Tweet
Hi Folks
It took 3 years but today as a Litigant in Person I was able to get Lowell's Judgement set aside today. They have 14 days to repay me the money and have agreed to remove the offending entry on my credit file. I hope they accept defeat gracefully at last and honour their agreement. I will keep you posted.
Lets remember that this is not exploiting loopholes this is a genuinely disputed debt and the original creditor 3 Mobile did not have the nuts to test their claim in court or even the common decency to tell me they had defaulted me. Its all too easy to sell on a debt and the regulation is not working. DCA,s are circumventing the legal process by not sending NOA's in many cases. Remember Credit Services Association and Lowell Portfolio share a director. In retrospect I would also avoid West Yorkshire Trading Standards. All I will say is I have seen emails from WYTS to Lowell Portfolio. Draw your own inferences, but the more complaints you make the more desperate you look. OFT and ICO are better.
The Appeal Judge gave permission to Appeal on the basis of procedural errors and extended the time limit. The Appeal Judge offered Lowell a rehearing, but Lowell declined. I did allude to the strength of information I had and they clearly had no desire to air their dirty laundry in public. Neither side were awarded costs, so Lowell were out of pocket on Barrister fees. Its been a long journey but the sight of Lowell's red faces and uncomfortable shufling was priceless!
Points of interest are that the Judge was not convinced that the burden of proof was on Lowell to prove I had received a NOA sufficiently served. The Appeal Judge even stated a demand for payment could be determined as a notice of assignment as it brought to the attention of the alleged debtor his obligation. The Judge supplemented LOP 196(4) with the 1978 Interpretation Act services by post Section 7 I think. This allowed service by first class post and placed the burden on the debtor to prove no NOA was received. There was a premium moment where Lowell's Compliance Director was told by the Judge that he had misinterpreted the LOP 1925 Section 196(4) when he stated that it applied only to mortgages. He said that I had a better understanding of the legislation. LOP should be bread and butter for Lowell. However the reliance on the Interpretation Act makes it harder for the consumer.
The Judge was concerned that Lowell had produced different versions of the NOA and had given inconsistent information. The Appeal Judge was remarkably astute in recognising what I had stated all allong. Why would Andrew Bartle of Lowell have sent a NOA on 26 January 2009 and another NOA on 27 January 2009. The glaringly obvious conclusion is clear from the computer records I obtained from a DPA request to Lowell. There were no records of any NOA ever being sent. In fact a whole year of activity deleted. Funny retention policy to delete records when in the middle of litigation.? The Judge was not convinced with the Compliance Directors explanation given under oath. He daid there were two assignment letters because an in house publishing company type the letters a day later. He stated the two letters were the same. The Judge agreed that the two letters were not the same letter, he agreed that only one could be the letter relied on. In the original hearing the Judge said that she was happy that I had received letters of asssignment. As she stated plural she had not concluded which letter was genuine in her eyes and this failed LOP Section 136(1). The Appeal Judge was critical of the Lower Judge on several counts, but stated that Judges discretion was not a matter for him to override. He stated he would most likely have come to different conclusions, with the counterclaim.
The Judge looked like the Appeal would not be permitted because of the proprtional costs and prospects. I initimated that the counterclaim I had made was not a major issue and intimated I would not be bothered if it failed. it was a matter of reputation and in finding for Lowell the Judge inferred that she had beleived Lowell over me. I have had this for five years, but I think the Appeal Judge felt there was no justification for not beleiving that I had not received the NOA, and that the Judge did not test my assertion sufficiently. The Lower Judge he determined was contradictory in stating that both Lowell and me appeared to have given honest evidence, but then beleived I had received an NOA in spite of my insistence it had not been sent. This was a procedural failing.
The Judge was not interested in Lowells failure to disclose he said part 18 did not apply in Appeals and I had weakened my case by pursuing Lowell for information. His take was I should have asked them and then left it. In telling them what they were doing wrong and what they had ommitted to do, they were able to shore up their case.
Lessons learnt? In retrospect I should have told Lowell once I did not owe the money. I would ask for a Subject Access Request by recorded delivery and if they persisted complain to the Ombudsman. This costs them money costs you nothing. I also think the media is the best way forward, I got the feeling that some government departments were not as intersted as expected. Maybe Lowell are bidding for some high profile accounts and that would explain their aggressive approach to litigation.
Hope this post helps others.
It took 3 years but today as a Litigant in Person I was able to get Lowell's Judgement set aside today. They have 14 days to repay me the money and have agreed to remove the offending entry on my credit file. I hope they accept defeat gracefully at last and honour their agreement. I will keep you posted.
Lets remember that this is not exploiting loopholes this is a genuinely disputed debt and the original creditor 3 Mobile did not have the nuts to test their claim in court or even the common decency to tell me they had defaulted me. Its all too easy to sell on a debt and the regulation is not working. DCA,s are circumventing the legal process by not sending NOA's in many cases. Remember Credit Services Association and Lowell Portfolio share a director. In retrospect I would also avoid West Yorkshire Trading Standards. All I will say is I have seen emails from WYTS to Lowell Portfolio. Draw your own inferences, but the more complaints you make the more desperate you look. OFT and ICO are better.
The Appeal Judge gave permission to Appeal on the basis of procedural errors and extended the time limit. The Appeal Judge offered Lowell a rehearing, but Lowell declined. I did allude to the strength of information I had and they clearly had no desire to air their dirty laundry in public. Neither side were awarded costs, so Lowell were out of pocket on Barrister fees. Its been a long journey but the sight of Lowell's red faces and uncomfortable shufling was priceless!
Points of interest are that the Judge was not convinced that the burden of proof was on Lowell to prove I had received a NOA sufficiently served. The Appeal Judge even stated a demand for payment could be determined as a notice of assignment as it brought to the attention of the alleged debtor his obligation. The Judge supplemented LOP 196(4) with the 1978 Interpretation Act services by post Section 7 I think. This allowed service by first class post and placed the burden on the debtor to prove no NOA was received. There was a premium moment where Lowell's Compliance Director was told by the Judge that he had misinterpreted the LOP 1925 Section 196(4) when he stated that it applied only to mortgages. He said that I had a better understanding of the legislation. LOP should be bread and butter for Lowell. However the reliance on the Interpretation Act makes it harder for the consumer.
The Judge was concerned that Lowell had produced different versions of the NOA and had given inconsistent information. The Appeal Judge was remarkably astute in recognising what I had stated all allong. Why would Andrew Bartle of Lowell have sent a NOA on 26 January 2009 and another NOA on 27 January 2009. The glaringly obvious conclusion is clear from the computer records I obtained from a DPA request to Lowell. There were no records of any NOA ever being sent. In fact a whole year of activity deleted. Funny retention policy to delete records when in the middle of litigation.? The Judge was not convinced with the Compliance Directors explanation given under oath. He daid there were two assignment letters because an in house publishing company type the letters a day later. He stated the two letters were the same. The Judge agreed that the two letters were not the same letter, he agreed that only one could be the letter relied on. In the original hearing the Judge said that she was happy that I had received letters of asssignment. As she stated plural she had not concluded which letter was genuine in her eyes and this failed LOP Section 136(1). The Appeal Judge was critical of the Lower Judge on several counts, but stated that Judges discretion was not a matter for him to override. He stated he would most likely have come to different conclusions, with the counterclaim.
The Judge looked like the Appeal would not be permitted because of the proprtional costs and prospects. I initimated that the counterclaim I had made was not a major issue and intimated I would not be bothered if it failed. it was a matter of reputation and in finding for Lowell the Judge inferred that she had beleived Lowell over me. I have had this for five years, but I think the Appeal Judge felt there was no justification for not beleiving that I had not received the NOA, and that the Judge did not test my assertion sufficiently. The Lower Judge he determined was contradictory in stating that both Lowell and me appeared to have given honest evidence, but then beleived I had received an NOA in spite of my insistence it had not been sent. This was a procedural failing.
The Judge was not interested in Lowells failure to disclose he said part 18 did not apply in Appeals and I had weakened my case by pursuing Lowell for information. His take was I should have asked them and then left it. In telling them what they were doing wrong and what they had ommitted to do, they were able to shore up their case.
Lessons learnt? In retrospect I should have told Lowell once I did not owe the money. I would ask for a Subject Access Request by recorded delivery and if they persisted complain to the Ombudsman. This costs them money costs you nothing. I also think the media is the best way forward, I got the feeling that some government departments were not as intersted as expected. Maybe Lowell are bidding for some high profile accounts and that would explain their aggressive approach to litigation.
Hope this post helps others.
)
Comment