Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Yes, it would be an idea.

I do not believe it would be a good idea.

Well, taking it for granted, you'd expect that they'd already have this all-important paperwork to hand - though we know this is never the case. After all, it's paperwork that they would need to pursue the matter any further.

But out of interest, why do you believe it wouldn't be a good idea to do this?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

It could easily backfire on you.

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Bit of an update - a puzzler at that.

I got a letter from Dryden's today (which was dated yesterday) to say that the CCA being referred to in the PoCs were a mistake, but that they're still going to obtain the documents I've requested.

Not sure why, if they've just said CCA has no relevance to the case.

But, there's nothing mentioned about whether they're pressing on with court or not, or what theie next intended course of action is going to be.

Hence, no new PoCs were attached, and nothing's been said whether they're going to issue new ones, what act of legislation they're going to be arguing instead - nothing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Mrroper
Be very careful with Lowell and I strongly advise you read my posts which relate to Lowell and 3 mobile chasing a disputed debt as the circumstances here are similar. I did eventually win my case at Appeal, but it took three years. See Lowell Victory in court as it will serve you well regarding Lowell;s tactics which included posting court papers through my front door the night before the first court hearing and trying to serve a CPR request by email attachment 20 minutes before the courts deadline for the Appeal. They will keep you in the dark as long as they can because they probably cant produce the information you are asking for. Lowell failed to comply with several Direction Notice and court imposed timelimits and I had to apply to the courts for a Section 7 DPA request because I struggled to get information under CPR31.14. Lowell waited until they appeared in court to tell me CPR31.14 did not apply in small claims fast track and thats why they say they ignored my request. They also turned up to court after their case had been struck out for failing to comply with directions from a Judge or pay their fees and they persuaded the Judge on that day to hear their unlisted case. It was fortunate I turned up for my counterclaim or judgement may have been given in my absence another well used tactic employed by Lowell according to posts from LB'ers. Lowells excuse were always that they had not received the courts instructions and it seemed to work well for them. Their Barrister was supprised I turned up and asked me to consider an adjournment. Make sure the ICO and OFT are kept informed of any problems you have accessing information. Good luck!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Lowells should have been declared vexatious years ago!

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

VEXATIOUS yes I like this word lets use it more its very appropriate

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Hi everyone - I've now received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' letter from the court, with an N180 Directions Questionnaire form attached to it.

Bearing in mind that the rather ambiguous letter I got from Drydens (described earlier in the thread) is the last correspondence I got from them.

That's the letter I got from Drydens shortly after my defence went in - where it mentions that they're dropping the CCA aspect of their claim, but haven't said what their new 'argument' is going to be (if any).

Consequently, if they're proceeding with this, then I've no idea what I'm supposed to be defending against - considering that they themselves have ruled out the act of legislation they originally cited on their Particulars of Claim.

Anyway, the Proposed Allocation letter states the following, and was wondering what to do next :-


"1. This is now a defended claim. The defendant (me) has filed a defence, (the 'a copy of which is enclosed' has been pen-lined out).

2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track. If you believe that this track is not appropriate for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.

3. You must by 19 June 2013 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office (Northamption address) and service copies on all other parties."

Once again, thanks in advance for any advice and help.

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Hi,

Sorry for my late response - just had a browse through the thread that you mention, and it is an interesting case.

At the moment, because Dryden - not Lowell - have stated that they're dropping the CCA aspect of their argument, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be defending myself against now.

Especially considering that I didn't get revised PoCs, and because the letter telling me they're dropping the CCA argument I received after my defence was submitted to the court.

So, now I've got the Notice of Proposed Allocation letter - no idea what to put on it, though.

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Couple of ambiguities about the form in question - it asks if I agree to the case being referred to Small Claims Mediation service, and whether I've included a fee with the form.

Firstly, I'm of the opinion that there's nothing to mediate about (not sure if anyone else feels if it's advisable I do mediate), and secondly, how much would any fee have to be?

Just looking for a bit of clarity for the moment.

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

My own experienced of 3 mobile were that they were downright obstructive when it came to releasing information and they worked well with Lowell deflecting requests made under Section 7 of the DPA, each claiming the other was responsible for keeping the relevant information. The ICO upheld a complaint I made against 3 concluding that they had not complied within the 40 days deadline under the DPA. This is because I challenged 3 for withholding some information and they then sent some more in a second dispatch. I made three complaints to the ICO about 3 obstructing me before they completely reversed their decision. I had made my DPA request to Hutchinson 3G because they produced a copy of a complaint response for the Ombudsman to show that they had not sold a disputed account in contravention of OFT Guidelines. I had never seen the letter before and made the SAR to get a copy myself only weeks after they had produced it to the Ombudsman. The response from 3 was that they ran a 'paperless office' and did not have my complaint correspondence and were not legally obliged to keep it. Amazing that it was not a paperless office when the Ombudsman came knocking. The inconsistencies continued. Lowell claimed they had recorded a default on my credit file based on information 3 had provided to them, yet neither could produce a default letter and neither 3 or Lowell could agree on the default date. 3 mobile Executive Office sent me a letter, which I still have stating they could not produce a copy of the Notice of Assignment because it was computer generated and could not be reproduced. However Lowell happily produced a copy of 3 mobiles letter complete with logos for my MP. It later transpired in court that the reason 3 could not produce the letter was that Lowell had sent it on their behalf. There was also a curious note on my printout record held by 3 which said don't tell the customer his account has been passed to Lowell. Why not they have to tell me its the law? I have always maintained that no NOA was ever sent and the legal assignment process was circumvented. When challenged Lowell kept producing different versions of the NOA something which the Appeal Judge said troubled him and the existence of more than one letter resulted in the Judge finding in my favour. I have asked 3 to explain why they lied about the reasons they could not provide the NOA. If they had nothing to hide they could have merely stated they could not provide the letter because they had not issued it, not that it was computer generated. They could have easily said Lowell had issued it with their permission if the assignment had been lawful. Only problem is that in 2007 the legal process required the Original Creditor 3 to send the pre-debt notification so 3 had not followed the lawful process. This is something that the CSA and Trading Standards agreed, but said they would not mention it in their replies to my complaints. Unfortunately for Lowell they accidentally let me have their internal emails to the CSA. The CSA has declined to comment. Assuming that Lowell and 3 have complied with my DPA Section 7 and my numerous CPR requests, then neither company can show that a NOA was ever issued or that notification of a default was given in 2007/08. I have won my case in court, no mean feat as a litigant in person and the erroneous default has been removed. However it is hard to see how the ICO can defend 3,s decision not to retain information relating to the default when their own technical guidance suggests an organisation that does not would potentially be in breach of the DPA. Lowell's log of events also has no information relating to the default. Either its heavily redacted or they never held it. It would be interesting to see how many people out there don't recall being notified of defaults or did not receive an NOA. Love BBC Watchdog to get involved again as they did in Jan 2009.

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Weird development.

I did fill the Mediation form in, sent it to the relevant parties involved, and I never heard anything back from it (I still have a copy of the form).

Now, I've received a letter which states the following :-

"This claim has been transferred to the below CC for allocation (my local court).

On receipt, the file will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions.

Details of the judge's directions will be sent to you in a notice of allocation.

If you would like any further information, you can contact the local court directly, but please await the judge's directions.".

Just wanting to get an idea as to what happens now.

I should add that literally nothing has been received by me between the small claims mediation form and that letter as above (weeks apart).

Also, nothing from Drydens/Lowells after their acknowledgement that the CCA is non-applicable to mobile contracts, but that they're going to try and obtain the information I asked for anyway.

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Hi

I've asked this question in another thread, but really should have posted it in this one - is it right that I need to send copies of my witness statements and all other docs (emails/letters) to the claimant, before the court hearing takes place?

[mrroper]

Re: Lowell/Three Mobile/Drydens - possibly phony court claim

Well, part-won, part-lost. All in all, though, for the reasons below, it didn't need to get to court.

I do have the satisfaction of denying Lowell the termination fees - the court costs actually amounted to more than what Lowell ended up with. So, Lowell ended up with a quarter of what they were initially out for.

Oh, I'll pay what's been set and I'll pay on time - but I intend to make sure that Lowell/Dryden/3 Mobile work for it in the process, due to many, many open issues and inconsistencies that came out in the hearing.

However on the court fees, I felt that the judge gave the claimant far too much leeway (I'm thinking about contesting that), in that she didn't seem interested in the mounted-up false evidence - even though Lowell were forced to admit that they'd included current T&Cs in their evidence pack (she'd already noticed this, by the fact that the last page had clearly been omitted).

To her credit, she wasn't greatly impressed about that. I presume I'll get a copy of the overall judgement in due course (I'm not sure how long that would take).

I attested to the airtime - which was never in question anyway - in fact, I'd said to Three Mobile at the time that I was willing to pay those, but not their termination fees.

I also explained that I disputed the entirety of the claim, because Lowell had filed it under the CCA, which I knew didn't cover mobile contracts and I was hardly likely to admit to something I hadn't done.

However, she didn't throw out Lowell's re-submitted claim, even though it had been submitted after the 14 day deadline and with only four days notice.

I'd also explained that if Lowell had filed the claim correctly in the first place, I would have attested to the airtime and possibly a resolve could have been reached.

Firstly though, there's the small matter of Three's incomplete computer log and the credit-report defaults showing with the wrong amounts that have been put in place for a year (again, brought the default issue up, but got told that was a separate issue).

The worm/agent acting for Lowell stated that his client wanted obtain full payment in 14 days, which again, the judge - to her credit - stated was impractical and that an offer to pay by instalments was entirely reasonable.