 and with PPI. Several years ago I started with a CMC (a friend was a rep. and fortunately I got in at the right time and didn't pay a penny!), who has since been shut down.

During the paperwork process, it was established that both contracts had issues with them, although I have no idea what. I was told by the CMC (I can't recall their terminology) that one they couldn't enforce, and the other I could potentially recover monies paid.

Looking at both contracts I can see issues with 'prescribed terms'. Does anyone know of any mileage in this as there are mixed reviews everywhere?.......

Thanks for the great help!

Nor

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Thank you.

Defence sent, just a waiting game now. I expect to be in court in time for Christmas!

Could be later than that.

I have two other loans, one with NatWest, one with Cahoot. Both opened around 2005 and with PPI. Several years ago I started with a CMC (a friend was a rep. and fortunately I got in at the right time and didn't pay a penny!), who has since been shut down.

During the paperwork process, it was established that both contracts had issues with them, although I have no idea what. I was told by the CMC (I can't recall their terminology) that one they couldn't enforce, and the other I could potentially recover monies paid.

I can see the potential for them being unenforceable but the only moneys paid you could potentially recover would be the PPI, I know some CMCs were making up all sorts of arguments to get people to sign up and pay them up front.

How long ago has it been since you last made a payment?

Looking at both contracts I can see issues with 'prescribed terms'. Does anyone know of any mileage in this as there are mixed reviews everywhere?.......

Thanks for the great help!

There may be mileage if the accounts are pre-April 2007. Is there any way you could post up redacted copies of the agreements? :typing:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

If they are still owned by the OC any PPI reclaim will be used to offset the balance . Even if they have been sold on there is no certainty that you will get to see the money

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

If they are still owned by the OC any PPI reclaim will be used to offset the balance . Even if they have been sold on there is no certainty that you will get to see the money

There is no certainty but there is a possibility, the only way the redress could be offset from a debt that has been assigned in absolute (sold) is if there was a buyback clause of some sort, otherwise the redress would be paid to the debtor.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I can see the potential for them being unenforceable but the only moneys paid you could potentially recover would be the PPI, I know some CMCs were making upall sorts of arguments to get people to sign up and pay them up front.

I think a lot of the confusion relates to the 'Wilson v Secretary of State Case - or more the preceding trial. It's the claims about the judge awarding monies paid against the loan BACK to the debtor. Reading further into it, it was only the monies paid after the appeal.

How long ago has it been since you last made a payment?

See below.....

There may be mileage if the accounts are pre-April 2007. Is there any way you could post up redacted copies of the agreements?

May not be necessary (see below). I'll get them ready anyway just in case as it could be used to stop enforceability whilst I await SB'd status! They are defiantly pre April-2007 though.

If they are still owned by the OC any PPI reclaim will be used to offset the balance . Even if they have been sold on there is no certainty that you will get to see the money

That's why I've bit my tongue on a PPI claim so far.....

There is no certainty but there is a possibility, the only way the redress could be offset from a debt that has been assigned in absolute (sold) is if there was a buyback clause of some sort, otherwise the redress would be paid to the debtor.

Anyone have any idea/experience with Lloyds/Lowells debts with regards to buyback?
If you have two accounts, one SB and one not. Can a PPI claim from the SB'd account be used (by creditor) against the non-SB account to offset arrears? I think I already know the answer! Also what happens to the loan amount/interest as the NW loan had PPI front loaded?

Oh, and my defence has been acknowledged by the court so at least that's done for now.



Right. After [a lot] of paperwork searching, I think I have everything needed which I'll outline below with further questions.


NatWest- Overdraft; opened circa. 2003. Balance approx £1555.42 (I'll explain later). Account still with OC. Default registered 30/09/2009. Last payment 03/01/2012.

NatWest- Loan; opened 10/03/2005. Balance £2006.81. Account still with OC. Default registered 03/10/2009. Last payment 11/03/2010.

Cahoot- Loan; opened 20/07/2005. Balance £5478.70. Account may still with OC (see below) but listed in Noddle as 'Hoist Portfolio'. Default registered 28/08/2010. Last payment 14/07/2010.

Lloyds- Overdraft (case in thread); opened 03/03/2008. Account assigned to Lowells. Default registered 01/01/2010. Last payment 22/03/2012.

Lloyds- Credit Card; opened 03/03/2008. Account assigned to Lowells. Default registered 22/02/2010. Last payment 21/11/2012.


One slightly worrying thing - in Noddle my two Lloyds account are listed with Lowells correctly; that is it appears they know what are the account types or was that information put on by Lloyds?

CRA information from Noddle on 16/09/2015.

I have a couple of 'begging' letters from NatWest, one dated 27/03/2013 and one dated23/07/2015. In the first letter, only the loan account is listed with the correct balance and they inform me that they are aware they cannot enforcethrough the courts. On the second letter, both accounts are listed. However thebalance on the loan has been left blank, and they have added it to the overdraft balance to give a £3.5k total!? - That is why my overdraft balance listed aboveis approximate.
I had been making payments to NatWest, either direct or through a collector but Icannot recall now. For whatever reason they only applied the funds to the overdraft - even though I had arranged for it to be split between the two accounts. Big mistake by them wouldn't you agree as now due to be SB'd in 6months!?!

My issue with Cahoot agreement: PPI is not listed under "what I must pay"and is a small footnote after my signature.

My issue with NatWest agreement. No signatures and no provision for either party to sign anywhere.

Another small point is that when you put amounts in to an APR calculator, they are different to what I was paying. Only by a few pounds/pence and in fact I was paying less. What do you make of that? Best get them on for you methinks!?

Just one final question. Would it be worth trying an SB'd route as the DCA/Lender would have to prove otherwise?

Sorry for such a long post but I appreciate that the more you kind people have thebetter you can advise. Many, many thanks for taking the time.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Bump!.....

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Anyone have any idea/experience with Lloyds/Lowells debts with regards to buyback?
If you have two accounts, one SB and one not. Can a PPI claim from the SB'd account be used (by creditor) against the non-SB account to offset arrears? I think I already know the answer! Also what happens to the loan amount/interest as the NW loan had PPI front loaded?

The PPI would be reclaimed from Lloyds, not Lowell so I can't see how it could be offset from another account owned by Lowell.

Oh, and my defence has been acknowledged by the court so at least that's done for now.

As you probably know, they have 28 days to respond and say whether they intend to proceed.

Right. After [a lot] of paperwork searching, I think I have everything needed which I'll outline below with further questions.

NatWest- Overdraft; opened circa. 2003. Balance approx £1555.42 (I'll explain later). Account still with OC. Default registered 30/09/2009. Last payment 03/01/2012.

NatWest- Loan; opened 10/03/2005. Balance £2006.81. Account still with OC. Default registered 03/10/2009. Last payment 11/03/2010.

Cahoot- Loan; opened 20/07/2005. Balance £5478.70. Account may still with OC (see below) but listed in Noddle as 'Hoist Portfolio'. Default registered 28/08/2010. Last payment 14/07/2010.

Would have been sold to Hoist along with most Santander defaulted accounts.

Lloyds- Overdraft (case in thread); opened 03/03/2008. Account assigned to Lowells. Default registered 01/01/2010. Last payment 22/03/2012.

Lloyds- Credit Card; opened 03/03/2008. Account assigned to Lowells. Default registered 22/02/2010. Last payment 21/11/2012.

One slightly worrying thing - in Noddle my two Lloyds account are listed with Lowells correctly; that is it appears they know what are the account types or was that information put on by Lloyds?

The defaults would have been recorded originally by Lloyds and Lowell would just have updated the record to show them as new owners. Are the default dates correct or have Lowell updated them too?

CRA information from Noddle on 16/09/2015.

I have a couple of 'begging' letters from NatWest, one dated 27/03/2013 and one dated 23/07/2015. In the first letter, only the loan account is listed with the correct balance and they inform me that they are aware they cannot enforce through the courts.

How so?

On the second letter, both accounts are listed. However the balance on the loan has been left blank, and they have added it to the overdraft balance to give a £3.5k total!? - That is why my overdraft balance listed above is approximate.
I had been making payments to NatWest, either direct or through a collector but I cannot recall now. For whatever reason they only applied the funds to the overdraft - even though I had arranged for it to be split between the two accounts. Big mistake by them wouldn't you agree as now due to be SB'd in 6 months!?!

The account where the payments have been applied won't to SBd but it is good news if they've only been paying the overdraft and not the loan they themselves admit it's not enforceable (I'm still intrigued :confused2. :grin: Not to mention the fact that overdrafts are much harder to defend and even to calculate when the clock starts to run for them, unless you've kept a copy of their final demand.

My issue with Cahoot agreement: PPI is not listed under "what I must pay"and is a small footnote after my signature.

My issue with NatWest agreement. No signatures and no provision for either party to sign anywhere.

Another small point is that when you put amounts in to an APR calculator, they are different to what I was paying. Only by a few pounds/pence and in fact I was paying less. What do you make of that? Best get them on for you methinks!?

With the agreements, would be useful if you could post up redacted versions of them. :typing:

Just one final question. Would it be worth trying an SB'd route as the DCA/Lender would have to prove otherwise?

What accounts are you referring to? From the details above, none of the ones listed are SBd, the Natwest loan still has over six months to run as the clock doesn't start from date of last payment, arguably a month later (i.e. when you first miss a payment). If those details are clearly stated on your credit report, they would be known to the DCAs.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I think it is important to remember that in England and Wales, unlike Scotland a statute barred debt still exists but is not collectable so therefore if you calim PPI from the OC and the OC still owns the debt, SB or not they can set off any reclaim against the money.

With the Nattiest account I am guessing that they are aware they can not fulfil a S78 request which franky seems odd as they can clobber together any old bowlarks however maybe they are being truthful and know that should it go to court it is irredeemably UE. I know a bank being honest is a bit like a finding a generous Yorkshireman

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I think it is important to remember that in England and Wales, unlike Scotland a statute barred debt still exists but is not collectable so therefore if you calim PPI from the OC and the OC still owns the debt, SB or not they can set off any reclaim against the money.

Yes, of course, which is why I've not even thought about reclaiming even though I had PPI on all three cards. I've never got a NoA for any of them despite defaulting over five years ago. :noidea: However, if the debt has been sold, it can only be offset if it gets bought back, otherwise Lloyds can't pay the redress to Lowell. The reason for waiting till a debt is SBd is not to do with set-off but to avoid the risk of acknowledging the debt during its life, especially if the redress ends up being offset. :mmph:

With the Nastiest account

IFYPFY :grin: