HELP Lowell Portfolio CCJ

MuddyFunster

Thanks for the in-put everyone - I hadn't noticed, but Welcome Finance actually closed down in 2009, or at least stopped lending and have been actively winding down their book.


Given that that the last loans they wrote (assuming 5 year max term) ended last year this could be the last roll of the dice to squeeze some money out of their aged debtors.


Doesn't mean mine is statute barred of course, but it does at least mean to me they're less likely to have paperwork and more likely to be trying their hand with nothing to lose. Court Acknowledgement, CPR and CAA off in the post recorded delivery today. Fingers crossed.

MuddyFunster

Sorry, one more question - I hadn't planned to sign either the CPR or the CAA in case they use this as an acknowledgment of the debt - good or bad idea?

sourcrates

MuddyFunster wrote: »

Sorry, one more question - I hadn't planned to sign either the CPR or the CAA in case they use this as an acknowledgment of the debt - good or bad idea?

There's no requirement for either to be signed, but they may play silly !!!!!!s with you for not doing so, and send them back.

MuddyFunster

Hi everyone - I thought I would come back with an update.

I sent the CCA and DCA on Monday - Bryan Carter wrote back twice - one letter to tell me it's not statue barred and another refusing to send me details as it's likely to be handled in the small claims ave.

The guys at Legal Beagles have been amazing - but could I ask a question to the MSE collective!

Under advisement I spoke to Welcome today - they finally found my details which were archived - the last payment or contact they had from me was in Aug 2008 - but they didn't lodge the default until Feb 2010 - is this now SB?

sourcrates

MuddyFunster wrote: »

Under advisement I spoke to Welcome today - they finally found my details which were archived - the last payment or contact they had from me was in Aug 2008 - but they didn't lodge the default until Feb 2010 - is this now SB?

If that's the case, then statute barred would be the correct defence, yes.

skyshadow

MuddyFunster wrote: »

Thanks for the help,


I spoke with Nationaldebt line last night - they're pretty sure that Lowell are 'fishing' hoping I won't reply and that they'll get the judgement by default. It's 90% likely that my debt is Statute Barred, and if it's not, there's a 90% change they won't be able to prove it.


Unfortunely is sounds like a game of bluff - if it does go to a hearing, whoever loses will be inline for £1000 of court fees at least. That sucks.


I'm off now to legal beagles for template letters and such.

Not always. Small claims costs are not automatically recoverable so it all depends on the judge. I lost a claim and was not subject to costs as the judge hated the other side and made it clear they brought alot of the problems on themselves.

I lost another claim where all I had to pay were the other sides travel costs of £90. Generally speaking if youre a litigant in person (unrepresented lay person) and the other side try claiming for legal costs IF they win the judge won't allow it as there was no valid reason why they need to shell out money for legal representatives.

A few other options from someone who has shaken Lowell down for over £2000 through the courts is to judge if they will travel all the way to a hearing and if they have a good case. If you don't think they do have a good case you can apply for to strike out their claim which costs around £80 and will stall the claim needing a strike out hearing first which they will need to attend and will cost them money and further twist their arm into dropping matters.

There are certain grounds you can make a strike out app for under the civil procedure rules namely if they have made false claims or ignored alternative dispute resolution (writing to you first to try to resolve matters)

Just a little food for thought for you

fatbelly

MuddyFunster wrote: »

Under advisement I spoke to Welcome today - they finally found my details which were archived - the last payment or contact they had from me was in Aug 2008 - but they didn't lodge the default until Feb 2010 - is this now SB?

It would appear to be, yes.

Did you get Welcome to confirm this in writing?

B Carter have been known to make things up - still, one step at a time, and the guys at legalbeagles know their way around.

fermi

I see Lowells are arguing the 6 years runs from the issue of the default.

A false premise, but one that could easily hoodwink a judge not overly familiar with this sort of thing, or swing one that is determined to make a CCJ no matter, so you need to counter that.

fatbelly

They're going to cite BMW vs Hart. I copied CAB comment on the case at the time here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62859763&postcount=16

It's not going to apply if this is a normal unsecured loan, which I assume it is.

Tinaroo

I have having problems with Lowell too. They have now frozen a defaulted account whilst they 'investigate' my allegations. It has been almost 7 weeks since they said their investigations had started and I haven't heard a thing. Is this because they have nothing to go on or is it because they are piling the evidence high?