Lowell and mobile phones

[Roy Clayton]

Got a court case coming up against Lowell in November and need to get a copy of 3 mobiles terms and conditions version May 2006. Tried subject access requests. Under DPA section 7 to both 3 mobile and Lowell neither wants to reveal because OFCOM ruled they were unfair. OFCOM say it will cost more than 450 quid to trace and supply a copy and the ICO won't get involved. I tried Civil Procedural Rules but Lowell.ignored the Judge.
I would like to show the terms to the Judge so he can see why Lowell are running scarred and I know they will try the reconstituted argument.
There is a website featured on Watchdog which keeps old terms does anyone know the name of it.
Cheers

[miliitant]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

lowell has failed to follow court directions, ask the judge to throw out their claim

you do not need to get hold of the terms as such

you requested them and the claimant has to produce

end of

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

Hi Militant
Thanks as always for your help and I wish I could share your confidence in the courts but my past experience has made me wary. At the last hearing Lowell had failed to disclose the entire bundle as directed by a judge and had their case struck.out for failing to pay the fee. They just turned up as if nothing had happened and got their case heard. I told the judge this but she seemed keen to hear the case and not keen to hear about Lowells conduct. I hope this time will be different and it does appear that they accept procedural errors occurred.

[labman]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

Are they allowed to reconstitute? Mobile contracts don't come under the CCA.

[miliitant]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

Are they allowed to reconstitute? Mobile contracts don't come under the CCA.

no the cant, they are service agreements

[labman]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

There we go - you learn something new eveery day(and I only had 19 minutes to go today! lol)

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell and mobile phones

Hi Militant

Thanks for your assistance so far.

Just to be clear Lowell and 3G wont give up a copy of the terms and conditions May 2006 because Ofcom have ruled they were potentially unfair on three points relevant here (Assignment, hidden terms and no rights to exit the agreement). However on half a dozen occasions Lowell have given me the terms for July 2007 and some for 2008 which have been ammeded. The last few they have removed the version dates. Am I safe asking for dismissal on this point and what legislation am I using? Lowell will say these are the relevant terms.

My main arguement is that 3G unilaterally varied the agreement imposing unfair terms not transparent in the agreement. I am looking specifically at the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulations 1999. Regulation 8(1) not binding if unfair. As a result if the court agrees that the terms are unfair then nothing exists to assign under the LOP Section 136. An unfair contract is unenforceable. I am still wary of the difference in a service agreement and a CCA agreement. With an agreemet there appears to be little favouring the consumer.

I have made a DPA request to Lowell and they have no records of posting a NOA and I have never received one. I understand from your previous comments that the burden of proof is on Lowell. No sufficient service under 196(4) LOP 1925.

I have never seen an NOA until 2010 and copies of dodgy looking NOA's have only come via third parties. They are not genuine copies so can Lowell claim from September 2008. Lowell deny sight of the Deeds of Assignment and the Judge has debarred them. Lowell can not explain why they have three dates that they say they sent NOA's and there are 3 separate dates they have quoted for the portfolio transfer.

Trading Standards and CSA stated that Hutchinson 3G should send any NOA's in 2008, Lowell claim to have sent them on behalf of Hutchinson(they did nt send them at all). I reckon none of the four conditions for assignment apply even if the contract was ruled fair.

The false NOA's state the wrong account number, there is no proof of which date the transfer took place so this may be incorrectly stated and the ammount claimed includes an early termination fee which is the same or more as the full value of the original agreement. I understand these are ruled unfair(am I right).
So incorrectly stated NOA even if the the NOA was genuine.

My first strike is to have the previous decision set aside due to the courts procedural errors. Lowells case had been struck out and the Judge heard an unlisted case, with Lowell having failed to disclose their information. I am also mentioning Lowell missing six deadlines imposed by Judges and failure to comply with disclosure directions.

What do you think?

Cheers