Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

[bolton05]

Please could you assist Court claim CCBC dated 24/03/2015.

The claim is for an amount of £1727.49 due under an original agreement the debt being assigned to Lowell from orange 20/12/2013. However the claim is increased to £1865.68 due to statutory interest.

I have written to solicitor twice under CPR 31 they are saying "most probably be allocated to small claims track" I say as yet it hasn't been so please provide details i have requested. Made A SAR request to Lowell they saying fine we need 40 days.

copy of the original agreement
statements
evidence of identification when account was opened
copy of default notice
date of last transaction
account from my credit file says opened 9/3/2009 claim issued 24/03/2015

is this not SB given the start date and the CCBC issue date

I have requested this is subject to a hearing at a local court however my defence is prove it, i have no knowledge of the debt, made no payment and the account was open 9/3/2009 yet defaulted according to carters 09/072012.

in the event of no payments why did orange not "cap or stop the account" I do recall them ringing me several years back at work saying you have made no payments, I have said correct its not my phone, why have you allowed 18 months go by without chasing the debt is your problem, could have saved yourself some trouble had you cut the phone off after no payments within 3 months, as yet my defence remains prove it, not entered any comment on orange being negligent in their own controls & procedure

My response is prove the debt.

can you confirm how best now to file my defence given between them carters and lowell are requesting i contact orange for the information, I suggested they obtain the info, they are issuing proceedings all i have had dated 3rd April 2015 saying the account was sold to Lowell 18/12/2013 from Orange, the CCBC court pays say assigned 20/12/2013 is this the same debt, dates dont agree?

Advise would be appreciated:tinysmile_kiss_t4:

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

HI Welcome to LB,
Carter / Lowell current industry standard reply to CPR31.14.
It's a wasted £10.0 sending a SAR to Lowell they will have only the data from the date they acquired the debt.
SAR goes to the original creditor Orange (now EE).

The start date has no relevance to status of the debt in regard to statute barred status.
Start date 09/03/2009. default date 09/07/2012 sounds reasonable.
A mobile phone contract is a service contract the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not apply.

Assigned to Lowell 20/12/2013 the couple of days is not a problem.

There is no requirement for a "default notice" to be sent ( as per CCA'74) as this is not a credit account, a " Final Demand" for payment would have been issued.

I am confused about your statement ( I'm sure the judge will be too) Re "Orange Phoning You about not paying " and you stating
" it's not my phone".
1. If it's not your phone how are Orange contacting you?
2. Who's phone is/was it?
If there was a " dispute " in regard to the ownership of the phone an the ID of the " bill payer/account holder " it would fall upon you to contest it and sort it at the time all this happened.
You have left yourself open to the current claim.

Lastly for information:

Statute Barred in England & Wales = 6 clear years with no payment or unequivocal written agreement made to the debt.
For this a safe bet would be from the default date.
nem

[bolton05]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

Thank you for the prompt response.

i would reply as follows i have requested the agreement and confirmation of the identification obtained when opening the account.

The phone was not mine it was a company i left the company, none of this is contained in my defence as far as i am concerned i provided no agreement or identification in opening the account. The Company has since been wound up.

What i do recall is orange rang and left a message on a land line number trying to contact me, the message was passed on to me some eighteen months after the start date of the contract on a ome land line number, when i rang them back said no payments have been made, i said you wont have from me its not my mobile phone, furthermore why have you left eghteen months, why have you not suspended the account.

Yes they may have issued statements but at the time i was not at the address.

so so far my defence is prove it ie what agreement what identification have you obtained.

none of the comments below have been contained in my defence, on reflection i have been a bit too prompt, the reality is it would appear the company which i wont name had an account in their name then i can only suggest given its difficulty couldn't renew the account so obtained a telephone account, sales based in individual names, put simply i have had no use of this phone, orange in my view have been negligent in allowing a substantial period of time before suspending the account.

Surely it cannot be correct to state we have an assignment an account number a name and address you owe us X if they orange have not verified the account , exercised more prudent control - if you are to take posession of a house you need to produce a morgage deed an aplication form and a mortgage offer, all i have had is orange of sold your account , its assigned to us, and carter have been appointed. I probably need to get a N244 into court to amend my defence and be a liittle more articulate.

Carters are saying i can obtain a copy of the agreement from the shop i have wrote back and said "which shop on what date".

In conclusion i suspect the company at the time couldn't get its business contract renewed so obtained mobile phones in individual names but the company has wound up, thats why i left due to their financial difficulties.

How best to approach this - no agreement , no evidence of identification then no responsibility

Further comments would be appreciated

[bolton05]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

I did send a reply to your assessment I am now at the stage i need to send N244 given i would like to be a little more articulate with my defence.

the defence being "prove it

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

Good morning,
Had the company that presumably owned the phone/account requested the return of the phone, ( the Liquidators would have required the return of all company property) and would have closed the account.
Did you continue using the phone after the company was wound up?

nem

[bolton05]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

[QUOTE=nemesis45;537930]Good morning,
Had the company that presumably owned the phone/account requested the return of the phone, ( the Liquidators would have required the return of all company property) and would have closed the account.
Did you continue using the phone after the company was wound up?

I have not used the phone, regarding the company and Liquidation again i cant add comment,i was not a director.

What my position is now is i need to defend this claim, so having rushed and out in a defence to the clearing centre i need to send in a N244 form to amend my defence and be more specific which is simply saying prove it , carter solicitors are saying you can get a copy of the agreement from the shop you purchased the phone , which shop,what agreement, what identification is provided.

Suerly cant just produce a letter saying debt assigned to us now pay up, so could we return to my previous comments, i intend to go to court and say to the judge the claimant should produce the application form, the identifcation obtained at the time of the account openning.

As far as I am concerned I have no phone or account with orange.

What I am saying is prove it. please advise N244 form i need to send off, given alli have said so far is i intend to defend i would like a hearing i have no such account, i dont think that is good enough on reflection i need to be more specific

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

1.Your defence is that the phone was provided by the Liquidated Company.
2. You are not now or ever have been a customer of xxxxxx phone provider.
3. You have never as alleged by the claimants solicitor been to any " shop"
to sign a n application/agreement for the phone.
4. Given the above you are not in the position to or have authority to request data
in regard to the alleged debt or the account from which the alleged debt originated
5. You have requested that the claimant via its solicitor proves that you have any liability
for the alleged debt.

I presume you have the liquidated companies Trading Name etc. to hand?

nem

[bolton05]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

I am still going with this now allocated to small claims track the claim being defended - in simple terms my defence is prove the debt - no copy application form no identification provided by the claimant.

Judge allocated a Hearing Date - Claimant to pay £170 court costs .

suggests mediation but my view is not prepared to entertain - five months on still no docments i cant see how a judge can at a hearing award in favour of the claimant lowells if they have not produced documents and verification of the mobile phone account - infact the system should be changed that these scum bags can proceed with so little documents.

Would you agree the judge will aak for verification of the debt ie copy application form and confirmation of identification otherwise tome its not a valid debt

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

I am still going with this now allocated to small claims track the claim being defended - in simple terms my defence is prove the debt - no copy application form no identification provided by the claimant.

Judge allocated a Hearing Date - Claimant to pay £170 court costs .

suggests mediation but my view is not prepared to entertain - five months on still no docments

The mediation service will just say they are unable to mediate if you have not been supplied with the documents, that's been the case with all of Lowell's claims.

i cant see how a judge can at a hearing award in favour of the claimant lowells if they have not produced documents and verification of the mobile phone account - infact the system should be changed that these scum bags can proceed with so little documents.

Would you agree the judge will aak for verification of the debt ie copy application form and confirmation of identification otherwise tome its not a valid debt

If a hearing date has been set, there should also be directions for the claimant to supply the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing, at least 14 days before the hearing date.

With a bit of luck, the low lifes will see sense and discontinue. ray:

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

I am still going with this now allocated to small claims track the claim being defended - in simple terms my defence is prove the debt - no copy application form no identification provided by the claimant.

Judge allocated a Hearing Date - Claimant to pay £170 court costs .

suggests mediation but my view is not prepared to entertain - five months on still no docments i cant see how a judge can at a hearing award in favour of the claimant lowells if they have not produced documents and verification of the mobile phone account - infact the system should be changed that these scum bags can proceed with so little documents.

Would you agree the judge will aak for verification of the debt ie copy application form and confirmation of identification otherwise tome its not a valid debt

I wonder if the required fee will be paid the costs grow steadily it might prove futile for them to continue.

nem

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

Not sure if this has been mentioned but the system is set up to encourage mediation and as it is only a phone call it may well save time and effort in the long run. It could save court time as well

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

Mediation can only take place if the parties especially the defendant are in possession
of at least the documents mentioned in the particulars of claim.
The aim is to reach an amicable/equitable outcome to a claim without the need for
a hearing or a judgement.

Many debt purchasers and their " solicitors" will consent to mediation knowing full well
that they have not provided the necessary documents requested by the defendant the
mediators will then decline the mediation and return the claim to the court, a good deal
of wasted time involved.

nem

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

BUT
shows your willingness to resolve the issue in the fastest way possible. For effectively ticking a box you put yourself in a positive light and as Tesco say, every little helps

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

BUT
shows your willingness to resolve the issue in the fastest way possible. For effectively ticking a box you put yourself in a positive light and as Tesco say, every little helps

When they don't supply the documents the mediation service will be the first ones to say that it cannot go ahead precisely for that reason. You'd say you were hoping the documents you requested would have been supplied, but they haven't been so far. At this point it would have been months since the CPR and CCA requests were sent.

I'd say if you are positive the debt is SBd, it wouldn't be necessary to agree to mediation, even if you had the agreement, DN, etc. it still wouldn't change the fact it's SBd and there would be nothing to mediate. In most other cases it does give the right impression to agree to it.

[jon1965]

Re: Lowell Bryan Carter Solicitors

I don't think this debt is SB as it was OPENED 9/3/09 and claim issued 24/3/2015 so unless it was terminated within 15 days there is a problem