**WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

From your previous posts it would seem that Lowells have been given a deadline (4pm 28th Feb) to produce the documentation.
You have been given the opportunity of filing an amended defence. (This must also be served on the Claimant - allowing 2 days for posting, it should be posted latest 26th Feb (I would suggest 'SignedFor').
Use your original defence, but titled AMENDED DEFENCE (in red).
Any additions should also be in red.
I would add that some mobile phone agreements are subject to the Consumer Credit Act.
Also that the Claimant has failed to provide any documentation to evidence their claim, & with reference to the court order of 10th Feb, & particular reference to CPR 16 PD 7.3, you respectfully invite the court to strike out the Claimant's claim.

Don't forget to file it at court.

[mik3y]

Re: Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]
Update !
I rung the court for an update and my case went before a Judge today and has been Struck out based on the claimant not complying with CPR16 Rule 7.3.
Thank you so much for your help on this matter Charitynjw and anyone else it's very much appreciated.
Feel free to send me your address charity via pm and let me know your favourite drink and I will be sure to send you a bottle.

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

Good news, mik3y!
[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] for info

[mik3y]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] and anyone else, I have one further question if I may
Can this be retried at all in the future ? If not is it possible to get the default removed
Many thanks. Mik3y

[charitynjw]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

Hi mik3y

I don't think there's much danger of the claim being resurrected.

Re the 'default' (I'm assuming that you are making reference to credit reference agencies), that's an interesting one.
The courts have determined that entries on credit reference files are not classed as 'enforcement'.
However, in Grace & Anor v Black Horse Ltd [2014] it was decided that it was unfair, via the Data Protection Act 1998, for an unenforceable debt to be listed on Credit Reference Agency databases.
In your particular case, it might be worth having a chat with the ICO.

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

I rung the court for an update and my case went before a Judge today and has been Struck out based on the claimant not complying with CPR16 Rule 7.3.

Are you certain you've quoted the exact/correct CPR reference?

Just want to check that it's not been struck out for a procedural reason where the Claimant could apply to the court to lift the sanction. Hopefully not.

What's your understanding of why the claim has been struck out? Did the court tell you in Plain English?

Di

[mik3y]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

I certainly will look into that. Thanks again Charity your time has been precious to me.

[Diana M]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

is it possible to get the default removed

If the claim was struck out (for procedural not legal reasons) prior to any Trial where the DJ dismissed the claim due unenforceable issues you may not be able to get the default removed from your CRA file.

When is the default due to drop off anyway?

Di

[mik3y]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

Hi Diana, Yes I would say the court explained it in plain English but could well have skipped through some of the Judges orders.
This I will confirm tomorrow after another phone call to the court.
I was overwhelmed after hearing the verdict and failed to check thoroughly what the Judges orders were so before I get ahead of myself I will look further into this in the morning.
The default is due to drop off in 2020
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[Diana M]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

Please don't think I was trying to rain on your parade.

Hopefully everything is over and done with forever.

But there's no harm in adopting a belts and braces approach just to make sure so you don't get any nasty surprises.

I only asked the the question because you asked the question whether this claim is dead and buried.

Di

[mik3y]

Re: **WON** Lowell Solicitors VS Mik3y

[MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION] [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]
I have received the Judgement today via post.
Here's the judgement

The claimant having failed to comply with the previous order of CPR 7.3, 7.4 or 7.5 in that they failed to identify if the agreement relied upon was in writing and if so sending a copy of the agreement with the particulars of Claim or if oral setting out words used and by whom, to whom and when they were spoken.
It is ordered that
1. The claim is struck out.


I'm guessing Lowell can still pursue this if they choose to.