Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Wow this is just wow, definitely using some of this content for my case lol.

Do you have a CCJ (Default Judgment) which needs to be set aside?

Di

[donchain]

Re: Court Claim from Lowell - Orange Contract

Here's an alternative draft for you to use or cannibalize or ignore as you see fit-


Without prejudice save for the set aside application.



Dear Sirs,


On the 25^th March 2014 you wrote to me stating that debt is and will remain on hold until you had located documents that I had requested. I heard nothing further form you about this and therefore quite reasonable assumed that the matter remained on hold and that your search for documents was ongoing. I relied on the comments in your letter and delayed filing and serving my defence pending receipt of the documents that you were looking for.

Far from putting the claim on hold you have applied for a default judgment against me and this was granted on the 22^nd August 2014. I intend to apply to have that judgment set aside and in my application I will exhibit a copy of your aforementioned letter to my application on which I relied to my detriment.
You will no doubt be aware of the recent case of Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd [2014] UKSC 21 where the Supreme Court by a unanimous decision awarded Mr Durkin damages of £8,000.00 due to his credit record being damaged as a result of the breach of duty of care by DSG Retail Ltd. They were aware that the account was in dispute but went ahead and placed a default marker on his credit file. If my credit file is damaged by your actions I reserve the right to claim damages from your client and will include such a claim in my defence and counterclaim.

In the circumstances I offer your client 2 options:

1. They consent to the default judgment being set aside and thereafter discontinue the claim brought against me with each party bearing their own costs save that your client should pay the application fee. I will agree in such circumstances to not pursue a claim for damaging my credit record by entering a judgment against me in circumstances which clearly misled me.
2. They consent to set aside the judgment entered against me. I will thereafter file and serve a defence and counterclaim which will include a claim for damage to my credit record and the matter can proceed to trial to be determined on its merits. Each party should bear their own costs of such an application save that your client should pay the court fee.

Time is clearly of the essence with my application and I will therefore have to make an application by the 16^th September at the latest. I reserve the right to refer to the contents of this letter if such an application is made.

Wow this is just wow, definitely using some of this content for my case lol.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

Why?

Has he taken to reading the Daily Mail?

Thanks have edited

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

I have disgust with my son

Why?

Has he taken to reading the Daily Mail?

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

Just a bit concerned that they asked for the claim to be stayed and the claim was stayed. It would have been better for the judgment to be set aside and the claim to have been discontinued or withdrawn. In that way it would be over.

Would it be in the OP's interest to ask for the claim to be withdrawn as they have not chance of success quoting 'xyz' should he ever respond to them?

That has crossed my mind and of which I have discussed with my son the OP and have no doubt we could use BW Legal letter as a bargaining tool to have this struck out at there cost, however am sitting on it for now to see what Niddy comes up with in regards to a group complaint.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

It is Set Aside as it says in the order of judgement, although yes in the draft it does say stayed so I can only guess the judge took it on himself to set aside as no prospect of them coming up with any proof

[julian]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

Just a bit concerned that they asked for the claim to be stayed and the claim was stayed. It would have been better for the judgment to be set aside and the claim to have been discontinued or withdrawn. In that way it would be over.

Would it be in the OP's interest to ask for the claim to be withdrawn as they have not chance of success quoting 'xyz' should he ever respond to them?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

The "solicitors" in question deal with debt recovery and are licensed. Most are mate.

Im just saying in my opinion the bigger breach would be the FCA breach. The SRA won't do too much - Theyll pass it to a local firm who will get the file and then base an opinion on their own ethical stance. Not many go against "their own" - lawyers regulating lawyers doesn't instill me with much confidence.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

It's more a breach of FCA (conc) (misleading debtors / using bullying tactics to pay / etc etc) so the FCA would be my port of call.

I know this and I know how the SRA works (or doesn't in such situations)!

Tell me what they've breached then with respect to SRA? Lol

its the FCA you'd report this to. Trust me.

I was unaware that the Fundamentally Clueless Authority regulated solicitors.

If one can shew that the letter was sent on instructions from their client, or that BW Illegal is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Lowell Group and its operations are directed by that group, then there would be a case for the Fundamentally Clueless Authority to investigate and then to ignore.

The SRA won't do anything. What specific SRA "term" have they breached? Of course, there aren't "terms" to breach.

Can you recall the fate of Davenport Lyons? (link)

Of course, that is far less severe than the penalty imposed on Andrew Crossley of ACS Law (link) who has thrice been found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor. The third Tribunal judgement is at http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk...20Crossley.pdf and is quite interesting, especially the findings at 91.30 and 91.31:

91.30 The Respondent’s actions were likely to diminish the trust which the public placed in him as a solicitor and in the legal profession. It had been incumbent upon him to deal with unrepresented members of the public in a scrupulously fair way and in particular, he should have ensured that his Letters of Claim were entirely accurate. Instead, the letters had been misleading and drafted so as to intimidate lay members of the public into paying the sum claimed regardless of whether or not they were in fact liable for the infringement alleged. The Respondent’s actions had become the subject of widespread public concern. This could be gauged by reference to the letters from a number of MPs who had complained on behalf of their constituents as well as the number of complaints that the Applicant had received about the Respondent. There had been widespread coverage of the matter in the media and representations had been made to the Applicant by the consumer organisation Which? The Respondent had an obvious self interest in recovering revenue from alleged infringers and in those circumstances there was a conflict of interest between the Respondent and his clients.

91.31 The Tribunal considered that the allegations had been substantiated against the Respondent and indeed the Respondent had admitted the allegations.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

It is Niddy but also under the remit of the SRA as BW Legal are solicitors and thus they more than anyone know they should not be sending out such threats

I know this and I know how the SRA works (or doesn't in such situations)!

Tell me what they've breached then with respect to SRA? Lol

its the FCA you'd report this to. Trust me.

The SRA won't do anything. What specific SRA "term" have they breached? Of course, there aren't "terms" to breach.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

It is Niddy but also under the remit of the SRA as BW Legal are solicitors and thus they more than anyone know they should not be sending out such threats

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

It's more a breach of FCA (conc) (misleading debtors / using bullying tactics to pay / etc etc) so the FCA would be my port of call.

However it's something I've said I'll do when I've time and got all the users permission.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

complain to SRA they will acknowledge your complaint and say that it may be filled with others i..e. enough complaints of the same nature they may act, ???? they have a web site.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell (Orange) v LifeOfRyan **SET ASIDE**

If they really had obtained a CCJ which had not been set aside, why would they accept only 50% in settlement thereof?

One hardly needs to be a cynic to wonder if they now know they've not a hope in hell of proving the alleged debt, so they're trying to bounce the defendant into paying money to settle a judgement that no longer exists.

BW Legal should be referred to the SRA.

Would love to make a complaint to the SRA if it was worth doing and helped others what are your thoughts Niddy

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Court Claim from Lowell - Orange Contract

Why do creditors dish out N1 without prove of debt first?

They do it because they can.

it would save so much court time if they had to prove it owed first.

Yes.

It would also save court time if the worst culprits could be declared to be vexatious litigants. (link)

However, as that might result in poor, hard-working lawyers having to resort to food banks simply to survive, it's not likely to happen.