Made bankrupt by Lowells

saschia

Hi

I told them before I started recording that I will be recording this convo - not sure if that is the same thing. :rotfl:

saschia

Hi again all
Just wondering if anyone had a chance to read my previous post as not had any opinions


Hi all - this question relates to my original posts on this thread about my bankruptcy.

I was just wondering if anyone can give me advice on what they think.......

I now have my bankruptcy annulment date with the courts - 19th September - however I received a letter today from the Insolvency
Service with a copy letter to the courts saying.....

The Official Receiver does not intend any disrespect to the court but does not propose to attend the hearing so as to save costs.
The Official Receiver would however request that a provision be made for the payment of his costs in any annulment order, if one were to be made. The Official Receivers costs to date are £161.

Would I be jumping the gun in assuming that this could be a good sign that the annulment may be granted?

Any help or advice much appreciated as usual.

fermi

Well, I would say the OR not opposing it, but wanting their costs paid, is a neutral thing regarding any potential outcome. I don't think it signifies either way.

saschia

Hi everyone......I am feeling very sick right now and could really do with some advice since my previous posts regarding bankruptcy and Lowell

I have got my annulment date for next Thurs 19th Sept = I today received the pack from Lowell sent to me and the courts with they're defence and they are fighting the application from me that the order ought not to have been made.

I feel they are going to wipe the floor with me as they are stating things like -
I am hiding behind the Consumer Credit Act to evade paying debts and abusing the process. I am only adopting technical arguments to seek annulment.
They have stated that the 3-Mobile account is a service contract and therefore not regulated by the CCA - even though I had a mobile phone with it and not just service.

I have received copies of the two sworn affadavits - one from the 'delivery' of the Stat Demand and the other from the 'Petition' - both of which I dispute having received as they have allegedly been posted through the letterbox. However, on the affadavits they are witnessed by the same person, David Clark - but the signatures and writing of date etc is completely different of both - I therefore think that the same person has not signed these? Can anyone sign the affadavit on behalf of the process server or does it have to be that person.

I have received today for the first time ever the copy of letters from Lowell/Red/Hamptons which they claim to have sent in the past - most of the information is missing on these ie - one will have no date or amount, the next will not have any addresses, then the other won't have contact details or account number - all just ommitted with silly symbols or something??

The Notice of Assignments from the companies of the original debt look to be just made up by Lowell - No headed paper for Vanquis, No headed paper for Shop Direct, contact details at the bottom of the Notice are for Red debt. The list goes on.

My Vanquis card number is incorrect on the paperwork and at some point Lowell must have contacted Vanquis pretending to be me and asking for credit agreement proof - I had never seen this letter until today, however the account number from Vanquis confirming the digital signature is different to that that Lowell are issuing bankruptcy for? The account number on the digital signature itself is different also - but matches the letter.

For the 3-mobile account they have sent my last bill from 3 and state this is sufficient that there was a debt, however, I do keep disputing this account is owed.

They are stating that I am put to strict proof to show that I have asked for any notice of assignments before and include the £1 fee as they feel I have not - I do have a recorded telephone conversation of me asking and the operator stating they would be sent out in 24 hrs, I did send a cheque off requesting it in writing also, but I do not have proof I sent this and now presume Lowell are happy to deny they had it as the cheque is not banked either.

{Please help me xxxx

skintandfat

You need to establish that Lowells have been dishonest.

1. Require them to provide call recordings between you and them
2. Provide copies of your call recordings (ask the court if you can use them first)


Remember that it IS NOT ILLEGAL for someone to record calls


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/consumer/advice/faqs/prvfaq3.htm


See the Ofcom link

titchykins001

hi op,

how did you get on?