**WON** Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Thanks Di
I will do that later today.

Ask the forum to help you when you've done a Draft WS.

I'm not in a position to do that as you are not a client of the firm (I have to consider our insurance!)

Good Luck with this.

Di

[Deal1970]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Typically I cannot log onto MCOL, I have written notes though and it went along the lines of no evidence had been provided despite being requested, I know not a great defence looking on this forum now, bit naive of me I think and I'm guessing that this situation is not going to end well for me !!

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

it went along the lines of no evidence had been provided despite being requested

. . . . I'm guessing that this situation is not going to end well for me !!

No need to think like that. If the Claimant hasn't provided the evidence they need then it's not going to end well for them

Di

[Deal1970]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

According to the info posted above, the agreement is dated August 2009.

If it was taken out online, a wet ink signature is not required.

Thank you, If a signature is not required how can the evidence be 100% proven ? Also if the application was made electronically why would there be a need for somebody to have handwritten in the address section ? The way I'm feeling at the moment I'm wondering whether just to pre-empt and make an offer of a Monthly payment, I can't see how I can defend this in all honesty.

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

calm down see para 18, why pay those who do not earn it but pay penny's to make pounds from you (treating you as a cash cow)? when it is not fully proven you owe them????????????????? do not jump the gun as many do and loose. read other threads and get an idea what happens usually. you came here for a reason? help then follow what peeps advise but it is up to you, we have all been in your situation!

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Thank you, If a signature is not required how can the evidence be 100% proven ?
The evidential burden (standard of proof) is based on 'balance of probabilities', not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Also if the application was made electronically why would there be a need for somebody to have handwritten in the address section ? The way I'm feeling at the moment I'm wondering whether just to pre-empt and make an offer of a Monthly payment, I can't see how I can defend this in all honesty.

Since Carey, it seems (to me) that the courts have accepted a reconstituted version of the agreement, provided that it is accurate.
Carey was concerning a CCA s78 request , not the documents required to be disclosed in a court hearing.
However, imho the recon could still be used as evidence, & it would be then for you to rebut that evidence.

[Deal1970]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Many Thanks for the information provided.
I have decided that due to receiving the requested information from the solicitors at such a late stage I have had so little time to set up a defence plus illness with my epilepsy means my own timescale has lowered drastically so I'm going to attend the hearing and hope the Big Boss favours me.
I'm not sure if I can use this as a defence but there is still a huge question mark as to the validity of the credit agreement they have returned without my signature and as rightly pointed out if it was done electronicallly they wouldn't need a signature, however for an electronic application there would also be no need for any handwriting on the application (my address at the time)
I have also received a statement of some kind showing transactions, the last transaction being 2/4/2010 before the company started to add interest and late payments etc.... wouldn't this then be statute barred ? (Form N1SDT was filed on 15th Sep 2016) I obviously had no way of knowing this information until I received it last week, I have not made any payments and never acknowledged any communication infact I left the address I was at in April 2010 because of my issues with epilepsy and anybody I was dealing with at the time had letters sent by a person acting on my behalf with details to verify.
I realise evrything is up in the air, I cannot use my epilepsy as an excuse and am happy to pay if I owe the money, however I am not just going to roll over and pay if Lowells are not entitled to the payment.
I have just got back on my feet after some really rough times and have paid off all my old debts so it's not a case of running away, I just cannot remember any of this and have had no correspondence despite what Lowells say to the contrary.

Anyhoo, if I lose then it's my tough luck despite all your advice - so Thanks and wish me luck for Thursday everyone !!

[Deal1970]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Well, I can't believe what happened there !!
After a 5 1/2 hour delay we were called in. I got told off for not submitting my defence in time, though "Oh Sh*t I'm losing this" cue smile on Solicitors face....
Then Judge rips Solicitor to bits and advises that the firm are atrocious, the advice given to Solicitors was incompetent and if he had gone into Court with their info then he'd have never shown his face again when he qualified !!! Smirk Disappears - Judge then asks where the proof of signature requested is "well we don't have one, but we don't need it for an electronic application" Solicitor advises, really asks Judge "Yes SIr " replies Solicitor" "I've taken advice from the Office and they said they're not sure if it was an electronic application or by phone but it's not needed" (Even I had to smile then) "Dismissed" said the Judge "anyone can make up this information and you are meant to be a professional outfit" " And No appeal " !!!
Unbelievable

[Diana M]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Wonderful news! Well Done You

Or as I said recently when you were having a bit of a wobble:

I'm guessing that this situation is not going to end well for me !!

No need to think like that. If the Claimant hasn't provided the evidence they need then it's not going to end well for them

Lowells being denied permission to appeal is the icing on the cake.

Di

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Solicitors V Deal1970

Well, I can't believe what happened there !!
After a 5 1/2 hour delay we were called in. I got told off for not submitting my defence in time, though "Oh Sh*t I'm losing this" cue smile on Solicitors face....
Then Judge rips Solicitor to bits and advises that the firm are atrocious, the advice given to Solicitors was incompetent and if he had gone into Court with their info then he'd have never shown his face again when he qualified !!! Smirk Disappears - Judge then asks where the proof of signature requested is "well we don't have one, but we don't need it for an electronic application" Solicitor advises, really asks Judge "Yes SIr " replies Solicitor" "I've taken advice from the Office and they said they're not sure if it was an electronic application or by phone but it's not needed" (Even I had to smile then) "Dismissed" said the Judge "anyone can make up this information and you are meant to be a professional outfit" " And No appeal " !!!
Unbelievable

Great result!!



nem

[Deal1970]

Hi, this might be a long shot, today I have received a letter from PRA Group trying to claim this exact case (plus £500) which was dismissed with permission to appeal refused, I'm guessing they can't actually do this ?

[Guest]

I suggest you reply quoting the outcome of the case, and any further Mail either E-Mail or by Letter, you will consider this as harassment and will consider taking action.* **