I WON!!!! Served with a statuory demand by BW Legal/Lowell

[CleverClogs]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

A writ of Fi Fa would be the way we would enforce.

Whenever I see that abbreviation, I always think it should be reinforced by a Fo Fum order.

There again, there don't seem to be many giants around these days.

[CleverClogs]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

Perhaps we should do a CD for Lowells that represent how we all feel about them?..... Suggestions so far...

I will survive (Gloria Gaynor)
The bitch is back (Elton John)
Mean (Taylor Swift)

[CleverClogs]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

Alternatively:

[ODC]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

What about a good old Country & Western one. It's Crying Time Again!!!

[CleverClogs]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

[Celestine]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

It is certainly very satisfying to reach this point, the last couple of days were quite tense, mainly because I wanted to see Fuzzy get the right, fair result. I'm still very bruised from my loss against lloyds in December....

So in essence, the agreement supplied to Fuzzy, was not the terms that were accompanying her application.

These are the legal arguments why Fuzzy's agreement is unenforceable in regard to currently supplied documentary evidence.


1) There has been non-compliance with section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. Our client believes that the documents provided are not an accurate copy of the actual agreement with Barclaycard. The terms provided relate to a ‘Premiership Barclaycard’; which was a promotional card offered by Barclays in 2004. It offered football related deals and promotions. Our client dislikes football strongly and is certain she did not sign up to a ‘Premiership Barclaycard’

2) The terms provided clearly do not relate to our clients application for her credit card in 2004 as they also make reference to a five-day cancellation period; which would be impossible to comply with had the supplied terms been present with the application. Therefore, s61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot be said to have been complied with, and compliance cannot be achieved retrospectively , if the agreement fails to contain the prescribed terms when it is signed then that is materially fatal to the Claimants case. It cannot put right such an error later.


3) There is no Default Notice as required by section 87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. Failure to provide a Default Notice prejudiced our client by denying our client the opportunity to request a time order under s129 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Also this means that the termination of the agreement or the right to demand payment above the defaulted sums is precluded by such a failure, therefore the debt should not even have been assigned to Lowell Portfolio.

4) Since the debt is disputed, we take the view that Insolvency is not the correct court to deal with this matter. The most appropriate Court in our view would be the County Court under part 7 proceedings. We refer you to the case of Hammond v Pro-Fit Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) at Para 27.

27. So far as disputed debts are concerned the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with indemnity costs against the petitioner)

Upon receipt of this information, Lowell knew they were going to be unable to prove the debt in a set aside hearing.

Also, BW Legal produced a WS which was 40+ pages long including exhibits. Helpfully, among those exhibits was a years worth of Account Statements, presumably sent in some vague notion of CCA compliance.

Every single one of the dozen monthly account statements sent by Lowells to Fuzzy, showed a ZERO balance, zero outstanding, etc etc ...... ooooops!

A WS was taken from Fuzzy and sent to them last thursday; which really compounded their dooomedness!

I emailed their solicitors two weeks ago but instead of contacting us and discussing like humans, they just ignored my emails until yesterday. Presumably that is how they operate and we will only see results in the days before the Hearing.

However, hopefully when they get more of these defended by us, they make take a wiser route, not least because the delay costs them dearly.

A hearty Congratulations to Fuzzy xxx

[CleverClogs]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

Also, BW Legal produced a WS which was 40+ pages long including exhibits. Helpfully, among those exhibits was a years worth of Account Statements, presumably sent in some vague notion of CCA compliance.

Every single one of the dozen monthly account statements sent by Lowells to Fuzzy, showed a ZERO balance, zero outstanding, etc etc ...... ooooops!

Good heavens!

Are they now using Workfare "employees"?

[TUTTSI]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

Thank you Cel for explaining all the terms it helps others to understand what they are dealing with here and well done you for a fantastic job done.

What you say regarding them not contacting you until the day before is in some respect how the credit card companies used to do would be to contact you the day (s) before to come to a settlement, it must be part of their ignorance that they want to hold the trump card when in fact Fuzzy bless her had the A team from Watsons and a brilliant job was done to put Lowells in their place.

I learned tonight watching The Galapados Islands that Charles Darwin discovered them a couple of hundred years ago on the ship HMS Beagle. Great stuff comes from Legal Beagles xxx
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...44770516,d.d2k

[FlamingParrot]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

Alternatively:

Only Cloggy could come up with some thing like that!:rofl::laugh:

[ODC]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

What amazes me is they had the audacity to ask you to get Fuzzy to agree to a repayment scheme. These feckers have some nerve on them either that or they fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

1) There has been non-compliance with section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. Our client believes that the documents provided are not an accurate copy of the actual agreement with Barclaycard. The terms provided relate to a ‘Premiership Barclaycard’; which was a promotional card offered by Barclays in 2004. It offered football related deals and promotions. Our client dislikes football strongly and is certain she did not sign up to a ‘Premiership Barclaycard’

2) The terms provided clearly do not relate to our clients application for her credit card in 2004 as they also make reference to a five-day cancellation period; which would be impossible to comply with had the supplied terms been present with the application. Therefore, s61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot be said to have been complied with, and compliance cannot be achieved retrospectively , if the agreement fails to contain the prescribed terms when it is signed then that is materially fatal to the Claimants case. It cannot put right such an error later.

3) There is no Default Notice as required by section 87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. Failure to provide a Default Notice prejudiced our client by denying our client the opportunity to request a time order under s129 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Also this means that the termination of the agreement or the right to demand payment above the defaulted sums is precluded by such a failure, therefore the debt should not even have been assigned to Lowell Portfolio.

4) Since the debt is disputed, we take the view that Insolvency is not the correct court to deal with this matter. The most appropriate Court in our view would be the County Court under part 7 proceedings. We refer you to the case of Hammond v Pro-Fit Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) at Para 27.

27. So far as disputed debts are concerned the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with indemnity costs against the petitioner)

Upon receipt of this information, Lowell knew they were going to be unable to prove the debt in a set aside hearing.

Also, BW Legal produced a WS which was 40+ pages long including exhibits. Helpfully, among those exhibits was a years worth of Account Statements, presumably sent in some vague notion of CCA compliance.

Every single one of the dozen monthly account statements sent by Lowells to Fuzzy, showed a ZERO balance, zero outstanding, etc etc ...... ooooops!

:scared: Unbelievable! A catalogue of errors from start to finish and they expect to make someone bankrupt on the strength of that 'evidence'! :rant: Abuse of process on a grand scale! :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
It should be a criminal offence!

A WS was taken from Fuzzy and sent to them last thursday; which really compounded their dooomedness!

I emailed their solicitors two weeks ago but instead of contacting us and discussing like humans, they just ignored my emails until yesterday. Presumably that is how they operate and we will only see results in the days before the Hearing.

However, hopefully when they get more of these defended by us, they make take a wiser route, not least because the delay costs them dearly.

A hearty Congratulations to Fuzzy xxx

And congratulations to you and the Watsons team! :first: :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

[EXC]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

I trust that this thread serves as the last nail in the coffin to those who once criricised Kate & LB's involvement with a commercial law firm. The criticism was essentially that it was somehow immoral to professionalize some of the assistance this forum can offer.

The unavoidable truth is that this case would not have succeeded otherwise. In dealing with people like Lowell, who crawled out of a sewer, the gutter is where we need to be.

[enaid]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

I trust that this thread serves as the last nail in the coffin to those who once criricised Kate & LB's involvement with a commercial law firm. The criticism was essentially that it was somehow immoral to professionalize some of the assistance this forum can offer.

The unavoidable truth is that this case would not have succeeded otherwise. In dealing with people like Lowell, who crawled out of a sewer, the gutter is where we need to be.

I been there a couple o times through the old rum'n'coke not sure I like it lol


As to the 'audacity of these feckers' it is not in their view anything of the kind, it is in fact the way they carry on their business because they are allowed to. If we the consumer can not shove their bloody business practices up their backsides where it belongs then no one else will. Lack of regulation and turning a blind eye by the powers that be is in evidence once more.

[Sapphire]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

[QUOTE=EXC;329867]I trust that this thread serves as the last nail in the coffin to those who once criricised Kate & LB's involvement with a commercial law firm. The criticism was essentially that it was somehow immoral to professionalize some of the assistance this forum can offer.

Hear, Hear and I hope that that particular discussion is now put to bed.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: I WON!!!! I've just been served with a statuory demand by bwlegal/Lowell

I trust that this thread serves as the last nail in the coffin to those who once criricised Kate & LB's involvement with a commercial law firm. The criticism was essentially that it was somehow immoral to professionalize some of the assistance this forum can offer.

The unavoidable truth is that this case would not have succeeded otherwise. In dealing with people like Lowell, who crawled out of a sewer, the gutter is where we need to be.

There are times when professional help is the only way to go and this was a very good example. The NHS produces colourful "Choose Well" diagrams showing the various alternatives, ranging from self-care at home through to calling 999 and everything in between. There are times when you need to see a doctor or go to a hospital for treatment. It's the same here, fuzzy was facing bankruptcy and required legal intervention, and it was a great success! :clap2: