Tweet
Hi Guys
I posted this as a new thread because I am still not confident of my strategy in taking on Lowell in the Appeal Courts next month regarding the unlawful selling of my 3 Mobile account. There seems to be a political will to back businesses however dishonest their trading practices. It also seems like West Yorkshire Trading Standards and CSA are aware of the situation and are doing little to police Lowell. The ICO and OFT are sitting back and doing little and the courts have not served me well although the have addmitted their procedural errors.I prety much dong trust anyone other than these type of sites offering valuable assistance. Lowell have that effect. Thanks to Militant for help on previous threads.
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
Edit Post Reply
I posted this as a new thread because I am still not confident of my strategy in taking on Lowell in the Appeal Courts next month regarding the unlawful selling of my 3 Mobile account. There seems to be a political will to back businesses however dishonest their trading practices. It also seems like West Yorkshire Trading Standards and CSA are aware of the situation and are doing little to police Lowell. The ICO and OFT are sitting back and doing little and the courts have not served me well although the have addmitted their procedural errors.I prety much dong trust anyone other than these type of sites offering valuable assistance. Lowell have that effect. Thanks to Militant for help on previous threads.
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
Edit Post Reply
Comment