scottygees UE diary

[scottygees]

15/01/2020- So as expected the LBC (dated 13th January 2020) has been received today from Lowells Solicitors giving 30 days (12th February) to make payment/respond. The letter is actually identical to the previous LBC they issued except for the date of course.


So once again they have put 3 debts on one LBC, again I don't know if this is the correct legal procedure as none of the debts are linked in anyway. Therefore if this did go to court I would expect them to issue three separate claims. So I will try and break this down nto the three separate debts to try and make it clearer:

Vanquis

Previously it was suggested I request the default notice for the Vanquis account of which they unduly replied and unfortunately it is a true copy of the one I received following my SAR request to Vanquis. As I also have an enforceable CCA is there anything else I can request or am I just going to have to suck this debt up and arrange a payment plan?

J Williams

As things stand I believe the CCA they sent me is unenforceable as the copy they sent me when i requested it hasn't been signed or dated by myself. The LBC states they can provide a copy of the CCA upon request. Though I am not sure that is the prudent thing to do. I do have a default notice for this account on file dated 25th July

EE

This is only £95 so I am not too concerned about this even though I am not sure whether I owe this or not as it goes back to an agreement I took out in 2005 supposedly.

As stated in a previous post I really cant remember how the account was opened. If I was to hazard a guess I would say online but I cant be sure. I don't know how phone contract agreements work but I was with EE for a while and would be pretty confident I would have upgraded after a couple of years, so not sure whether this would constitute a new agreement each time I upgraded or not in which case I am not sure the agreement i signed in 2005 would be the one that the debt is against. Lowells solicitors have previously argued the agreement isn't regulated by the Consumer credit act and therefore the original creditor is not required to retain a copy of the agreement. They have stated in their correspondence that they can however provide copies of the terms and conditions though I am not sure what that proves.

So that is the current state of play so advice is needed for what to do next and how to fill in the LBC reply. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself will be able to help me make that decision and advise any further documentation I can request to prolong this journey.

Once again thanks in advance.

PS Lowells must be busy as they have assigned one of my wifes debts to their solicitor to potentially instigate legal action as well!!

Sorry for the ramble!

Right on cue LBC received for my wife from Lowell’s!

[scottygees]

So it must be the time of year as I have just received a letter from Drydensfairfax solicitors regarding an old Santander Credit card account. I have until 4th Feb to respond or they will take appropriate action. I haven’t yet sent a CCA request for this one, soam thinking this needs to be done ASAP. Who should I send it to Santander or fairfax. If I send to Santander should I let fairfax know? I will create a diary entry asap with the paperwork I have in my possession.
Thanks in advance

[scottygees]

Yes, but is it a compliant DN or is it defective?

Email me the Letter of Claim first 2/3 pages setting out the three debts.

And email me the Vanquis Default Notice Lowell sent to you.

Nothing more at this stage.

Have a good weekend.

Di

Di

i have sent you a number of emails separating each request for documentation you have requested. Let me know if you need anything else.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

did Default vanquish have the date of issue or separate letter?

I’ve asked the OP to email me the DN so all will be revealed then.

Di

[The Tech Clerk]

did Default vanquish have the date of issue or separate letter?

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

***UPDATE***

SAR documents now located. The Default notice is the same as what Lowells have sent me.

Yes, but is it a compliant DN or is it defective?

Email me the Letter of Claim first 2/3 pages setting out the three debts.

And email me the Vanquis Default Notice Lowell sent to you.

Nothing more at this stage.

Have a good weekend.

Di

[scottygees]

As you say, this is not unexpected.

Email me the first couple of pages of Lowell's Letter of Claim so I can see what they are planning to claim and why they think they have the right to claim it.

Also email me what documents they have sent you in three separate emails (so I don't get confused ) since they seem intent of claiming three separate unconnected debts in one claim.

I know you've previously sent me some documents but I want to be certain that I'm looking at the right paperwork.

Di

As usual thanks for the reply Di. Do you require absolutely everything including the Vanquis statements? There is quite a lot to send through and unfortunately my IT skills are a little to be desired! If you can confirm and I will send everything they sent me over to you in the next day or so. I really do appreciate the help you and your associates provide.

[scottygees]

It is often overlooked by Creditors/Claimants just how important the method of service of a Default Notice is (if indeed one was ever served), i.e. first or second class post.

If during the course of Proceedings the Claimant produces a Default Notice that is all very well and good, however if the notice was not served in time to allow a Consumer at least the minimum amount of time to remedy the alleged breach, the notice is defective and the agreement will have likely been incorrectly terminated and the Claim should fail as the Claimant has no right to call in the full balance.

An argument often put forward by a Claimant in response may be that even though the Consumer wasn't given the correct amount of time to remedy the breach on the face of the Default Notice itself, the agreement wasn't actually terminated on the day after the date specified in the notice for compliance and therefore the Consumer was granted more than the required amount of time.

That stance requires what can often be complex arguments in Court (if a case reaches that stage) and is obviously where Joanna Connolly Solicitors can assist.

Many Thanks Colin, all sounds very confusing to me. I will send what Lowell’s sent me to Di to have a look at and take advice from there. It is good to know there are other potential arguments that can be raised. Fingers crossed.

[Colin G Quinn]

It is often overlooked by Creditors/Claimants just how important the method of service of a Default Notice is (if indeed one was ever served), i.e. first or second class post.

If during the course of Proceedings the Claimant produces a Default Notice that is all very well and good, however if the notice was not served in time to allow a Consumer at least the minimum amount of time to remedy the alleged breach, the notice is defective and the agreement will have likely been incorrectly terminated and the Claim should fail as the Claimant has no right to call in the full balance.

An argument often put forward by a Claimant in response may be that even though the Consumer wasn't given the correct amount of time to remedy the breach on the face of the Default Notice itself, the agreement wasn't actually terminated on the day after the date specified in the notice for compliance and therefore the Consumer was granted more than the required amount of time.

That stance requires what can often be complex arguments in Court (if a case reaches that stage) and is obviously where Joanna Connolly Solicitors can assist.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Now back to Di

I'm going to suggest Colin when it comes to explaining the necessity of compliant Default Notices which he does here >

The Consumer Credit Act provides a full balance cannot be called in before service of a compliant Default Notice has been effected, and the term within expired. So, there is a chance a mistake has been noticed hence the reluctance to serve a Default Notice now, as said notice would be calling in the full balance and not arrears due to the premature termination.

Of course the last outpost retreat for a Creditor, and usually an alleged assignee, is to say the loan period has matured, therefore service of a Default Notice is irrelevant. But an Act of Parliament, installed for the protection of Consumers, doesn't say that.

If no Default Notice has been served and no Default registered against you, I would suggest the Creditor knows the alleged Agreement to be unenforceable. As service of a Default Notice is the very strict precondition for the enforcement of a regulated Credit Agreement.

Di

[Warwick65]

What I meant by service was the time the law allows from posting a letter to it legally been received. As most default notices are sent 2nd class it is 4 days however not every judge believes this ?? So for a DN where you have 14 days to correct it most people calculate 14 days + 4 for service . Hope that makes sense. Now back to Di

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

15/01/2020- as expected the LBC (dated 13th January 2020) has been received today from Lowells Solicitors giving 30 days (12th February) to make payment/respond. The letter is actually identical to the previous LBC they issued except for the date of course.

. . . . So once again they have put 3 debts on one LBC, again I don't know if this is the correct legal procedure as none of the debts are linked in anyway. Therefore if this did go to court I would expect them to issue three separate claims.
So that is the current state of play so advice is needed for what to do next and how to fill in the LBC reply.

As you say, this is not unexpected.

Email me the first couple of pages of Lowell's Letter of Claim so I can see what they are planning to claim and why they think they have the right to claim it.

Also email me what documents they have sent you in three separate emails (so I don't get confused ) since they seem intent of claiming three separate unconnected debts in one claim.

I know you've previously sent me some documents but I want to be certain that I'm looking at the right paperwork.

Di

[scottygees]

Have you sent it to Niddy for opinion?


Somewhere there is legislation about a DN

Your name
There name

The clause breached
How much is owed ( which has to be correct)

The date this must be paid by which is 14 days from service.

There is some debate on how long service is but say 18 days from the date on the letter

If it’s like mine it was laughable

So Niddy looked over the J Williams agreement last year and said it was unenforceable but only due to the fact he couldn’t read it, which is probably down to my scanning of the documents as I have just been looking at it again and it is clear to me. It is post 2007 so is likely to be enforceable. Is Niddy able to confirm whether the DN is correct?

excuse the Ignorance but what do you mean by how long Service is?

[Warwick65]

Have you sent it to Niddy for opinion?


Somewhere there is legislation about a DN

Your name
There name

The clause breached
How much is owed ( which has to be correct)

The date this must be paid by which is 14 days from service.

There is some debate on how long service is but say 18 days from the date on the letter

If it’s like mine it was laughable

[scottygees]

Just a couple of comments.

Your Vanquis DN , is that enforceable? I mean is it set out correctly, the one I had was so defective.

The JD Williams that you think is UE because of no signature, there is no need for a signature on a CCA request but...when was the account opened?

Thanks for the reply. I really wouldn’t know if the DN is set out correctly, how would I tell, how should it be laid out?

i was under the impression the J W Williams CCA was unenforceable due to no sig or date obviously this isn’t the case and looking at the agreement again it looks legible. According to Lowell’s the account was opened on the 10th April 2012, though this date isn’t reflected on the Agreement I have.