Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Thank you for you comments Nemesis45.

Firstly, [nervous gulp required here], far be it from me to criticise such a distinguished member, I don't quite understand the importance of assignment if it can be so easily circumvented as you suggest in your comments.

If a debt is assigned, surely the debtor must be told of the assignment and to whom they should now pay the money, otherwise they may pay the original creditor, thereby discharging the debt. Furthermore, if the original creditor has not sent out any demand for payment, then the likelihood is that the debt has been bought by a debt collection agency, and this current process may be a tactic to legally 'extort' money. I cannot conceive, therefore, how a notation on a customer's account file can satisfy and defeat the requirements of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

I do agree with you about the limitation period otherwise the default could, theoretically, continue indefinitely at the creditor's benefit until he is ready to accept repudiation and terminate the contract. However, that in itself is debatable, since a party that fails to accept repudiation and terminate the contract should be estopped from doing so later.

Finally, in response to the other comments about 'fresh accrual of rights of action', a part payment can only start time running afresh if it amounts to an admission that the debt remains due - Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977]. In deciding if a payment satisfies an acknowledgment of a debt for the purposes of s29 LA 1980, the court will consider both the act and the debtor's intent to determine if payment was made 'in respect of a particular debt' - Halsbury's Laws of England para 1184.

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Finally, in response to the other comments about 'fresh accrual of rights of action', a part payment can only start time running afresh if it amounts to an admission that the debt remains due - Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977]. In deciding if a payment satisfies an acknowledgment of a debt for the purposes of s29 LA 1980, the court will consider both the act and the debtor's intent to determine if payment was made 'in respect of a particular debt' - Halsbury's Laws of England para 1184.

That is why I said in some cases it can be debatable.

paras 1204-5 cover it in more detail

[dizco]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

That is why I said in some cases it can be debatable.

paras 1204-5 cover it in more detail

Thank you for all of your comments. It's very detailed and I appreciate you taking the time to advise.

What would you say my next course of action should be? I've sent the access requests this morning.

Because the information from Halifax is fairly sketchy, do you feel I'll have difficulty defending this and winning?

Many thanks, Chris

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Chris,

Presumably, you'll be defending yourself if a hearing is needed. Have you had a look at this book......it's called A handbook for Litigants in Person and is quite useful, available free at:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publica...-civil-221013/

Don't be too afraid of defending yourself and make sure you submit a witness statement(s) otherwise you won't have a voice in court.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Thank you for you comments Nemesis45.

Firstly, [nervous gulp required here], far be it from me to criticise such a distinguished member, I don't quite understand the importance of assignment if it can be so easily circumvented as you suggest in your comments.

If a debt is assigned, surely the debtor must be told of the assignment and to whom they should now pay the money, otherwise they may pay the original creditor, thereby discharging the debt. Furthermore, if the original creditor has not sent out any demand for payment, then the likelihood is that the debt has been bought by a debt collection agency, and this current process may be a tactic to legally 'extort' money. I cannot conceive, therefore, how a notation on a customer's account file can satisfy and defeat the requirements of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

I do agree with you about the limitation period otherwise the default could, theoretically, continue indefinitely at the creditor's benefit until he is ready to accept repudiation and terminate the contract. However, that in itself is debatable, since a party that fails to accept repudiation and terminate the contract should be estopped from doing so later.

Finally, in response to the other comments about 'fresh accrual of rights of action', a part payment can only start time running afresh if it amounts to an admission that the debt remains due - Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977]. In deciding if a payment satisfies an acknowledgment of a debt for the purposes of s29 LA 1980, the court will consider both the act and the debtor's intent to determine if payment was made 'in respect of a particular debt' - Halsbury's Laws of England para 1184.

It's extremely rare to find fault in an assignment debts are no sold individually but in portfolio lots by deed of assignment.
A lot is talked about and mentioned in defence about not recalling receiving NOA's my experience over many years indicate
that it has been come " habit" to make this statement when others have handed me documents when assistance has been
needed almost invariably the NOA's are included, in other cases it is " remembered" the " letters " were received but ignored
and /or thrown away.
Even when on the very few occasions when a assignment was in question and a deed has been produced by order of a court
the deed is so heavily redacted it's of little value in defence.

It is common practice for one or both parties to a debt " sale" as said sometimes in one envelope.
I can also say that the points you make have been discussed, investigated many times before and
and the practice continues
Unfortunately 99.99 r% of the claims ( imo) that NOA's are not received are wrong.

Lastly it is difficult to see how a payment made to a debt purchaser or a collection agency
when in contact with a debtor regarding a specific debt can be seen as anything but an
admission of liability.
On has to look more carefully to " one off " payments alleged by some debt purchasers
especially those for £1.00 it has been well known for certain companies to allocate statutory
fees to debt accounts, not complying with the request then selling on an account with
the record of " Mystery" payment with no record of by whom the payment was made or
how it was made.

Practical experience can answer your points here every time,

nem

[dizco]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Chris,

Presumably, you'll be defending yourself if a hearing is needed. Have you had a look at this book......it's called A handbook for Litigants in Person and is quite useful, available free at:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publica...-civil-221013/

Don't be too afraid of defending yourself and make sure you submit a witness statement(s) otherwise you won't have a voice in court.

I must admit, I am nervous about defending myself over this. I have no idea (based on my visit to Halifax) whether a default was ever registered. I still have an active account with no transactions since November 2010. I'm not sure whether this was the same account which was assigned, or whether there was another one.

Do I sit tight until the CCA/CPR requests come through? (judging by previous posters, this may be delayed.)

[dizco]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

I must admit, I am nervous about defending myself over this. I have no idea (based on my visit to Halifax) whether a default was ever registered. I still have an active account with no transactions since November 2010. I'm not sure whether this was the same account which was assigned, or whether there was another one.

Do I sit tight until the CCA/CPR requests come through? (judging by previous posters, this may be delayed.)

Gentle Bump! Any advice you could give over whether it's worth sitting tight to see what Lowell comes back with, or (in view of the lack of termination/default information) if it's not a strong enough defence?

The last thing I want is a CCJ, but this occurred a long time ago, around the time my father died. I simply can't remember the details of any agreements / accounts held with Halifax at the time. Is it worth sending a SAR to them?

Many thanks in advance, Chris

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Your account is still active? with a zero balance? or showing a debt on it ? - It might be worth a SAR to Halifax yes to find out what's gone on. SARs can also be quite handy to cross check any documents Lowell send you xx

If last transaction was Nov 2010 then you won't be statute barred.

I do think it is worth hanging on for a response from Lowell ( but keep an eye on defence dates of course!)

[dizco]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

OK, I've received a letter from BW Legal, as follows:

'We write in reference to the above matter and your correspondence dated 10th February 2016.

We note your request for the relevant documentation to confirm your liability towards the current Balance Due, and have requested the same from our client. These documents will be provided to you upon receipt from our client.

Please note our client may refer your request fro documents to the Original Creditor, HBOS PLC.

Our client's claim is particularised within the County Court Claim form issued via Northampton County Court Bulk Centre and is unambiguous.

The claim form specifies the time length available to respond accordingly and your request for documents should not have an effect on your filing your Defence.

Should you have any further queries, please contact our offices, etc etc'.

The date of the claim form is 8th February. What is the latest date, I can file my Defence? (I have sent an SAR request to Halifax, and have not heard back from either Lowell or Halifax, at this point).

Also, if I were to consider paying off the amount due, what would be the last day I could do this without receiving a CCJ?

Thanks in advance. Best, Chris

[dizco]

Re: Lowell CCJ Papers - Statute Barred

Gentle bump.