Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

[TroyTempest]

Hello everyone. This is my first post so excuse any breaches of etiquette I might commit.
I have a debt with HSBC- a credit card. I fell into arrears in May 2008 and have not made any payments to them or anyone else since. I was chased for it in August 2010 by Credit Resource Solutions and made a CCA request. They missed all the deadlines and also (I realise now) applied the £1.00 fee to the account effectively resetting it. Otherwise it would become statute barred around June next year. I the meantime I have had no means to pay (I still don't) and the efforts to collect have been quite half-hearted, so I did nothing. HSBC wrote in January 2012 to say the debt had been assigned to Lowells.
Lowells have been writing to me recently but I haven't responded. But now I have a letter from Bryan Carter 'solicitors' saying they have "been instructed by Frederickson International Ltd on behalf of Lowells to issue court proceedings on the 10th Dec 2013 if payment is not recovered by us by that date"
It goes on to mention CCJ's etc and says that the matter has reached the stage where I might like to get independent legal advice- so here I am.
I have a feeling that they are trying to intimidate me as they know the debt is about to become statute barred (despite the £1.00 'resetting') but I can't help being nervous.
I have sent Lowells a CCA to buy a bit of time, also asking them for a statement to show when the last payment was made to the account, but am unsure as to what to say to Bryan Carter. Is there a template letter i can use? Also, what can I do about the £1.00 being applied to the account and resetting it? I specifically told them not to do this on the CCA letter (and yes, I have kept it- I keep everything!)
Any advice?
Many thanks kind people.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

Hi and welcome!

Lowells have been writing to me recently but I haven't responded. But now I have a letter from Bryan Carter 'solicitors' saying they have "been instructed by Frederickson International Ltd on behalf of Lowells to issue court proceedings on the 10th Dec 2013 if payment is not recovered by us by that date"
It goes on to mention CCJ's etc and says that the matter has reached the stage where I might like to get independent legal advice- so here I am.
I have a feeling that they are trying to intimidate me as they know the debt is about to become statute barred (despite the £1.00 'resetting') but I can't help being nervous.

I have sent Lowells a CCA to buy a bit of time, also asking them for a statement to show when the last payment was made to the account, but am unsure as to what to say to Bryan Carter. Is there a template letter i can use?

Bryan Carter have been issuing claims like confetti, so it's wise to treat it as a letter before action and respond accordingly, with something like the following:

Dear Sirs

Ref.: xyz

Thank you for your letter dated xxth December 2013, the contents of which I have noted.

Since your letter clearly refers to the threat of litigation, I am treating it as a formal letter before action, even when it does not comply with the pre-action protocols. I refer you to the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol practice direction, in particular Annex A and Annex B. You will note your letter fails to comply with either of these Annexes.

The claimant should list the documents on which the claimant intends to rely and I would like copies of these please, set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this and refer the defendant to the Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction. If financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.

Please note this account is the subject of a dispute which has been raised with your client's representatives, and therefore it would be appropriate before you threaten litigation, for your clients to actively deal with the issues which I have raised.

Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974

You will no doubt be aware that Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act offers a provision whereby the holder of a running credit account can obtain vital information. This information is needed to determine the exact terms under which a financial account is administered, and complying with the provision is a statutory requirement. On xxth December 2013 I forwarded a request to your clients and I am still awaiting their response.

Accordingly, and in accordance with the CPR Pre Action Protocol practice direction, I look forward to your reply setting out correctly the nature of your clients claim and answering my dispute as stated above.

Yours Faithfully,

Also, what can I do about the £1.00 being applied to the account and resetting it? I specifically told them not to do this on the CCA letter (and yes, I have kept it- I keep everything!)

Not much you can do about it at the moment, since the account wouldn't be SBd for a few months yet, once the time comes (summer 2014 if my calculations are correct), if they are chasing you and/or attempt court action, that would be the time to say the account is SBd and they £1 has been applied in error and prove it with your CCA request letter. :thumb:

[TroyTempest]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

Thank you SO MUCH for your prompt and reassuring reply. The knot in my stomach has loosened a bit...
I'll get those letters off today. One question though, is the letter you suggest to BC a CPR 31.14 letter as mentioned in other threads?
From your experience of Lowells and BC (and it seems to be extensive judging by all the other threads) what is their usual strategy? Should I expect them to take me to court just before the debt become statute barred? It seems a coincidence that they've stepped up the pressure after all this time.
Thanks again for your help, I've been worrying all night.

[Gorang]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

Thank you SO MUCH for your prompt and reassuring reply. The knot in my stomach has loosened a bit...That's what we are here for, To help, so rest assured you ARE in the right place so you can deal with this
I'll get those letters off today. One question though, is the letter you suggest to BC a CPR 31.14 letter as mentioned in other threads? No its just a little reminder for them to be careful of what they do next, and it shows them that you know what you are talking/writing about, A CPR 31.14 gets sent AFTER they have started court proceedings ie after a summons lands on your mat
From your experience of Lowells and BC (and it seems to be extensive judging by all the other threads) what is their usual strategy? Anything they decide weather right or wrong, no rhyme or reason to them
Should I expect them to take me to court just before the debt become statute barred? Hopefully the letter above will stop them from doing that but as above they just please themselves
It seems a coincidence that they've stepped up the pressure after all this time. They bought a truck load of old debts so as FP says they "have been issuing claims like confetti", but don't worry about that just now as it can be easily dealt with If/when the need arises
Thanks again for your help, I've been worrying all night.

Keep us posted and if you have any other questions then please just shout

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

Thank you SO MUCH for your prompt and reassuring reply. The knot in my stomach has loosened a bit...
I'll get those letters off today. One question though, is the letter you suggest to BC a CPR 31.14 letter as mentioned in other threads?

No, it's a response to a letter before action (LBA a.k.a Letter of Claim). The CPR 31.14 request is only sent once they've issued court papers, as it's a request for documents mentioned on their particulars of claim, which they haven't issued yet.

What they've written is a letter BEFORE claim. As part of the pre-action conduct, they are supposed to send a letter before issuing a court claim, as explained here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...action_conduct

7. Exchanging information before starting proceedings
7.1 Before starting proceedings –

(1) the claimant should set out the details of the matter in writing by sending a letter before claim to the defendant. This letter before claim is not the start of proceedings; and
(2) the defendant should give a full written response within a reasonable period, preceded, if appropriate, by a written acknowledgment of the letter before claim.
7.2 A ‘reasonable period of time’ will vary depending on the matter. As a general guide –
(1) the defendant should send a letter of acknowledgment within 14 days of receipt of the letter before claim (if a full response has not been sent within that period);
(2) where the matter is straightforward, for example an undisputed debt, then a full response should normally be provided within 14 days;

The pre-action conduct also states that "the defendant should give a full written response", which is what you are doing.

BC's letters tend not to comply with the pre-action conduct in terms of their contents, however, they should still be responded to accordingly.

From your experience of Lowells and BC (and it seems to be extensive judging by all the other threads) what is their usual strategy?

They tend to be quick to issue a claim, in the hope of obtaining default judgment. They never seem to be able to provide the necessary documents to back up their claims.

Should I expect them to take me to court just before the debt become statute barred? It seems a coincidence that they've stepped up the pressure after all this time.
Thanks again for your help, I've been worrying all night.

Hopefully not now they see you know your stuff and are likely to defend. Also they may not know exactly when this will become SBd, since neither BC nor their clients ever have any documents, they just take potluck and hope the debtor rolls over.

[TroyTempest]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter/HSBC

Thanks everyone, I'll keep you posted.