*DISCONTINUED* !!! Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

I think I would go along with [MENTION=2]Celestine[/MENTION]s thought on the statute barred matter, in that BMW - v- Hart cannot affect the statute or be used thwart a claim that a debt is statute barred.

nem

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

@Diana M

JoJo has previously stated that no payments or acknowledgement has ever been made (personally that is), & cannot remember ever taking out this agreement.
Would a DN have any legal standing if incorrectly sent?

The answer to that question depends on what evidence the Claimant provides to the court.

So far the only 'evidence' that the OP even had an account with Very comes from a phone call which she made to Very (not the Claimant) who says she applied for an account online, ordered an item which they say "would likely been delivered within 2 days of dispatch". Says who? Nothing has been provided to back that up.

If the OP has no recollection of opening the account then that must be in the WS. Maybe this was a case of identity theft?

From what I can tell Lowells haven't provided anything to substantiate that the OP opened the account or that they were lawfully assigned the account from the original creditor.

I said that I expected Lowells would rely on the log entry that a DN was served to convince the DJ that on the balance of probabilities it was served.

I didn't say that they would win

The best way to prepare for court is to anticipate what the other side is likely to argue and 'disprove' it before they do.

Di

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

The best way to prepare for court is to anticipate what the other side is likely to argue and 'disprove' it before they do.

Di

Good afternoon, Di

I knew you were going to say that!

:bolt:

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Jojo has said that was suffering sever post natal depression at the time the account/order was made.

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Jojo has said that was suffering sever post natal depression at the time the account/order was made.

I read that too and I believe her (I've had PND and it can be very debilitating )

But would you agree that it may be better to make a confident and positive assertion that she has no recollection whatsoever of opening/using the account in her WS in preference to saying that she was suffering from depression so her head was in a fog (so forgot what she may have done)?

There's no hard evidence on the table to confirm that she (or anyone else for that matter) ordered a pram or had it delivered (possibly from a third party manufacturer/distributor?) in 2010. In fact that story hasn't come from the Claimant or their solicitors. It came from a call by the Defendant to the original creditor. Do Lowells know what Very know (be it true or false information)?

The Claimant has to prove their case. So far they haven't.

They may come up with account statements showing transactions (debits/credits since that screenshot refers to £5 per month payments) as exhibits to their WS.

They may not.

Like you, I want the OP to win this

Di

[Jojo13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Thanks all.

The claim was issued 17.05.16.

I requested the credit agreement from Lowell on 30.05.16 and also the CA and DN from BW Legal the same day. I have not received anything back from Lowell and I was sent the 2 documents that were uploaded for me by BW Legal on 20.09.16.

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Thanks all.

The claim was issued 17.05.16.

I requested the credit agreement from Lowell on 30.05.16 and also the CA and DN from BW Legal the same day. I have not received anything back from Lowell and I was sent the 2 documents that were uploaded for me by BW Legal on 20.09.16.

If these were sent in response to the CPR request, being a pedant I would argue that Lowells are still non-compliant with the CCA request.

Also, I would challenge the authenticity/veracity/clear english of that Lowell screenprint.
Clearly the information on Lowell's computer file can be easily altered, & there's no proof that it was accurate in the first place, as Di has mentioned.
It also contains a lot of 'jargon'. How is JoJo Public () meant to dicipher it?

@Diana M @nemesis45 ..........??

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

If these were sent in response to the CPR request, being a pedant I would argue that Lowells are still non-compliant with the CCA request.

Also, I would challenge the authenticity/veracity/clear english of that Lowell screenprint.
Clearly the information on Lowell's computer file can be easily altered, & there's no proof that it was accurate in the first place, as Di has mentioned.
It also contains a lot of 'jargon'. How is JoJo Public () meant to dicipher it?

@Diana M @nemesis45 ..........??

I agree [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION],

The debt is statute barred.

nem

[Jojo13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Should I have stated that it was statute barred in my defence letter?

[MENTION=38161]charitynjw JoJo public 😂😂

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

I'm not sure what you mean by is the claim stayed?
I don't remember using this catalogue and can't see that I've ever made any payment to them ever. The only catalogue I've made any payments to are for a settled account with La Redoute. Are they related?

Btw
La Redoute is a French mail order company founded by Joseph Pollet in 1837.
A subsidiary of Redcats Group, (formerly LaRedoute Group), itself part of Kering Group (formerly Pinault-Printemps-Redoute or PPR) since 1994, LaRedoute was sold to its managers, Nathalie Balla and Eric Courteille, in June 2014.<sup>[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Redoute</sup>

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Should I have stated that it was statute barred in my defence letter? 

You filed your Defence in June which basically said that you had no idea what the claim was for so asked them to prove it.

Then in October the Claimant's solicitor sent you some paperwork. After studying those redacted documents you were told by the forum that the debt was Statute Barred. If that is the case then perhaps you should have filed an Amended Defence to raise that new legal argument which you hadn't pleaded in your original Defence (for obvious reasons).

In order to amend a Defence you need permission from the court or consent from the Claimant.

I'll leave it to others to suggest what your next legal steps should be (only because I'm not in a position to do that having not seen the papers). You say you have to file a WS by 15th November.

When B W Legal sent that evidence in October what did the covering letter say (word for word)?

Have you been sent a copy of the Notice of Assignment referred to in the POC? I note the date of the assignment in the POC is 9th September 2011, but that screenshot states the debt was sold on 10th September 2011. Why the discrepancy?

The Claimant has to prove that they have the lawful right to claim this debt and that you were served with the correct statutory notice(s) too.

Have they disclosed the DN?

Di

[Jojo13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

The covering letter from BW legal said 'Dear madam, we write in reference to the above matter and enclose the following;
credit agreement and
default notice
should you have any queries please contact our offices.
That was all that it said.
Other than the two documents Kati uploaded for me they have not sent anything else.
The first letter I can find is from BWLegal in April which is a letter of claim. I don't recall ever receiving anything direct from Lowell and have no paperwork from 2011 to check.

I can't upload anything here as I don't know how to but can email you anything that would help you advise me Diana.

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

The covering letter from BW legal said 'Dear madam, we write in reference to the above matter and enclose the following;
credit agreement and
default notice

I had a feeling that's what the letter would say.

They're probably planning to submit that screenshot as evidence that a DN was served even though they haven't got a copy or recon of the actual DN letter to prove it complied with their statutory obligations.

Perhaps they also saw the last transaction on the account may have been February 2010 so they're preparing to challenge any SB argument (with the DN reference). Maybe not.

So no NOA yet either

No need to upload (or email me) anything else unless some of the others ask to see things while planning how to manage your next move.

Di

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

The covering letter from BW legal said 'Dear madam, we write in reference to the enclose the following;
credit agreement and
default notice above matter and
should you have any queries please contact our offices.
That was all that it said.
Other than the two documents Kati uploaded for me they have not sent anything else.
The first letter I can find is from BWLegal in April which is a letter of claim. I don't recall ever receiving anything direct from Lowell and have no paperwork from 2011 to check.

I can't upload anything here as I don't know how to but can email you anything that would help you advise me Diana.

As you requested in your CPR letter to them. (BW).

So can you confirm that, to date, Lowells are still non-compliant re the CCA request?

[Jojo13]

Re: Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Jojo13

Yes that's correct, Lowell have not replied to my request