Mackenzie Hall persuing husband!

lowellsucks

Got a letter from court yesterday, the court served Lowell my defence on 9-10 dec, and the letter states:

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on
the claimant (Lowell) or their solicitor. The claimant may contact you to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, then the claiant will inform the court if he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to procedd, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days of the receipt of your defence. After 28 days, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take is to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay." THE COURT MANAGER

Right, by my reckoning Lowell must reply by Monday 08/01 - 2 days time.
An 'informal solution' is impossible; I have told Lowell it is Statute Barred and will NOT be paying anything, or expect any further contact from them.
Lowell have already acted criminally in keeping my £1 and NOT sending proof of ownership, and accounts proving this debt within 30 days (even not sending this to me after 12 DAYS was a breach of the law, but not imprisonable!)

I'll keep you updated, but things are looking good. We all know Lowell DON'T have a 'legal department' as they claim, and 'Hamptons Legal' is a pseudonym they use to make letters sound more intimidating.
If they had a proper legal advisor, he/she would have certainly stopped them even issuing the summons, as it is now almost 7 years since the debt was last serviced and acknowledged. This legal advisor would also have warned them that NOT supplying the info I paid for would immediatley strike their claim out.
I am almost convinced now that the summons was never intended to get me into court; it was merely their next level of intimidation, and I have called their bluff.
We shall see.

rog2

lowellsucks wrote:

Got a letter from court yesterday, the court served Lowell my defence on 9-10 dec, and the letter states:

"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on
the claimant (Lowell) or their solicitor. The claimant may contact you to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, then the claiant will inform the court if he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to procedd, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days of the receipt of your defence. After 28 days, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take is to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay." THE COURT MANAGER

We shall see.

Well done LS - it seems that you are getting somewhere - please keep us informed as there are many who will benefit from your experience.:beer:

lowellsucks

UPDATE!!!!! GREAT NEWS!!
moneyclaim.gov.uk page has said ALWAYS,since I submitted my defence on 8th. Dec 2006 "defence submitted status"
I rang helpline today to say surely now I should have heard about the up and coming case, the website has been saying this since 8/12/06 and Lowell had 28 days to submit their response to my defence.
GUESS WHAT??
Court tell me the claim was 'stayed' on 11th. January 2007, as Lowell had not proceeded with the case by submitting their action and court forms back within the lawful 28 days.
I asked why the courts website did NOT say the status was 'stayed' even today 27/01/07, and was given an apology along the lines of "it's not a very comprehensive web page, very basic etc..."
I asked why I was not informed the case was stayed, and apparently this is USUAL! They only write to the PLAINTIFF to tell them, not the bloody defendant, so I was wondering for the last 16 days or so when I didn't need to!

Anyway, I will enclose a copy of my defence here, to which Lowell obviously thought they had no chance of overcoming (which, legally they didn't)
The court woman told me that they Lowell, can reinstate the case ONLY by applying to a judge and paying a fee, and even then it's not that usual to have the application accepted, as it's usually bad practice on behalf of the claimant.
I can also apply for a fee to have the case struck off myself, and given lowells conduct that would be easy, but pointless as it doesn't go down on any records until it's actually given judgement one way or the other, plus I know it's totally dead from lowells point of view.

I am reporting Lowell and making an official complaint to my local constabulary this Friday, for not stopping the case when they failed to give the proof etc. of ownership after 30 days after I paid my £1 and requested this (I have all the proof they signed for my letter etc..) and I will be making this complaint against their directors, in their line of business ignorance is NO excuse, the section 289 infers that such conduct is extortion via threat, and to actually attempt to go to court without providing this information upon request is considered perjurous and obstructive to the defendants case.
I will insist the police investigate this matter and turn my evidence over to them.
Anyway, off the hook, but NOT finished with Lowell by a long chalk. I'm going after them.

Anyway, here is my defence submitted, and as not to affect the criminal complain I have edited parts, but it is a good reflection:

#######
#######
##########
#####
### ###

08/12/06

RE: case no. ########## MR ## #####

DEFENCE OF ALL OF ABOVE CLAIM:

DEAR REGISTRAR,

This claim originates from Lowell Associates in Leeds. They are a debt-purchase business, who buy debts from Banks etc. that those banks or their debt recovery agents cannot recover, or do not wish to pursue. This is a practice imported from the USA in the last few years. These debts are sold usually for a small fraction of their headline value, as often have been 'written off' by the original creditor (as is the case with this particular claim.) The banks will sell these accounts having written them off, as even a very small percentage obtained from the debt purchaser is preferable to nothing. The debt purchase companies will also use tactics (as you will see later in this defence summary) that the High Street banks, for obvious reasons, would wish to distance themselves from.

Companies such as Lowell will buy these debts for very low prices, even if technically statute-barred, as they work on a 'pitch and miss' basis, which means even if they only successfully collect say half of the accounts they buy, the profits are substantial. Some debtors they may never trace, some they will trace and the debtor will not be aware of his rights under the 1974 CCA or the 1980 LA and will thus feel compelled to act according to the Lowell intimidation letters, thus waiving their rights.

Lowell will offer 'deals' for far less than the debt is supposed to be worth thus confirming the very low price they have paid for it, or confirming the fact (as in this case) that they know the debt is statute-barred so any amount they can make that effects a profit is a bonus, as they know they cannot enforce the debt in Court. I find this statement is supported by their willingness to 'settle for less'; surely if the debt was enforceable they would, being a business, try to
retrieve the whole amount that they allege is owed, rather than take substantially less?

Lowell have also represented in earlier bullying letters that failure to respond "could result in the defendant having to explain their finances in Court,
having a charge put on their home, having an attachment order on their earnings or being visited by bailiffs." This is a direct breach of the OFT guidelines for debt collection, as Lowell fail to mention that these are ENFORCEMENT measures only applicable IF judgement is found against defendant, then IF the defendant breaches that judgement, and then IF the court agrees to enforcement and IF the defendant doesn't apply for the enforcement to be suspended/set aside. I will be reporting this to the FSA who license these people.

I first heard of this matter at the end of October this year, and heard it from my ex-partner at my old address, and replied to Lowell not acknowledging the debt, and pointing out my new postal address as above.

In spite of this letter, Lowell have continued to harass my old address with letters, forwarded by my ex-partner to myself. They have also, on 13/11 issued this County Court summons to my old address. I have behaved honourably (I could have had it sent back 'undelivered' meaning Lowell would then have had to trace me and use a Process Server as the Court will only send it once) and I asked it to
be forwarded to me and have responded to it. I believe this was deliberate on Lowell's part, hoping I would not receive it and getting the judgement in their favour by default, knowing that otherwise it would be unenforceable.
I am giving my word that I have had/made NO contact concerning this matter from the original creditor HSBC nor have paid any monies in respect of this alleged creditor/account in the last 6 years or more. This debt is statute barred, and information provided by word from a current HSBC employee also confirms it. This is why they wrote it off after 6 years and sold it to Lowell in May this year 2006. I believe Lowell know this too, and as a result HAVE BREACHED THE 1974 CONSUMER CREDIT ACT SEC.189 by NOT providing me with proof of original agreement(s) or statement of account(s) and proof of ownership of this account which I requested on 15/11/06 by sending the £1 fee, and which Lowell signed for on 16/11/06 It is also worth pointing out that under the same Act, if they proceed with Court action or legal process without supplying it within 30 days, it is considered malicious and perjurous and they are liable to criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment.

This is a serious breach on their part, and documentary support of my defence is therefore prejudiced by their failure to comply with the Act. I have credit card and bank statements to show my addresses for the last 6 years and 8 months, since February 2000. I have not made, nor received, any communication regarding this matter at any of those addresses, nor made any payments. Therefore I KNOW that Lowell cannot provide evidence to the contrary.

The fact that I have had credit cards/banks accounts registered at those addresses during this 6 year-plus period makes it surprising, that if the HSBC was trying to retrieve this alleged sum from the alleged debtor, that they or their collectors failed to trace him, especially for a fairly sizeable amount.

I have informed Lowell of this fact of statute-barring, and that I don't intend to make any payment to them as a result,and that their future behaviour may be construed as harassment in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Having failed to provide me with the documentary proofs detailed above within the statutory period, I can only assume that Lowell only issued this summons as a further progression of their intimidation process when I failed to accede to the demands of their initial ream of letters, which I first became aware of from my ex-partner at the end of October 2006.

I thus conclude (their ignoring of statutes aside) that this summons is vexatious unless they can absolutely prove otherwise. I also ask you to understand that if this defence letter is considered lacking in any way, that I cannot include supportive information as of yet, which only Lowell can supply me with, and should have done so legally at this juncture; it has now been 3 weeks since they took my £1 payment and request for these relevant and obligatory documents. It seems that they simply expect the Courts to rubber-stamp their demands. They have noticed I have an interest in a property (although it is in the process of being reassigned solely to my ex-partner, and has been since before this matter arose) and clearly expect to manipulate a charging order on it eventually. This is further proven by a
letter I was forwarded earlier this week (yet again sent to wrong address.) Now it seems, far from
COLLECTING money from me, Lowell and Friends want to LEND me some. This summons is progressing from the vexatious to the facetious.

I cannot believe that they would want to help in 'restructuring my finances' when they obviously allege that I'm some sort of bad debtor, unless that finance was secured on property! I think their intent is thus clear. I must also point out that they also use the alternative name 'Hamptons Legal' - if you read the small print at the bottom, 'Hamptons Legal' is simply a 'trading style' of Lowell themselves. A further attempt at official-looking intimidation.

To summarize my defence, I know this debt is statute barred, and in the spirit of the 1980 Limitation Act which has its intent in giving closure on old alleged debt matters, I am representing that this summons is vexatious simply because it is unenforceable and Lowell have failed to provide evidence to the contrary, and was made for intimidation rather than jurisprudence on Lowell's part.


I acknowledge that the court can still pass judgement against the alleged debtor even if repayment is unenforceable, but to what gain for Lowell? Spending money summonsing an alleged debtor to court simply to leave an unenforceable CCJ on their credit file for 6 years out of spite. I also respect that the Judge/Registrar can ignore the 1980 Limitation Act in extreme cases, i.e. the debt was procured by fraud, or the conduct of the debtor was dishonourable i.e. immediately drained all the funds as soon as the facility was granted then disappeared overseas etc. No representation of any such behaviour has or could be made by Lowell. It is simply an old written-off debt that they have purchased and have title to; well, they claim to have title to, myself not having received the requested proof of this within the staturtory 12 days.

I will be represented in court and will bring all the letters and documents to prove in totality my defence detailed here. I humbly request that this case is heard local to my accommodation, i.e. #########, or if not, ##########. I don't have the means to travel outside these towns at present.

Yours,



Mr. # #####

ADDENDUM: I checked my mail at the post box today and still have not received the documentation that they were legally obliged to supply me with by 18/11/06. As a result this defence is not as detailed as it otherwise would be. I have to submit this now under the terms of the summons, without this detail included in my defence summary. I sincerely apologise.

lowellsucks

UPDATE!!!!! GREAT NEWS!!
moneyclaim.gov.uk page has said ALWAYS,since I submitted my defence on 8th. Dec 2006 "defence submitted status"
I rang helpline today to say surely now I should have heard about the up and coming case, the website has been saying this since 8/12/06 and Lowell had 28 days to submit their response to my defence.
GUESS WHAT??
Court tell me the claim was 'stayed' on 11th. January 2007, as Lowell had not proceeded with the case by submitting their action and court forms back within the lawful 28 days.
I asked why the courts website did NOT say the status was 'stayed' even today 27/01/07, and was given an apology along the lines of "it's not a very comprehensive web page, very basic etc..."
I asked why I was not informed the case was stayed, and apparently this is USUAL! They only write to the PLAINTIFF to tell them, not the bloody defendant, so I was wondering for the last 16 days or so when I didn't need to!

Anyway, I will enclose a copy of my defence here, to which Lowell obviously thought they had no chance of overcoming (which, legally they didn't)
The court woman told me that they Lowell, can reinstate the case ONLY by applying to a judge and paying a fee, and even then it's not that usual to have the application accepted, as it's usually bad practice on behalf of the claimant.
I can also apply for a fee to have the case struck off myself, and given lowells conduct that would be easy, but pointless as it doesn't go down on any records until it's actually given judgement one way or the other, plus I know it's totally dead from lowells point of view.

I am reporting Lowell and making an official complaint to my local constabulary this Friday, for not stopping the case when they failed to give the proof etc. of ownership after 30 days after I paid my £1 and requested this (I have all the proof they signed for my letter etc..) and I will be making this complaint against their directors, in their line of business ignorance is NO excuse, the section 289 infers that such conduct is extortion via threat, and to actually attempt to go to court without providing this information upon request is considered perjurous and obstructive to the defendants case.
I will insist the police investigate this matter and turn my evidence over to them.
Anyway, off the hook, but NOT finished with Lowell by a long chalk. I'm going after them.

Anyway, here is my defence submitted, and as not to affect the criminal complain I have edited parts, but it is a good reflection:

#######
#######
##########
#####
### ###

08/12/06

RE: case no. ########## MR ## #####

DEFENCE OF ALL OF ABOVE CLAIM:

DEAR REGISTRAR,

This claim originates from Lowell Associates in Leeds. They are a debt-purchase business, who buy debts from Banks etc. that those banks or their debt recovery agents cannot recover, or do not wish to pursue. This is a practice imported from the USA in the last few years. These debts are sold usually for a small fraction of their headline value, as often have been 'written off' by the original creditor (as is the case with this particular claim.) The banks will sell these accounts having written them off, as even a very small percentage obtained from the debt purchaser is preferable to nothing. The debt purchase companies will also use tactics (as you will see later in this defence summary) that the High Street banks, for obvious reasons, would wish to distance themselves from.

Companies such as Lowell will buy these debts for very low prices, even if technically statute-barred, as they work on a 'pitch and miss' basis, which means even if they only successfully collect say half of the accounts they buy, the profits are substantial. Some debtors they may never trace, some they will trace and the debtor will not be aware of his rights under the 1974 CCA or the 1980 LA and will thus feel compelled to act according to the Lowell intimidation letters, thus waiving their rights.

Lowell will offer 'deals' for far less than the debt is supposed to be worth thus confirming the very low price they have paid for it, or confirming the fact (as in this case) that they know the debt is statute-barred so any amount they can make that effects a profit is a bonus, as they know they cannot enforce the debt in Court. I find this statement is supported by their willingness to 'settle for less'; surely if the debt was enforceable they would, being a business, try to
retrieve the whole amount that they allege is owed, rather than take substantially less?

Lowell have also represented in earlier bullying letters that failure to respond "could result in the defendant having to explain their finances in Court,
having a charge put on their home, having an attachment order on their earnings or being visited by bailiffs." This is a direct breach of the OFT guidelines for debt collection, as Lowell fail to mention that these are ENFORCEMENT measures only applicable IF judgement is found against defendant, then IF the defendant breaches that judgement, and then IF the court agrees to enforcement and IF the defendant doesn't apply for the enforcement to be suspended/set aside. I will be reporting this to the FSA who license these people.

I first heard of this matter at the end of October this year, and heard it from my ex-partner at my old address, and replied to Lowell not acknowledging the debt, and pointing out my new postal address as above.

In spite of this letter, Lowell have continued to harass my old address with letters, forwarded by my ex-partner to myself. They have also, on 13/11 issued this County Court summons to my old address. I have behaved honourably (I could have had it sent back 'undelivered' meaning Lowell would then have had to trace me and use a Process Server as the Court will only send it once) and I asked it to
be forwarded to me and have responded to it. I believe this was deliberate on Lowell's part, hoping I would not receive it and getting the judgement in their favour by default, knowing that otherwise it would be unenforceable.
I am giving my word that I have had/made NO contact concerning this matter from the original creditor HSBC nor have paid any monies in respect of this alleged creditor/account in the last 6 years or more. This debt is statute barred, and information provided by word from a current HSBC employee also confirms it. This is why they wrote it off after 6 years and sold it to Lowell in May this year 2006. I believe Lowell know this too, and as a result HAVE BREACHED THE 1974 CONSUMER CREDIT ACT SEC.189 by NOT providing me with proof of original agreement(s) or statement of account(s) and proof of ownership of this account which I requested on 15/11/06 by sending the £1 fee, and which Lowell signed for on 16/11/06 It is also worth pointing out that under the same Act, if they proceed with Court action or legal process without supplying it within 30 days, it is considered malicious and perjurous and they are liable to criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment.

This is a serious breach on their part, and documentary support of my defence is therefore prejudiced by their failure to comply with the Act. I have credit card and bank statements to show my addresses for the last 6 years and 8 months, since February 2000. I have not made, nor received, any communication regarding this matter at any of those addresses, nor made any payments. Therefore I KNOW that Lowell cannot provide evidence to the contrary.

The fact that I have had credit cards/banks accounts registered at those addresses during this 6 year-plus period makes it surprising, that if the HSBC was trying to retrieve this alleged sum from the alleged debtor, that they or their collectors failed to trace him, especially for a fairly sizeable amount.

I have informed Lowell of this fact of statute-barring, and that I don't intend to make any payment to them as a result,and that their future behaviour may be construed as harassment in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Having failed to provide me with the documentary proofs detailed above within the statutory period, I can only assume that Lowell only issued this summons as a further progression of their intimidation process when I failed to accede to the demands of their initial ream of letters, which I first became aware of from my ex-partner at the end of October 2006.

I thus conclude (their ignoring of statutes aside) that this summons is vexatious unless they can absolutely prove otherwise. I also ask you to understand that if this defence letter is considered lacking in any way, that I cannot include supportive information as of yet, which only Lowell can supply me with, and should have done so legally at this juncture; it has now been 3 weeks since they took my £1 payment and request for these relevant and obligatory documents. It seems that they simply expect the Courts to rubber-stamp their demands. They have noticed I have an interest in a property (although it is in the process of being reassigned solely to my ex-partner, and has been since before this matter arose) and clearly expect to manipulate a charging order on it eventually. This is further proven by a
letter I was forwarded earlier this week (yet again sent to wrong address.) Now it seems, far from
COLLECTING money from me, Lowell and Friends want to LEND me some. This summons is progressing from the vexatious to the facetious.

I cannot believe that they would want to help in 'restructuring my finances' when they obviously allege that I'm some sort of bad debtor, unless that finance was secured on property! I think their intent is thus clear. I must also point out that they also use the alternative name 'Hamptons Legal' - if you read the small print at the bottom, 'Hamptons Legal' is simply a 'trading style' of Lowell themselves. A further attempt at official-looking intimidation.

To summarize my defence, I know this debt is statute barred, and in the spirit of the 1980 Limitation Act which has its intent in giving closure on old alleged debt matters, I am representing that this summons is vexatious simply because it is unenforceable and Lowell have failed to provide evidence to the contrary, and was made for intimidation rather than jurisprudence on Lowell's part.


I acknowledge that the court can still pass judgement against the alleged debtor even if repayment is unenforceable, but to what gain for Lowell? Spending money summonsing an alleged debtor to court simply to leave an unenforceable CCJ on their credit file for 6 years out of spite. I also respect that the Judge/Registrar can ignore the 1980 Limitation Act in extreme cases, i.e. the debt was procured by fraud, or the conduct of the debtor was dishonourable i.e. immediately drained all the funds as soon as the facility was granted then disappeared overseas etc. No representation of any such behaviour has or could be made by Lowell. It is simply an old written-off debt that they have purchased and have title to; well, they claim to have title to, myself not having received the requested proof of this within the staturtory 12 days.

I will be represented in court and will bring all the letters and documents to prove in totality my defence detailed here. I humbly request that this case is heard local to my accommodation, i.e. #########, or if not, ##########. I don't have the means to travel outside these towns at present.

Yours,



Mr. # #####

ADDENDUM: I checked my mail at the post box today and still have not received the documentation that they were legally obliged to supply me with by 18/11/06. As a result this defence is not as detailed as it otherwise would be. I have to submit this now under the terms of the summons, without this detail included in my defence summary. I sincerely apologise.

Lady_Dedlock

Fantastic! I am in the process of writing my own defence to Lowells on almost exactly the same grounds as you lowellsucks. I feel much more confident now!
Well done!

bestyman

I would really apreaciate some help here . I recently recieved a letter from a debt colection agency from a bank debt at least 5 years old but I cannot be certain its over 6 years old but it probably is . I was thinking it might be an idea to send them both letters ( or one letter with both points) stating that it is statute barred and also asking them to provide details of the credit agreement and sending them a pound.
My question is do I send a combined letter or one at a time and if so in what order .
Also can I clarify the six years is from the last time I made payment or wrote to them and not the last time they wrote to me at an incorrect adress?
Thanks in advance for any help

lowellsucks

bestyman wrote:

I would really apreaciate some help here . I recently recieved a letter from a debt colection agency from a bank debt at least 5 years old but I cannot be certain its over 6 years old but it probably is . I was thinking it might be an idea to send them both letters ( or one letter with both points) stating that it is statute barred and also asking them to provide details of the credit agreement and sending them a pound.
My question is do I send a combined letter or one at a time and if so in what order .
Also can I clarify the six years is from the last time I made payment or wrote to them and not the last time they wrote to me at an incorrect adress?
Thanks in advance for any help

Yes, it doesn't include the last time they wrote to you at an incorrect address. If they tried to use that, simply have documents to hand that proved you weren't at that address when they allege they wrote, and it blows their argument out of the water.
I believe the onus is on the contact FROM THE CREDITOR, via letter not phone call, also any payment made by the creditor is construed as written contact. The reason is obvious; unanswered letters and unprovable phone calls do not constitute provable contact.

Mrmagooooooo_2

Hi Peeps :-)

Ive visited 3 or 4 forums today with literally hundreds of posts regarding this company. I too have recived several letters claiming that i owe them x amount of money (bizzarely this amount always seems to change) anyway i urge you all to contact BBC's Watchdog programe.. if enough of us tell them about it im sure they would investigate them... anyway here are is the link...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/contact_finance.shtml

Lets all join together and show the whole of the UK what utter Bas£@£$s this company really are :T

Rusky28

hi

i have just recieved letter from MH saying that they are looking for me regarding a personal matter. Do i respond to it????????

Rusky28

Rusky28 vbmenu_register("postmenu_5984682", true);
Newbie MoneySaver


Join Date: Aug 2007
Post Count: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts



hi

i have just recieved letter from MH saying that they are looking for me regarding a personal matter. Do i respond to it????????