nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

[FlamingParrot]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

If I do owe them anything it has been heavily inflated (they are now claiming £400).

I thought I could put the ball in their court and demand that they prove the debt and if they couldn't their claim would be void. Is this not correct? The letter they sent me (above) doesn't prove anything. does it?

Would a bare face denial be more appropriate in this case? If so what would I need to say to cover the bases? or

would a 'unless order' be best? if so how the hell do I do one of those?

Are there any templates or guidelines for the above?

I have posted above regarding the orders, however, under the circumstances, you may be better off negotiating with them. The amount claimed is relatively small and, as posted above, there is an £80 fee for an N244 application. If you are on a low income or reliant on benefits, you can get the fee waived.

The N244 is just the beginning, you'd still need to put forward a suitable defence. As this is a mobile contract, you cannot dispute it using the CCA. Most people who have used unless orders have claims for much larger sums and/or claims for products regulated by the CCA where the claimants have never complied with s.77/79 of the Act. Take a look around and see what you think. It may be that the claimant and their solicitors would rather accept a part settlement rather than going to court, given the sums involved, it's probably not worth their while either.

Of course if you'd never had the contract, then you wouldn't want to negotiate with them over something you never had, but you can't deny having had it if you did, so a bare face denial wouldn't be appropriate.

[nods]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

Can my defence be something like "I don't acknowledge the debt and the claimant hasn't complied with my request of proof by supplying me with the appropriate documents?"

[nods]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

I don't really want to negotiate with them. I'm NOT denying ever having a 3 mobile contract. I'm denying the debt they claim I have and want them to prove the debt. As anyone got a good bare face denial template I can use or can anyone give guidance on who I would write my defence so that the bases have covered. The way I see it is, I asked the to prove the debt and they refused to using the silly template letter they seem to send to everyone. I need to submit my defence today. can some please help? Many thanks.

[nods]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

I found this on the forum. Do you think this can be amended to meet my needs? Can I add a bit about me asking for the particulars of the debt and that BC essentially refused?

Defence

1. I _________, am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimants' Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia:-

4. The Claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the Court’s attention to the following matters:

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written contracts referred to; the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

b) A copy of the purported written contracts that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

c) Even though the Claimant posted what they claim to be a more detailed Particulars of Claim after issuing their online claim. No documents were attached to the claim form.

d) The Claimant has brought this action without fair warning in what appears ignorance of the Civil Procedure Rules Pre Action Protocols Para 4.3, as no letter before action was received.

5 On 15 June 2010 the Defendant submitted a request via first class mail pursuant to S.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) for copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements purported to be the Defendants to the Claimant’s solicitor.

a) The Claimant’s solicitor wrote to the Defendant on 28 June 2010 stating that the Defendant should approach the Claimant directly for this information. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant’s solicitor on 30 June 2010 and referred them to Section 175 of the CCA 1974.

b) The Claimant’s solicitor replied on 1 July 2010 advising that they require a further 21 days from the date of receipt of the Defendant’s letter (believed by the Defendant to be 1 July 2010) in order to provide the information required. The Claimant has frustrated the Defendant by failing to fulfil the S.77-79 request within the recognised time limits.

6. On 8 July 2010 the Defendant submitted requests under CPR 18 and CPR 31.14 via First Class Recorded Delivery for copies of the agreements, copies of all statements since inception of the accounts, in order to assess if the sum claimed is accurate and any other documentation that the Claimant is relying upon in pursuit of this claim. The time limits in respect of these requests have not yet expired.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the date of mailing of any Default Notices that they claim were sent and that their content was valid. To be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such a document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - (2001) GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - (1996 4 All ER 119).

8. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the Claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents.

Statement of Truth

I ......... believe the above statement to be true and factual.

Signed

Date 16^th Jan;14

[Streetwise]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

I don't really want to negotiate with them. I'm denying ever having a 3 mobile contract. I'm denying the debt they claim I have and want them to prove the debt. As anyone got a good bare face denial template I can use or can anyone give guidance on who I would write my defence so that the bases have covered. The way I see it is, I asked the to prove the debt and they refused to using the silly template letter they seem to send to everyone. I need to submit my defence today. can some please help? Many thanks.

Excuse me but you have already said you HAVE had a 3 mobile contract,if you get caught trying to play that game watch out.

[nods]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

Sorry typo its should say 'not going to deny'. Of course i'm not stupid enough to lie to the court. Iv'e edited the post. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to compose my defence?

[nods]

Re: nods v lowells - court claim mobile phone debt??

UPDATE

Just to let you all know. I filed my defence. I modified the 'embarrassed' template to meet my needs. It essentially said that BC had not given any kind of proof that I owed any money and that it would be unreasonable to make me pay anything unless that they could prove the debt.

I got a response from the court saying that BC have 28 days to respond or the claim would be stayed.

fingers crosssed.

Thanks for the help!!