Lowell/JD Williams

steve811

sourcrates wrote: »

Before you do that, bear in mind a recon agreement is perfectly acceptable.

It does not, and never had to be, the exact, original agreement.

I know, but this agreement has no dates, there is no signature and they have sent me two "agreements" only one of which is the one in place at the time. Neither agreement mentions the PPI which was in place at the time.

Arleen

steve811 wrote: »

I know, but this agreement has no dates, there is no signature and they have sent me two "agreements" only one of which is the one in place at the time. Neither agreement mentions the PPI which was in place at the time.

It's evidence enough. Especially since they have been in touch with you before about the liability and you were making payments on the debt. Cannot suddenly decide that you know nothing about it.

If that is your only defence then your best option is to admit the debt and ask for payment plan if you cannot pay it in full right now.. This way at least the extra costs will end with initial court costs, without costs for hearing and then, if you still won't pay, collection.

sourcrates

steve811 wrote: »

I know, but this agreement has no dates, there is no signature and they have sent me two "agreements" only one of which is the one in place at the time. Neither agreement mentions the PPI which was in place at the time.

There is no requirement for an agreement to be signed, surprisingly, and the other things you mention are all open to legal argument, you would need a solicitors help with this.

The law on credit agreements is extremely complex, some creditors even pull out of court cases if there is doubt to the validity of the agreement, as the cost to argue these things in court could end up been more than the initial debt is worth.

I would reassess your moves here, if that is your only defense, you are likely to lose, and end up with more costs, much better to admit the debt, and agree a suitable repayment on it.

fatbelly

Don't miss the timescale - you need to either respond or acknowledge service within 14 days of service, which is 14 + 5 days from issue date.

If this was an agreement that started in 2007 or earlier, there is a possibility that no original agreement was signed, as JDW were a bit lax at that time.

sourcrates

fatbelly wrote: »

Don't miss the timescale - you need to either respond or acknowledge service within 14 days of service, which is 14 + 5 days from issue date.

If this was an agreement that started in 2007 or earlier, there is a possibility that no original agreement was signed, as JDW were a bit lax at that time.

If it was opened prior to 2007, then a recon would not suffice, unless the prescribed terms were included also, you haven't said when the account was opened OP ?

steve811

The account was opened July 2001, does that make any real difference? The recon does include the terms but how do I know they were the terms in place if they are not dated?

sourcrates

steve811 wrote: »

The account was opened July 2001, does that make any real difference? The recon does include the terms but how do I know they were the terms in place if they are not dated?

It might make a world of difference.

Suggest you post on this website as quickly as possible, see what they recommend :

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?105-Received-a-Court-Claim

They are the legal experts and can help with credit agreements.

fatbelly

steve811 wrote: »

The account was opened July 2001, does that make any real difference? The recon does include the terms but how do I know they were the terms in place if they are not dated?

It potentially makes a huge difference.

I started doing debt advice in 2000 and at that time JD Williams never bothered with getting clients to sign an agreement. They would sometimes send one out (AFTER the account was opened) but if the customer didn't sign and return it (and why would they) then they never bothered.

Of course under s127(3) CCA this rendered the whole thing unenforceable and they would quickly admit this if pushed.

They did sort this out by 2007 and s127(3) itself was repealed on 6 April 2007, but not retrospectively, so you do potentially have a defence.

Lowell may well argue (spuriously) that of course a valid agreement would have been signed because it always was, not that they would really know what another organisation's policy was, 11 years before they bought the account.

This all needs to be argued quite carefully and legalbeagles is a good shout.

steve811

Many thanks, have acknowledged the claim and asked for Lowells to send me the paperwork, tried to log onto Moneyclaim online to see if I need to do more but cannot get in (password incorrect) so will try again on Monday to see if I need to file anything before the papers arrive. Lowells responded to my offer of £250 with "we have been instructed to recover the full amount" so no way out there. Used the letter from Legalbeagles to require Lowell to respond, they have acknowledged but not provided the documents yet.