Lowell/Hamptons Statutory demand - old EGG debt *** WON + COSTS *** 2 years later - SD Issued again !!

[vinegarvera]

Came in from work nice and early to attend "my appointment" with the Lewis Group, to issue the SD, and made sure my dog was nice and hungry lol! However, they failed to turn up, and there is nothing in the letterbox.....

[42man]

Good...pity you don't have a witness or a cctv recording...

[vinegarvera]

Do you think I will get one via recorded delivery- or was it all hot air?

[42man]

They may still try to deliver it....

[vinegarvera]

Well my husband and son were here to witness the nothingness that happened...

[vinegarvera]

"I have been directed to serve you with a Statutory Demand issued under the Insolvency Act 1986 on behalf of Lowell Portfolio 1 Limited, the creditor.

 

I have already attended at your address on 25th July 2012 at 1325 hours and on Saturday 4th August 2012 at 0927 hours, without meeting you.

 

I have to inform you that I will attend at the address, as above on 9th August 2012 at 1800 hours for the purpose of serving you personally with such Statutory Demand.

 

Should the above appointment prove inconvenient I will endeavor to attend any other reasonabley convenient time or place you may suggest or a solicitor may accept service on your behalf. I can be contacted on 07968112381.

 

If you fail to keep the appointment or any other made in lieu thereof we propse to service you by putting a copy of the Statatory demand through your letterbox.

 

In the even of service by putting a copy of the statatory Demand through your letterbox I will do this on the day of the appointment and that will be the day of service if you do not attend the appointment, providing the appointment is before 16:30 hours, If the appointmentis after 16:30 hours, the day of service will be the next business day.

 

It is my duty to inform you that in the event of a Bankruptcy Petition being presented the Court will be asked to treat such service as service of the Demand on the debtor"

 

....and the bad grammar is their's not mine!

 

Feel like suing them for loss of earnings...

[42man]

Claim it back when you set aside the demand....

[citizenB]

So, had they been to your home on those two days?

[vinegarvera]

Well I had been in on Saturday and not seen them and then found little postcards in my letter box saying I had missed them, so yes, but I don't think they knocked on the door or rang the doorbell.

[vinegarvera]

Can I get my set aside ready before the SD is issued?

[citizenB]

Can I get my set aside ready before the SD is issued?

 

I guess you can, but you dont know what they are going to claim on the form, do you ?

[vinegarvera]

Can I get my set aside ready before the SD is issued?

 

True, I was presuming it would be the same as last time. Will wait and see...

[Bandit127]

If there is one thing I have learned (and I have so much to learn) from being on this forum in these last few days it is this.

 

Cases are won and lost on patience. The application of time - in the right and proper place. When it is short, lose patience and serve. When it is long - he who has the most patience wins. The skill of those in the art (and I see their posts daily) is in having patience and in knowing when to lose it. But mostly in having it - and keeping it.

[AndyOrch]

If there is one thing I have learned (and I have so much to learn) from being on this forum in these last few days it is this.

 

Cases are won and lost on patience. The application of time - in the right and proper place. When it is short, lose patience and serve. When it is long - he who has the most patience wins. The skill of those in the art (and I see their posts daily) is in having patience and in knowing when to lose it. But mostly in having it - and keeping it.

 

Very true Bandit patience is a virtue and if you are in a rush for results then litigation is not your game.

 

Andy

[MrHat]

So true

[42man]

any update yet Vinegarvera ?

[vinegarvera]

Not a peep from them 42 man...

[lilly white]

well..................we are still here

[vinegarvera]

I know, you have always been there. I really do appreciate it!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Notwithstanding the past history in this case, I'm sure that Lowell, by threatening an SD, but not actually delivering it are in breach of OFT Guidance - applying psychological pressure.

[vinegarvera]

Hi Scarlet, I do feel they should be reported to the OFT for this, how would one word the complaint?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Something like:

 

On (date) I was served with a Statutory Demand by Lowell. I applied to set aside the SD in the xxxxx County Court on (date) Lowell failed to appear at the hearing, or to submit any documentation, and the Judge, having heard my case, set the SD aside and awarded costs against Lowell. Lowell failed to pay the costs within the time ordered by the Court.

 

At no time have I acknowledged any debt to Lowell, and despite numerous requests, they have failed to supply any evidence that I am liable to them, either prior to the issue of the first SD, or since.

 

Subsequently, on 25 July and 04 Aug this year, cards were left at my house by (name of server), stating that they had attempted to serve me with a further SD relating to the same matter, that they would attend again on 09 August, and that if I was not at home the SD would be put in the letterbox.

 

On 09 August I waited at home all day. No SD was served, either in person, through the letterbox or by post.

 

I subsequently emailed Lowell on (date) querying their action. I had a template reply to say that they were investigating, but to date they have failed to respond in any meaningful way.

 

It seems to me that Lowell ought reasonably to be aware that their threats of issuing a further SD would cause anxiety and distress, and that their failure either to issue the SD when they said they would, or within a reasonable time, has been calculated to apply psychological pressure to me, contrary to the debt Collection Guidance. Indeed, it may well be considered that, the matter having been dealt with at Court, Lowell's continued pursuit of the alleged debt, absent any evidence whatever that I am liable to them for it, is also oppressive and unreasonable, and their use of SDs generally is highly questionable, particularly as, their failure to produce documents at Court, and failure to appear at Court, shows contempt for and and abuse of the legal process and is simply being used as a debt collection tool.

 

I am aware that the OFT does not deal with individual complaints from consumers. However, in my view Lowell's behaviour calls into question their fitness to hold a Consumer Credit Licence and I would be grateful if the above information could be taken into account when dealing with any licencing issue.

 

Yours etc.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just to add, I would also make a formal complaint to Lowell. Address it to Sara de Tute, Compliance Director.

[vinegarvera]

Excellent! Thanks Pimps!

[unclebulgaria67]

I had dealings with Lowells regarding a relatives debts. Letters were sent recorded to their CEO and they ignored. Two years later, when a further complaint to them was necessary, they managed to find the letters and admitted it, paying compensation. If the CEO or his office do not deal with complaints when they are received, shows that they are not really interested and that current compliance rules are severely lacking. If they were regulated by the FSA and they regularly failed to respond to complaint correspondence, they could be fined. Under OFT licence rules. they can pretty much please themselves.