Court documents sent to Mother's and not my address, 'deliberately'

Selector

The OP seems aware that all previous correspondence was being returned "gone away". Hardly helpfull to the cause. Seems as if the OP has backed themselves into a corner. Rather than the debt collection agency doing anything out of the ordinary.

I did nothing of the sort. I can hardly 'go away' from an address I've never been at. All correspondence for me at my Mother's was correctly returned:


"NOT AT THIS ADDRESS
Please, return to sender".


That was, and still is, a matter of fact. The claimant has and has had my up-to-date and correct address for over 8 years and continues to send correspondence there, correctly, for my other mobile phone accounts.

sourcrates

Sending court papers to an address they know you do not reside at, is a flagrent breech of protocol, you are correct in that assuption, I have had it confirmed by legal council on more than one occasion, its commonly done with the intention of obtaining a judgement in default, and the creditor most likley to commit such an indiscretion, is our old friend, Lowell portfolio one, who have form for this type of thing.

So I wish you good luck at court, this kind of thing needs to be stopped, Lowel and others regulaly cross the line and recieve no sanction whatsoever, these back door judgements are all too common, and are grossly unfair as you have no opportunity to defend yourself.

Selector

“Why would they respond to your notice when you are still within your AGREED minimum term? Originally posted by custardy ”



According to the OP they had already stopped the service and refused to reconnect it.

Thanks for your interjection, phillw.


I've had to trawl through emails and comp folders from 2017 to prepare and submit my defence. It turns out, my last contact was with a debt recovery firm called, Arvato who were 'representing' EE. Only after my breach of contract notice was served was the debt 'sold' to Lowell who should have satisfied themselves they were buying a valid debt. Instead, they simply started writing to me at an un-associated address.



I am still confident in my position.

PixelPound

sourcrates wrote: »

Sending court papers to an address they know you do not reside at, is a flagrent breech of protocol, you are correct in that assuption, I have had it confirmed by legal council on more than one occasion, its commonly done with the intention of obtaining a judgement in default, and the creditor most likley to commit such an indiscretion, is our old friend, Lowell portfolio one, who have form for this type of thing.

So I wish you good luck at court, this kind of thing needs to be stopped, Lowel and others regulaly cross the line and recieve no sanction whatsoever, these back door judgements are all too common, and are grossly unfair as you have no opportunity to defend yourself.

It depends if they know you do not reside at it. Most DMC do validate addresses before now because of the tightening up of the law as a result of the large amount of set aides due to them ignoring been told "not at this address". So if the OP has proof that the DMC have been told not at the address and has proof they are not at the address then that could be used - but it would not negate the validity of the debt. The OP may want to check their credit file incase they have an active account still reporting living at the address they don't

sourcrates

nic_c wrote: »

It depends if they know you do not reside at it. Most DMC do validate addresses before now because of the tightening up of the law as a result of the large amount of set aides due to them ignoring been told "not at this address". So if the OP has proof that the DMC have been told not at the address and has proof they are not at the address then that could be used - but it would not negate the validity of the debt. The OP may want to check their credit file incase they have an active account still reporting living at the address they don't

Lowell are notorious for chasing judgements in default, makes no odds if the debt is owed or not, everyone should be entitled to a defence, basic human right, Lowell do this on an industrial scale in order to maximise profits from the people who can least afford it, it’s wrong, it’s unethical, and they currently get away with it much of the time, no wonder they are worth 20.6 million quid, they were once a part of the Cabot group, Cabot sold them a few years ago, their annual turnover is around 75 million pounds, money earned with blood on their hands.

boo_star

sourcrates wrote: »

Sending court papers to an address they know you do not reside at, is a flagrent breech of protocol, you are correct in that assuption, I have had it confirmed by legal council on more than one occasion, its commonly done with the intention of obtaining a judgement in default, and the creditor most likley to commit such an indiscretion, is our old friend, Lowell portfolio one, who have form for this type of thing.

So I wish you good luck at court, this kind of thing needs to be stopped, Lowel and others regulaly cross the line and recieve no sanction whatsoever, these back door judgements are all too common, and are grossly unfair as you have no opportunity to defend yourself.

But the question is ultimately, "is the money owed?"

Whilst it's all well and good arguing about breaches of protocol and perhaps it's worthwhile getting certain companies hands slapped, it's still going to revolve around if the money was owed.

If it is, they will ultimately lose, if it isn't they'll win.

PixelPound

sourcrates wrote: »

Lowell are notorious for chasing judgements in default, makes no odds if the debt is owed or not, everyone should be entitled to a defence, basic human right, Lowell do this on an industrial scale in order to maximise profits from the people who can least afford it, it’s wrong, it’s unethical, and they currently get away with it much of the time, no wonder they are worth 20.6 million quid, they were once a part of the Cabot group, Cabot sold them a few years ago, their annual turnover is around 75 million pounds, money earned with blood on their hands.

Everyone has their right to defend themselves, however there are many "do owe, can pay, won't pay" that irks some people here - hence some of the replies so far. Yes these debt companies buy debt on an industrial scale and everyone has the right to make them jump through hoops to prove the debt is owed, especially if their profits are as you say, however someone justifying doing it because the Debt Collectors' go after people unable to pay is a bit rich when in reality (in best scooby doo villain voice) "I would have got away with it if it wasn't for these pesky DC's" is the real motive.

Support should be given to people who are in so much debt they can't pay, which is why there are free debt advice services out there that will either help by preparing financial statements for DC or even talking to DC's on their behalf and helping them minimise future debt. Support also needs to be given to those who don't owe the debt, after all it is hard to prove you have never taken out a product as you've never had dealings with said company, on how to make a debt company prove it is owed. However it seems most people disputing on here, know they owe it but either want the debt company to prove they do (I suppose make them earn the profit they will get) or want to know how to get out of paying by any means. Unfortunately that means that those genuine people who don't owe the debt get treated with great suspicion on here when they don't deserve it.

The moral thing is to pay what you if you can. Yes these DC's have mastered the skills of making profit out of debts that financial companies have deemed unprofitable to collect, but that is no excuse - my Council waste millions on stuff like "fact finding missions" or other stuff that does not affect me, doesn't mean I get out of paying council tax for the home I live in.

sambaird

sourcrates wrote: »

Sending court papers to an address they know you do not reside at, is a flagrent breech of protocol, you are correct in that assuption, I have had it confirmed by legal council on more than one occasion, its commonly done with the intention of obtaining a judgement in default, and the creditor most likley to commit such an indiscretion, is our old friend, Lowell portfolio one, who have form for this type of thing.

So I wish you good luck at court, this kind of thing needs to be stopped, Lowel and others regulaly cross the line and recieve no sanction whatsoever, these back door judgements are all too common, and are grossly unfair as you have no opportunity to defend yourself.

Thing is, The OP notes that any correspondence to his ‘correct address’ was also ignored and not responded to. While the OP notes that he has multiple other accounts with the same original firm, this would have no bearing on the account that is in dispute. I think any reasonable person would take the view where if correspondence is not responded to, then a DC has a right to locate the debtor and send them correspondence at an alternate address. While the OP says there is no link between him and his mothers address - the DC must have had evidence from somewhere to indicate that there was a link (despite what the OP says) - and lo and behold... correspondence to that address got the result of the OP responding to the matter!

I’m not disagreeing that in some cases, they do use this as a tactic, and this is unfair - but I don’t think in this specific case it is, as the OP has indicated that he has not responded to any correspondence at his ‘correct address’, but has responded to correspondence at a so called ‘incorrect address’.

Regardless - the OP - says that this issue hasn’t formed part of his defence. I’d very much like to see him publish what he has submitted to the court.

Selector

You should go to court, and put your argument to the judge that the papers are invalid as they went to your mother's house.

Once he/she has dealt with that matter, you can then get onto your somewhat flimsy sounding argument about the debt.

Thanx, Robatwork.


Back in 2008, it appears a change in law means that court papers can now be considered served, even at an address you are not at. The Ministry of Justice have acknowledged and recognised the potential flaws to the change and the openness of the change to abuse by unscrupulous claimants wishing to abuse the system. My post, number 3 in this thread, makes reference to the same.



I'm heading to court, having acknowledged the claim. As for the matter of any legitimate outstanding debt, 'flimsy' is an understatement of the claimant's claim.

Selector

Thank you, sourcrates!
Thank you, very much.
My experience tells me that things like this don't happen in isolation. And your reply confirms as much.
I said earlier that these sort of shenanigans send a veritable chill up my spine; if they can try it on with me, they must be getting away with it with many, many others....



Yes, indeed. This sort of underhandedness MUST be stopped!