Desperate!!

monsterlane

Hi there i posted the other week about lowell threatening me with court action. I took out vanquis card in 2008 to help pay for my transport for work over festive period. I didnt have a bank card at the time so sent him cash special delivery so he can pay through his bank, i later found out he didnt pay and the account went to Lowells!

I was given advice to send a statute barred letter and i did and got a response off there solicitors, here it is,

We have recieved your letter dated 1 December 2105 (yes they did put that) in relation to the claim against you. In this letter you state the you believe the debt is statute barred as the last time you made payment was ove 6 years ago.

Our records show that although you did make last payment on june 15 2009, the default date for the account was 31 august 2012. The time to bring a claim against you for this debt is 6 years from defaultdate therefore our clients are well within their legal rights to issue this claim.

I recieved claim forms over the weekend from the northampton court where i have to fill my income and defence and response pack. What would you kind people suggest i do next? The default date is what lowell put on my credit file in 2012 not vanquis, im sure vanquis wouldnt wait nearly 4 years to default it? Thank you guys and all the best..

antrobus

monsterlane wrote: »

...I recieved claim forms over the weekend from the northampton court where i have to fill my income and defence and response pack. What would you kind people suggest i do next? The default date is what lowell put on my credit file in 2012 not vanquis, im sure vanquis wouldnt wait nearly 4 years to default it? Thank you guys and all the best..

Your defence would be that you last acknowledged the debt, as in made payment, on the 15th June 2009, and therefore the debt is now statute barred. Since the other party has already confirmed in writing that "Our records show that although you did make last payment on june 15 2009", it shouldn't be too difficult to convince a court that is the case.

I don't think it matters one little bit when Vanquis decided to place your account in default, because that does not consist an acknowledgement of the debt on your part.

sourcrates

As said above, they are talking absolute rubbish, the default date has no bearing whatsoever on the accounts statute barred status.

The clock runs from the "cause of action date", that's the date a creditor "could" of taken legal action against you for non payment.

That is not nessessairily the default date.

I really cannot believe they have actually put this in writing to you, yet more lies and half truths from Lowell, it begs the question, do they actually think what they have written is correct, or are they just ignorent of the actual law ?

You should respond to the court papers and site "the time for collection of this account has run out, and is time barred under the limitation act 1980" .

This would constitute a full defence to there claim.

Info here : https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/25%20EW%20Time%20limits%20for%20recovering%20debts/Default.aspx

If they presented the same evidence they are relying on in the letter, to a judge, they would be laughed out of court !!

monsterlane

Thank you Antrobus/sourcrate . I'm sorry the reply letter i got was from lowells solicitors Cohen and crameh. I've never gone through anything like this so im finding it really stressfull, national debt line said I should get legal advice but I think he let slip that my defence sounds good as he said its the last action not the default date.

So do you guys think i should fill the defence form? also do you think I should send cohen&crameh a letter in response? thank you so much people i really appreciate it. Thank you.

sourcrates

monsterlane wrote: »

So do you guys think i should fill the defence form? also do you think I should send cohen&crameh a letter in response? thank you so much people i really appreciate it. Thank you.

its EXTREAMLY important that you do fill in your responce, and in a timely manner, as strict time limits apply here.

I believe if you acknowledge service online, you give yourself 28 days in which to respond, instead of 14.

There is no harm in writing to Lowells tame solicitors advising them that there case is a crock of !!!!!, but don't expect much in responce, you should concentrate on your defence now, which is, as previously stated, a full defence to there claim.

monsterlane

Thank you so much my friend you have cheered me up as ive been very worried and i guess thats why companies like these are still around praying on peoples lack of knowledge in debt. I will make a defence and i will acknowledge it and I think i might send lowells and solicitors a letter again to hopefully make them think again, do you have any suggestions what i could put? thank you very much again.:)

sourcrates

monsterlane wrote: »

Thank you so much my friend you have cheered me up as ive been very worried and i guess thats why companies like these are still around praying on peoples lack of knowledge in debt. I will make a defence and i will acknowledge it and I think i might send lowells and solicitors a letter again to hopefully make them think again, do you have any suggestions what i could put? thank you very much again.:)

Yes I do, it's really short, and really simple, and would be exactly the same as your defence to there action against you:


Dear tame Solicitor,

Time limit for actions founded on tort.

Limitations act 1980, part one, section 2, states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The cause of action date for this account was the 15th June 2009.

See you in court.

Monsterlane

monsterlane

Thank you sourcrates i think i will send that letter you know to Lowell and the solicitors. I have just acknowledgement of service and i intend to defen all of claim to the court online which gives me 28 days, I will send them all letter and hope they see sense and admit its statute barred. Do you know what my next step should be? I'm still worried as i've never been to court or anything like that before! many thanks again you are both fantastic!!

sourcrates

monsterlane wrote: »

Thank you sourcrates i think i will send that letter you know to Lowell and the solicitors. I have just acknowledgement of service and i intend to defen all of claim to the court online which gives me 28 days, I will send them all letter and hope they see sense and admit its statute barred. Do you know what my next step should be? I'm still worried as i've never been to court or anything like that before! many thanks again you are both fantastic!!

You don't physically go to court, it's all done online and/or by post.

Once they realise you are aware of the law, and that they are wrong, they may backtrack, or they may still pursue it, you can't quantify stupid I'm afraid !!!

Roll the dice and see what happens, you have an excellent defence, actually confirmed by the other side, in writing, so I wouldn't worry about it to be honest.

monsterlane

Hi sourcrates do you think this looks alright?

Cohen Cramer solicitors.
Suite 1B Joseph's well
Hanover walk
Leeds
LS3 1AB




14/12/15


Dear Cohen cramer,

Time limit for actions founded on tort.

Limitations act 1980, part one, section 2, states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

The cause of action date for this account was the 15th June 2009.

After seeking legal advice I intend to defend this claim and all of the documentations have been submitted to the court.

See you in court.

Yours sincerely

National_Debtline

Hi monsterlane


I would encourage you to edit and anonymise your post above, otherwise you're broadcasting a lot of personal data to the entire Internet.


The default date is irrelevant for the purposes of Lowell starting court action against you. What matters is whether six years have passed since the cause of action and the last payment/written acknowledgement you made - the creditor themselves appear to have admitted that this is the case. If you now defend this claim accordingly, Lowell will be expected to provide evidence that you are wrong.


Dennis
@natdebtline