Lowell court of appeal

[miliitant]

Re: Lowell court of appeal

impressed

with me, lowell settled out of court as they did not want their dirty laundry aired in public

what did you go for in the end on the partic of claim

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell court of appeal

Thanks Militant

I went with your suggestion on Ferguson v British Gas on numbers of letters. I have also referred to a previous claim for Harrassment which Lowell lost in West London District Court where it was stated there should be no set tariff for damages. However, the counterclaim is not too important. What is important is that some of Lowell's practices are given exposure in the courts and their vexatious behaviours are exposed. I am not just looking after myself, but doing this for everyone who has ever been treated unfairly by Lowell. Its a crying shame the OFT and ICO are dragging their heels. I get the feeling its more about politics. I have also submitted as evidence emails between West Yorkshire Trading Standards and Lowell and the CSA and Lowell which should be made public.

To this end I intend to refer back to the court transcript for some of the evidence the Compliance Director gave under oath at the last hearing. I will be producing some copies of genuine third party NOA's from Lowell with perrmission of the recipients, which appear to contradict Lowell's explanation as to how he has produced NOA's for different dates.

I now also have the information Lowell produced for a Subject Access Request in August 2012 and they have no record of a NOA being issued. So either there was never a record of the statutory default, NOA or date of transfer or the information has been unlawfully removed to protect Lowell's interests. Thats because as we know they dont always issue NOA's. I have enough evidence to expose Lowell's lies this time and show why the NOA's Lowell have recently knocked up could not possibly be genuine. The previous Judge felt this line of questioning was not rellevant, but it is rellevant if Lowell can not validate their claim and there is compelling evidence that the assignment process is being circumvented.

In this case there are no terms and conditions for the rellevant period(2006), there is no statutory default, there is no evidence a NOA was posted, there is no copy of the Deeds of Assignment. The rellevant terms and conditions have been looked at by OFCOM and determined unfair against the UTCCR 1999. There is an unfair contract and no evidence of sufficiently served NOA needed for absolute assignment. Its hard to understand why it got this far.

In the first instance I am looking for a strike out on non disclosure, failing to comply with directions and procedural error. I am looking for the Judge to restore the status as it was on the morning I attended court on 9 March 2012. At that point Lowell's case had been removed from listing two days earlier because they had not paid their fee. The Judge mistook my fee for the counterclaim as Lowell's fee and listened to the unlisted case and gave them a partial judgement. Lowell wanted £367.31 they got £98.05. I maintained that this was a procedural error. The hearing was intended to discuss my counterclaim and with Lowell having lost their claim, it had a reasonable prospect of success. The Senior Judge at the Lower Court looked at the file and has upheld my complaint. It was he who referred to appeal.

See what happens and any advice appreciated.

Cheers

Roy