Lowell Solicitors claim help

[Help2017]

Hi. I have an acciunt being chased by Lowell solicitors,threatening court action in 14 days if no payment arrangement is made.
I requested proof of debt etc, and they replied saying they would freeze the account whilst looking into it.
Since then, they have sent a 'copy' of a credit agreement with my details on and a tick box ticked. This does not constitute, I presume, the actual documents I requested they provide. The document looks edited,or may be 'stock' rather than a copy of the original, and there is no suppied proof of the ID procedures etc I would assume are expected within such an application in order to provide credit in the first place. It has been suggested to me that it is a reconstituted agreement. The date suggests it was agreed to in 08/2011.
Where do I go from here? What is the next step? Surely they need to supply more proof before being able to run it through the courts?
Many thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Hi Help2017 & welcome to LB.

Who were the original creditors?
Did you send a CCA (s77-79) request for the documentation?
What is the alleged debt for? (Loan, credit card, etc)

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Hi.
The original account was a Very (Shop Direct) account.
I have previously been accessing help from GOODF, and I requested all sorts,which led to an estoppal due to their faliure to provide the requested details.
It went quiet until late Jan 2017 when Lowell solicitors got in touch. I demanded the same documents and recieved by return a reconstituted CA.
I hope that helps.It's odd that it's taken this long to send the CA?

Thank you

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

I don't really know too much about the GOODF methodology or the 3-letter/estoppel tactics employed, however it would appear that courts do not hold too positive an opinion of them.
One Canadian judge wrote a 185-page judgment decrying FMOTL submissions as Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments.
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII).
We (this forum) tend to use existing laws (including legislation) to try & formulate a less contentious argument.
It's bad enough trying to battle the Claimant; battling both Claimant and the court is, imho, inviting disaster.

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

I rather agree. It has been less than helpful, but has in the process requested the documents.
If you can help or point in a useful direction I would be most very grateful.
Where do I stand with the lack of requested documentation? Where do I stand with this CA that's been reconstituted?

I don't really know too much about the GOODF methodology or the 3-letter/estoppel tactics employed, however it would appear that courts do not hold too positive an opinion of them.
One Canadian judge wrote a 185-page judgment decrying FMOTL submissions as Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments.
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII).
We (this forum) tend to use existing laws (including legislation) to try & formulate a less contentious argument.
It's bad enough trying to battle the Claimant; battling both Claimant and the court is, imho, inviting disaster.

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Could you post up a copy of the agreement that has been sent to you? (Redact any personal identifiers).
How much is the alleged debt?

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Of course. I'll hopefully have them attached below

Could you post up a copy of the agreement that has been sent to you? (Redact any personal identifiers).
How much is the alleged debt?

- - - Updated - - -

Rather embarrassingly I can't work out how to attach a document here. I have the documents ready

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

First documents attached

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

And final one

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Re the copy of the signed agreement (last 2 pictures posted above, post #s 8 & 9), what has happened to para #14?
Can you recall whether you had PPI?

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

No, I don't think there was any PPI. I think para 14 is on the top of one of the attachments above? It seems to be about APR?

Let me know of you need any other photos etc

Re the copy of the signed agreement (last 2 pictures posted above, post #s 8 & 9), what has happened to para #14?
Can you recall whether you had PPI?

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a clearer shot (I hope)

Re the copy of the signed agreement (last 2 pictures posted above, post #s 8 & 9), what has happened to para #14?
Can you recall whether you had PPI?

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Yep, sorry.
Is there anything showing paras 1-13?

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Here you go. A bit clearer than the above screen shot O hope. Thank you

[Help2017]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Here you go. A bit clearer than the above screen shot O hope. Thank you

This is a reconstituted form, if that makes a difference. Thanks ever so much for your help

[charitynjw]

Re: Lowell Solicitors claim help

Ok, that gives a clearer picture.

Have you asked for documentation via a Consumer Credit Act 1974 s78 request, c/w the statutory £1 fee?
& how much is the alleged debt?

Recon agreements are acceptable, certainly for s78 requests, as long as they are accurate.