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

sourcrates

boo_star wrote: »

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.

nic_c wrote: »

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.

@boo_star, possibly, but at what cost, £255 for a setaside is a fair chunk of money to find if your a single mum, what if you know nothing of the debt, accounts opened by people in their ex partners names are getting more and more common, its seldom as cut and dried as you describe, you only need to look at all the complaints leveled at Lowell to see how big a problem this is.


@nic_c, agreed nic, there are always going to be those kind of folk around, but there are an equal measure who just can`t afford to pay, my ex-wife once described me as very stubbon, my kids do as well, and this kind of thing just irks me, as it is in most cases a deliberate act, the won`t pays can look after themselves, its the can`t pays that I worry about in these circumstances.

nic_c

Selector wrote: »

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.

Papers can be served to the last known address, which may be one you haven't been at for a long while, it is the debtors responsibility to keep creditors updated with address change. I am glad that you are taking a different tack on the defence as saying they were served to the wrong address won't dismiss the validity of the debt. Indeed if you have had letters to the correct address but chosen not to respond then if Lowell can show letters sent then the court would take a dim view of that too.

So have you just done an acknowledgement of service? You know that the defence needs putting in with 28 days of the date of service (an AoS just give an additional 14 days). If you don't they'll just a apply for a default judgement.

Selector

So a self-declared legal expert who is so very clear on the law is on here asking for advice. I don’t believe you.
It’s a bit sad how people react like this when they don’t like the advice. The insinuation that you didn’t need it anyway, and that you really know more than anyone on here just comes across as being childish
What’s the next step, not being patient enough to make a court win seem plausible so claiming the company settled?

I've never described myself as, "a legal expert". And don't think I ever would unless I became one. But to say anything less than I win cases in county court and that's only the few that I've not managed to get settled beforehand would be holding back. To say I've appeared in courts, in successful defence of others, three times this year would be true. Just as to say I did so five times last year, would also be true. Likewise, to deny I've worked on litigation cases in a corporate capacity would be a dilution of the truth.
You're scepticism is your prerogative. Fortunately for me, I've not come here to prove anything to anyone. I came here for good advice and shared experiences and I've received some of both. Although outnumbered, sadly, by judgemental replies like yours.
I put it to you that what you lack is heart. You don't know me from Adam yet here you are attacking me and calling me a liar. You seem to struggle to accept that some of us who know a lot about a little are prepared, for no financial reward whatsoever, to help others less informed than ourselves. All in the full knowledge that there are real life, Big Brother-ish, bully corporations out there, doing very well, by exploiting the law and people who know little about it. And you simply can’t believe that people like me exist.
Go in peace, Still Dave. I know I will.

CakeCrusader

Sorry, but it's not the role of a McKenzie friend to "appear in courts, in successful defence of others". McKenzie friends are mostly unqualified lay people who are there to offer support. They do not, and they should certainly not, be there to defend others!! I certainly hope that you do not speak to litigants in the same way that you've spoken here, it's not the role of a McKenzie friend to give legal advice, nor is it their job to encourage the litigant to seek a court remedy vexatiously or to waste the court's time, which appeared to be what you're planning to do here.

Selector

Thanks, nic_c.
I do credit checks on myself twice a year. I know I've never lived at my Mother's address (except as a child) and my credit records reflect this. The claimant knows where I do live as, previously, they were successfully sending correspondence to me, at my correct address. None of which has ever been returned to sender and all of which was responded to.
The validity, or otherwise, of the debt does not form part of my defence. Instead, my defence is in contract law.
I'm simply astounded that a company as large as Lowell would, so blatantly, be trying on such underhandedness as to attempt to secure summary judgements by giving courts incorrect addresses not associated with defendants. According to The Ministry of Justice, to knowingly do so is contempt of court. I've learned that since starting this thread. And that's why I've brought the matter to the court's attention.

Selector

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 should be entitled to a defence".
Everybody is entitled to a defence and that is precisely what the claimant's actions have tried to circumnavigate. I'll say it again; it sends a chill up my spine that they are carrying on this way in what is increasingly beginning to look like standard practice.

Selector

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.

That is absolutely the question regarding the alleged debt and that will, ultimately, be decided by the court if the matter is not settled beforehand.

Selector

Yes. It’s a bit sad, in my opinion, people screaming blue murder about the principles when the fact is that they have reneged on a deal they have entered into and are wriggling around oooking for a loophole.

The OP in this case should know that he doesn’t get to unilaterally declare that a contract is void, stop paying, and have that be the end of it, and yet here we are with his bluster and sneering trying to convince himself and others that he is in the right.

What I know is that if anybody or any corporation told me they were terminating our contract because they thought I'd breached it, the first thing I'd do is ask them on what grounds they'd thought I'd breached it and ask for what evidence they had that I'd done so.
This is not what happened with this claimant. Instead, when I told them the grounds for my own claim of breach of contract (before they'd even asked), they started trying to contact [sic] me at an address I've not lived at since I was a child.
".....bluster and sneering"????
I'll stay peaceful despite your thinly veiled efforts to provoke an outraged response.

[Deleted User]

So OP, do you owe this or debt or not?

Only you can confirm this.

jonesMUFCforever

So I see you took my advice then (sic)!

I think you will lose.