They are cornered I got one like that yesterday, in court today they tried to use it to reduce the costs.

The DDJ said the order will be typed-up and sent through the post.

I meant they decided not to contest may application for set aside.

I am sure the big guns will be here soon to give advice. Speaking from experience of dealing with SDs first of all you need to consider applying for a set aside. If I were you I would not agree to any payment arrangement unless you can afford it and without putting a strain on your finances. Now that SD has been served the only way this can be stopped is by you applying for a set aside or the creditor withdrawing it (unlikely). They got you into a panic and thats exactly what they want. The application for a set aside should be done within 18 days from when you were served the SD, the application is sent to the county court stated in the SD. You need to have a copy of the agreement sent to you, chances are there is gaping holes in the agreement. You need to draft a letter to AMEX and ask for the copy of the executed credit card agreement including the terms and conditions in force at the time when the account was opened (this is essential and must be done immediately). There is a statutory £1 fee payable to AMEX for the above information. You can use this template: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?414-CCA-request-letter Try to panic, but not having this set aside could be disastrous. I have just had two SDs set aside so it is possible and my cases were 50/50.

Lowell conceded again.

Thank you. I made an out of time application to set aside about 3 weeks ago. I am waiting to see what the court says. I menioned in the witness statement that it was an abuse of process to re-issue an SD with debts already dealt with in an earlier SD hearing. I also treated it as if it was a fresh SD and argued the points I argued in the first SD. I am going for costs but shall I apply now or wait after the court has accepted my out of time application. I am thinking the court might decide this one without a hearing.Yesterday I also received a letter giving me optuions to pay the money. Option one is a 25% discount the other option is to pay 25% and then rest in instalmentsI have written to them and pointed out that an application to set aside the SD is with court. My wife thinks I should not pay them a penny because of their sneaky attitude.

Hi all, I have a question, can a set aside SD be re-issued again at a later date? or can a debt on an SD that was set aside be put onto another SD?

If they go for bankruptcy they will get absolutely nothing, but because they are running an evil empire I have to fight them to the end.

I read somewhere, they are making at least 60 people bankrupt every week. I am not sure of the figures. Lowell are strange creatures they actually sent in a solicitor to concede a set aside application. I n the morning my wife received a further statement from BW Legal meant to used in today's hearing through the post. The solicitor was hammered by by the judge, basically she felt short of calling her incompetent.

Unclebulgaria, I will do exactly what you mentioned above. I want to make sure they don't get a penny.

Citizen B, yes I thought the second one was just putting right an error they made in the first one, because everything is the same apart from the O2 debt.

The judge implied that I need to something about it. She wasn't happy with what Lowell had done. I think I need to set it aside on the basis that essentially Lowell are circumventing the rules by repeatedly issuing the same SD even though it has been set aside. I need further advice please.

Lowell simply conceded the first one and agreed to the set aside. But the issue here is, the two SDs are essentially one thing, the DDJ touched on it.

Now the not so good news. Lowell issued two Statutory demands. The first one was dated 18 January 2013 and it is the one that has been set aside. It has 5 debts the total listed is £2324.21. The total debts listed do not add up to total sum mentioned above. The second one was in their bundle they served after a court order. It is dated 1 February 2013, it contains all the other debts in the first one plus 1 debt from O2. The total is £2324.21 same as the first one, all six debts add up to that sum. Now the problem is this, the DDJ said she can only deal with SD of 18 Jan and that the one of 1 Feb is out of time and Lowell can petition for my bankruptcy. How does that work out? I need to make an out-of-time application for set-aside. Please help!

Dear all, Its good and bad news. The Statutory Demand has been set aside with costs.

This case was put on one of the threads by 42man might be useful on the issue of interest rate. PHOENIX RECOVERIES (UK) LTD SARL v DEVENDRA KOTECHA (2011) CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Lloyd LJ, Patten LJ) 26/1/2011 A creditor had failed to satisfy a debtor's request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.78(1) for a copy of a credit card agreement as it had not, on the evidence, included the original, actual terms and conditions in respect of interest rates then in force. The creditor was, accordingly, not entitled to proceed to enforce the debt under s.78(6). "Interest rates were a term of central importance in credit card agreements. There was a strong case that the interest charges which would have been specified in the terms and conditions when B and K made the agreement in 1998 were those in the leaflet and not those which appeared in P's evidence. Under s.78(1), a creditor was required to set out the actual, original terms and conditions of the agreement at the time it was made. In those circumstances, P had not proved that that obligation was satisfied, and it was therefore not entitled to progress to enforce the debt against K under s.78(6)."

BW Legal, lowells representatives have been calling, they left a message saying I should ring back and discuss proposals with them. I am not sure what to do here, any advice is grealty appreciated.

Caro, I handed in my witness statement yesterday which was the due date. To date Lowell have not sent me any default notices. Hearing is next week.

I hope they back down, but I will need them to pay my costs.

rc14, in my case it will be hard for them to deny that they did not get the court order because their representative was in court when the judge made the order in front of all of us. In fact he tried to ask the judge for an extension of time only and the judge said we are going to be specific and she made a list of documents she wanted them to supply.

Here is the order from the DJ, "..................in respect of each alleged debt referred to in SD together with notice of assignment in respect of each alleged debt and proof of when they were served and copies of the default notices"

In the initial hearing the Judge ordered Lowell to produce proof of SERVICE of the alleged NOAs. Up to date they have not done so.

rc14, how can I get a print out of of the dates Lowell claim to have posted the NOAs? Your help is greattly appreciated.

Thank you people I am getting more and more confident and I should be able to put together a robust defence. I am 100% certain that we did not receive a recorded NOA from Lowell or the original creditors.

Debt 1 The respondent alleges that a notice of assignment was served. This is disputed.The Applicant did not receive any letter of notice of assignment concerning this alleged debt. The Applicant invites the respondent to provide evidence of serving the letter of assignment as ordered by the court. The Applicant has not been provided with a statement of account showing how the sums said to be payable have accrued. Debt 2 I did not receive any letter of notice of assignment concerning this alleged debt. I invite the respondent to provide evidence for sending a registered letter to my address or in person. The Respondent alleges that some letters were sent to my address, I did not receive them. The respondent has now produced these letters after a court order but they have never been received at my home address. The Applicant has not been provided with a statement of account showing how the sums said to be payable have accrued. The Applicant cannot even begin to consider what if any of the sums stated in the demand are payable, until the Respondent provides the aforesaid statements the Applicant is unable to consider any potential defence of set off that the Applicant may be able to raise. Debt 3(I have admitted for this one) The respondent alleges that a notice of assignment was served. The respondent has failed to abide by the court order. The respondent has failed to provide a credit agreement or a default notice. Debt 4 I did not receive any letter of notice of assignment concerning this alleged debt. I invite the respondent to provide evidence for sending a registered letter to my address or in person. I did not receive any notice of assignment in the format prescribed by law and served in the prescribed manner from the respondent, and I have asked the other members of my family if they signed for such a document; they have assured me that they did not. Debt 5 The respondent has failed to comply with the court order of 02 April 2013 and Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There are numerous breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which require proper investigation. Details of the breaches are set out below. The applicant believes that the bankruptcy Court is not the appropriate place for such investigations to take place. This credit agreement is not enforceable on the grounds that all of the prescribed terms within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were not contained in the document signed by the Applicant. Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows: “(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,” I must stress that the document itself must contain ALL THE PRESCRIBED TERMS. I refer to the judgement of Lord Justice Tuckey in Wilson & anr v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 It must be noted that the Terms and Conditions were never supplied either at the time of signing or sent to my home address. The Respondent has not provided signed Terms and Conditions with his bundle that is because they were never supplied at the time of application. APR The APR was varied without notice. Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 78A Duty to give information to debtor on change of rate of interest (1)Where the rate of interest charged under a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is to be varied, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing of the matters mentioned in subsection (3) before the variation can take effect. Under section H of the Agreement the creditor is required to give notice reasonable notice of any changes to the agreement. The respondent has not provided any evidence to show that a letter was served to notify a change in the APR. Variation of APR from 25.9% to 27.9% has no effect and makes the agreement unenforceable. Default Notice The creditor failed to provide a default notice as ordered by the court. Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 87 Need for default notice. (1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,— (a)to terminate the agreement, or (b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or ©to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) to enforce any security. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. Therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimant’s case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Debt 6 It must be noted that this alleged debt is not part of the statutory demand issued on 18 January 2013. Nevertheless, the Respondent has failed to comply with the court order to serve a notice of assignment by 30 April 2013. The Respondent has failed to supply any statements.