Mackenzie Hall persuing husband!

looby75

LOL I know someone who works for TS in Kilmarnock, he says they are going to have to open up a whole department just to deal with the complaints they get about them soon! He said he wishes they would just sod off and move somewhere else so they didn't have to deal with them.

I suggested that it would be better if they just stopped breaking the rules and talking to people like crap, he just lol and said he doubted that would ever happen until they are shut down.

lowellsucks

THE_LONE_RANGER wrote:

If They Can ?????

PLEASE STOP SAYING 'THEY CAN'T TAKE YOU TO COURT AFTER 6 YEARS...ETC...ETC'

They CAN! It simply means that it cannot be ENFORCED by the court. They can simply obtain an unenforceable judgement out of spite to stay on your file for 6 years hence.

They will also sometimes use a summons as a final gamble, to make you doubt your own defence and as a last brutal option to make you admit it and cut a deal with them, in response to the 'Limitation Reply' you can copy off of here. I think this is happening to me at present. I received (well my old address did) a series of crapola from Lowell, I know 100& this is well over 6 years old, I used the limitation reply from here, told them to take me to court, and they have done!

I have acknowledged the summons (issued 13/11/06) on the 27/11/06, stating I will defend the whole of it. I submitted my defence on 10/12/06.

The interesting bit is, that on the 15/11 I wrote to Lowell requesting the proof of ownership of this debt, and the statements of account etc. enclosing my £1. (Using the letter available from this site, still not acknowledging the debt)
They signed for my letter on 16th next day.
12 days passed, whereby they should have provided me with the details I requested. Nothing.
Today 30 days has passed, and I understand this is now a CRIMINAL matter, as they have not yet indicated they will withdraw the summons and are still willing thus to proceed without me being given my entitled information to aid my defence. I assume this is criminal under the 1974 CCA, as not doing this means they are attempting to gain financially via the courts in an unfair and perjurous manner.

I would love some more clarification on this area.
Cheers.

rog2

lowellsucks wrote:

PLEASE STOP SAYING 'THEY CAN'T TAKE YOU TO COURT AFTER 6 YEARS...ETC...ETC'

They CAN! It simply means that it cannot be ENFORCED by the court. They can simply obtain an unenforceable judgement out of spite to stay on your file for 6 years hence.

That would just about be par for the course for these vultures :mad: :mad:

Sorry to read about your situation ls - I hope lowell get their comeuppance.

webitha

hi there
ive read so much about this statue barred and ive advised my sister about this her "debt" is 7 yr old, but what happens then? does this go on yr credit report?
thanx

in-trouble_3

it wasnt on my credit report, but then again i didnt know who they where until they wrote me a letter

file_wizzard

lowellsucks wrote:

PLEASE STOP SAYING 'THEY CAN'T TAKE YOU TO COURT AFTER 6 YEARS...ETC...ETC'

They CAN! It simply means that it cannot be ENFORCED by the court. They can simply obtain an unenforceable judgement out of spite to stay on your file for 6 years hence.

I think there is a little confusion here, of course a claim can be made after 6 years, however within your defence response to the N1 you should state that the debt is statute barred.

If the claimant is unable to document otherwise then your claim response will be complete defence to the claim, and the court will undoubtedly take little pleasure from a claimant knowingly behaving in this manner.

In terms of an "Unenforceable judgement" I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, all orders by definition are enforceable, any claims which are dismissed are obviously unenforceable, and no records would be added to the registry trust, or your credit file

In respect of the second part of your question then firstly yes a criminal offence has been committed, however the opportunity’s for a prosecution are limited and potentially costly, Secondly if they have been unable to provide documentary evidence of a correctly executed agreement then this is also a complete defence to any claim, however in this case the limitations aspect overrides the non compliance to the CCA request.

Additionally you / or anyone else in a similar situation should be exceptionally careful when dealing with statute barred debts, especially if you start asking for proof of contract or account balance, in some instances by asking for an account balance this can be enforced by the court as an acknowledgment. Therefore if the contract is barred then this should be your only defence.

lowellsucks

file_wizzard wrote:

I think there is a little confusion here, of course a claim can be made after 6 years, however within your defence response to the N1 you should state that the debt is statute barred.

If the claimant is unable to document otherwise then your claim response will be complete defence to the claim, and the court will undoubtedly take little pleasure from a claimant knowingly behaving in this manner.

In terms of an "Unenforceable judgement" I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, all orders by definition are enforceable, any claims which are dismissed are obviously unenforceable, and no records would be added to the registry trust, or your credit file

In respect of the second part of your question then firstly yes a criminal offence has been committed, however the opportunity’s for a prosecution are limited and potentially costly, Secondly if they have been unable to provide documentary evidence of a correctly executed agreement then this is also a complete defence to any claim, however in this case the limitations aspect overrides the non compliance to the CCA request.

Additionally you / or anyone else in a similar situation should be exceptionally careful when dealing with statute barred debts, especially if you start asking for proof of contract or account balance, in some instances by asking for an account balance this can be enforced by the court as an acknowledgment. Therefore if the contract is barred then this should be your only defence.

THANKS FOR THAT WIZZARD!
I STILL have heard nothing from the court in relation to my defence, and asking for 'proof of ownership and account' is advice quoted in sample letters bandied about on this forum, so if 'be careful becasue the court could use that as acknowledgement' is CORRECT then a warning should be attached to the sample letters on here! In my case well over 6 years has passed since between my last contact/payment and asking for this info (along with non-acknowledgement sentence!) so even if it went to court the registrar/judge would almost certainly dismiss the claim because of this 6-year gap.

This sounds like a catch-22 the way you put it - they lack of provision of these documents by the claimant in the legal period is a total defence, and YET the defendant requesting them could be seen as total admission!!!!

To update you, there has been no news from the court, and now 42 days have passed since lowell signed for my £1 and letter requesting the lawful info!

I would like to know whether THIS fact is now my FIRST line of defence, and the statute-barring SECOND?

To be honest, I would now like to contact the Police regarding this matter if it a criminal offence, and report Lowell, as it is certainly perjurous now surely?
Why should they rely on people's ignorance to get away with law-breaking?
How should I go about turning thsi into a criminal matter?

Regards LS

file_wizzard

If more than 6 years has passed with no payment or admission then the debt is Statute Barred, and this is the only defence you should use.

To clarify the second point by sending the standard letters you refer too (before the debt is barred) then you would not automatically “start the clock” on the statute barred issue, however if a request was made for balance only which was not accompanied by a statement of non admission then this is likely to be taken by the court as an admission.

In a recent case a defendant had made such a request via the CAB in relation to a secured loan with the Bradford & Bingley for which he had not made payment on for a number of years, it was later upheld by the court that this request could be reasonably assumed to be an admission by default as no other information was provide at the time of request other than the request "Without Prejudace" for a current balance of the amount outstanding

Once I get back after Xmas will post the case reference for anyone interested..

With regards to the criminal proceedings for non compliance to the CCA request then as stated in theory yes you can pursue this, however in reality it is of little value to do so.


EDIT: Bradford & Bingley plc (Appellants) v. Rashid (FC) (Respondent) [2006] UKHL 37

lowellsucks

file_wizzard wrote:

If more than 6 years has passed with no payment or admission then the debt is Statute Barred, and this is the only defence you should use.

To clarify the second point by sending the standard letters you refer too (before the debt is barred) then you would not automatically “start the clock” on the statute barred issue, however if a request was made for balance only which was not accompanied by a statement of non admission then this is likely to be taken by the court as an admission.

In a recent case a defendant had made such a request via the CAB in relation to a secured loan with the Bradford & Bingley for which he had not made payment on for a number of years, it was later upheld by the court that this request could be reasonably assumed to be an admission by default as no other information was provide at the time of request other than the request "Without Prejudace" for a current balance of the amount outstanding

Once I get back after Xmas will post the case reference for anyone interested..

With regards to the criminal proceedings for non compliance to the CCA request then as stated in theory yes you can pursue this, however in reality it is of little value to do so.


EDIT: Bradford & Bingley plc (Appellants) v. Rashid (FC) (Respondent) [2006] UKHL 37

Yes, Wizzard, the 2 communications I made all used the headline 'I do not acknowlege etc..' so i covered myself there, I merely asked for proof that they owned the debt, and accounts information, I.e. as a defence reference to show I hadn't made any payments in 6+ years. I basically used your sample letters but added my own information to them.
If they DO turn up in the County Court and it DOES go ahead, I will have to defend myself, it's a long story but I will be unable to get legal aid.
I still haven't heard anything yet, still nothing from Lowell. I think if they REALLY had a legal department (as they suggest in their speculative letters) then they would have dropped this long ago. As you know they use the term 'Hamptons Legal' on some letters, and in the smallprint at the bottom this is stated to be 'another trading name for lowell associates' in other words 'legal dept' is just another means of intimidation.

UPDATE:::
I forgot to mention, last week I had a letter from Lowell, who informed me proudly of an 'associate financial company' offering secured loans, and not only would they do a big discount on the amount claimed on their county court summons, and 'settle it with a large discount' I could also 'borrow more to address my other financial committments...blah blah..'
I added this to my defence in the county court submission, saying that "now the matter has descended from almost vexatious on their part, to downright facetiousness".

rog2

lowellsucks wrote:

UPDATE::: I forgot to mention, last week I had a letter from Lowell, who informed me proudly of an 'associate financial company' offering secured loans, and not only would they do a big discount on the amount claimed on their county court summons, and 'settle it with a large discount' I could also 'borrow more to address my other financial committments...blah blah..'
I added this to my defence in the county court submission, saying that "now the matter has descended from almost vexatious on their part, to downright facetiousness".

This is, unfortunately, typical of these organisations - it appears that they intend to try to make money out of you whatever the outcome.
You are right - They Suck! :mad: :mad: