**WON!!** Claim form from Lowell

[warwick65]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Just to update- this claim is still ongoing and progressing

I will let you know when there is something to say

Walls have ears as they say

[charitynjw]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Walls have ears as they say

I trust they're better than their sausages!

[MIKE770]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

ear bashing?

[warwick65]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Just come out of court.

A massive thank you to Joanna Connolly solicitors [MENTION=7765]Joanna C[/MENTION] and of course Diana [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION]

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Presume you won ?

[warwick65]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Did I win


Yes with knobs on

I can not say how happy I am

More info to follow when I have calmed down

[Diana M]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Just come out of court.
A massive thank you to Joanna Connolly solicitors @Joanna C and of course Diana @Diana M

I believe there was a third person involved too

Di

[warwick65]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

I believe there was a third person involved too

Di

There was but I had to google him to make sure I spelt his name correctly

Thomas Brennan was absolutely magnificent

[Amethyst]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Excellent to hear... look forward to details later ... And yes, Tom is rather brilliant, I agree.

[Diana M]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

I can not say how happy I am
More info to follow when I have calmed down

We're happy too.

Fill in the blanks tomorrow when you've recovered. Being cross-examined is never fun.

And this was your second ordeal after the previous Trial was adjourned part-heard to deal with 'something' (I can't say what, but you can ).

In the meantime maybe @Kati can change the thread title to ***WON*** because you did!

Di

[warwick65]

Re: **WON!!** Claim form from Lowell

Morning all

Well the success had final sunk in. Its been a long time coming as there had been two previous adjournments.

First adjournment was largely because Joanna Connolly advised the 1 hr slot was insufficient to argue the points raised in my defence

The second adjournment was because the claimants representative 'mistakenly' told the court my Witness Statement had not been served on them in time.

So yesterday was attempt number 3

I am really grateful that [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION] had 'prepped' me before the hearing because I was cross examined on receipt (or not) of the alleged Default Notice

It was not nice when the first questions were
'Did you have a Credit card with Capital One?' --- yes
'Did you use it?' ----yes
He then continued pressing me about missing payments and getting a DN , well in 2008 or whenever they claim they sent it to me I didn't know about DN's and the like.

I stuck to the truth and answered his questions and only what he asked

Tom Brennan then argued the template DN was wholly ineffectual and fortunately for me the Judge agreed.

I am convinced that had I not been represented when it was claimed they had not received my WS , I would have been hung out to dry and would now have a CCJ.

I had engaged [MENTION=7765]Joanna C[/MENTION] for several reasons but mainly because I had been told several years ago the debt was enforceable and it was only a matter of time before I got a claim - Jo disagreed and said I had a good chance of defending it. Another reason was that I did not have the knowledge to argue some of the points - with case law- that she and Tom used in my defence. I also do not have access to the 'white book'- well I might have but I wouldn't know where to start looking.

If it was easy any tom dick or harry would be a lawyer

I am eternally grateful for the unending support I received

[warwick65]

Re: Claim form from Lowell

Oh I forgot to mention

Something that was brought up- but didn't seem to get anywhere was that the claim form was only signed by 'Lowell Solicitors' and not by a named person as it should have been. No idea if that would have made a difference if the DN argument had failed but thanks to [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] who pointed it out to me although it was the team who argued it and not me

[Amethyst]

Re: **WON!!** Claim form from Lowell

Ahhh great stuff, so was the recon of the DN completely faulty and the Judge found on the balance of probablilities you'd never received it ? or that the DN had been received but was not compliant at the time ?

[warwick65]

Re: **WON!!** Claim form from Lowell

The recon was bad and the judge found that I was a credible witness and that no DN was sent. As no DN was sent, the claim failed. His biggest criticism seemed to be that in this day and age, if a DN had been sent, they would have been able to make a recon because they would have had the info.

[Amethyst]

Re: **WON!!** Claim form from Lowell

Indeed. Had they attempted a recon of it ( wrong paper/terms/dates etc?) or just not bothered ? Did he look into your actions after the DN was alleged to have been sent in cross examination at all, or was it a simple, they haven't recon'd the DN, therefore they haven't shown it has been sent ?