Lowell claiming - old Very CAT debt***Claim Dismissed with Costs***

[mollywobbles]

Here's my first draft...

 

In the XXX County Court before District Judge XXXXXXXX

 

Claim number XXX

 

Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd V XXX

 

Defendants Skeleton Argument

 

29th October 2018

 

Introduction

 

This skeleton argument is filed in support of my defence dated 25th May 2018 and witness statement dated 13th October 2018 in this claim.

 

As the defendant in this case, I wish to respectfully make the following points in my defence:

 

1. During a period of general financial difficulties in 2017, I checked my credit rating and noticed that a default had been registered by Shop Direct against my name. This was surprising, as no notice of assignment or default notice had been received. No further correspondence was received from Shop Direct.

 

2. I sought clarification from Shop Direct by means of a Section 78 request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 requesting both a copy of my credit agreement and a statement of accounts and received no response.

 

3. The Claimant claims in point 7 of their witness statement that the account was subject to legal assignment on April 21st 2017 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law and Property Act 1925, and further claims that notice of this was sent through the regular post. The Claimant has not provided any proof of posting nor are they able to provide an original copy of the Notice of Assignment. The Claimant’s exhibit CH4 is a reconstituted copy, which, if arriving by post would not be recognisable as true correspondence of any kind from the Claimant being as it is simply a template letter printed on plain paper.

 

4. The Claimant claims in point 8 of their witness statement that a further 20 letters were sent. It is denied that any such letters were received. Although the Claimant makes reference to these letters, they have not provided any evidence for their existence.

 

5. On or around 31st December 2017, I received a letter of claim from the Claimant. On 2nd February 2018 I sent a Section 78 request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to the Claimant. Their response included a reconstituted copy of my alleged credit agreement with Shop Direct with a stated credit limit of £1000, a copy of which the Claimant refers to in their exhibit marked CH1. Their response did not detail how the alleged balance claimed for at the time of £2487.09 had been arrived at.

 

6. On or around 24th April 2018 I received a claim form from the Claimant. In their Particulars of Claim, the Claimant states that the alleged agreement was terminated and makes reference to the assignment of the account. I made a formal request by way of a CPR 31.14 to the Claimant’s solicitors requesting that the Claimant provides copies of all documents mentioned in the statement of case. The Claimant was not able to provide an original copy of any document. The Claimant’s response, composed of reconstituted documents, can been seen in Exhibit B which accompanies my witness statement. Specifically, I requested a copy of the the Notice of Assignment and the Default Notice as it is my belief that the Claimant is in breach of S136(1) Law of Property Act 1925 as they did not express notice of assignment in writing, and further, that the Claimant is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87 (1) as a Default Notice was not served.

 

7. Through my defence, my CPR 31.14 and my Section 78 request I have repeatedly raised the need for the Claimant to substantiate the claim by way of itemised statements which detail all transactions on the account and illustrate how the claim amount was arrived at. The Claimant has been able to clarify by way of an itemised list how the alleged balance was derived, or the legality of any charges applied to this balance.

 

8. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Sections 87,88 a Default Notice in the prescribed form must be served, specifying the nature of the alleged breach, as well as outlining what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken. If this notice is not complied with a default can then be issued. I have never received a Default Notice, nor was one produced following my Section 78 request, or within the disclosed documents.

 

Is it the right amount of repetitive or too much so? I feel like it needs some kind of conclusion or is this unnecessary? Please please read and let me have your thoughts. Whoever answered the phone at the court confirmed that I'll need to deliver it tomorrow (so in person presumably) if it's going to be taken into account so I really need to get it done tonight. Thanks as always.

 

MW

[mollywobbles]

PS will re-do their WS and include exhibits ASAP. As soon as my children are sleeping...

[shamrocker]

Yes, you can deliver it to the court in person. I wouldn't personally panic over getting it to the claimant within the same timeframe, and would be inclined to hand it to them before going in to see the judge. Pre-warned and all that.

 

Looking at your WS, you've made an assertion that a valid DN was not served on the defendant. I can't view the claimant's WS (pending approval) but I think I was able to read it last night. They have only evidenced that one was sent. They've had ample opportunity to deny your contention and make the argument that not only was a default notice served, but it was compliant with the CCA - but they've not even attempted to address that important point.

 

Have you exhibited a copy of CCA s.87 with your WS?

[mollywobbles]

Looking at your WS, you've made an assertion that a valid DN was not served on the defendant. I can't view the claimant's WS (pending approval) but I think I was able to read it last night. They have only evidenced that one was sent. They've had ample opportunity to deny your contention and make the argument that not only was a default notice served, but it was compliant with the CCA - but they've not even attempted to address that important point.

 

That is correct. Do you think that comes across strongly enough in my skeleton argument?

 

Have you exhibited a copy of CCA s.87 with your WS?

 

For some reason I couldn't locate the letter itself. I've exhibited the proof of posting, and their responses. I've included the letter itself for the CPR request. I hope that'll be enough?

[shamrocker]

For some reason I couldn't locate the letter itself. I've exhibited the proof of posting, and their responses. I've included the letter itself for the CPR request. I hope that'll be enough?

 

I don't mean the s.78 request, but s.87 - this the section of the CCA that relates to the Default Notice. s.88 is probably more relevant, as it outlines what must be included in a valid DN.

 

Regards your skeleton - I think it could get stuck into the main points that defeats their claim a bit quicker and stronger. Let Andy review it and offer feedback when he gets a chance to look in.

[mollywobbles]

I don't mean the s.78 request, but s.87 - this the section of the CCA that relates to the Default Notice. s.88 is probably more relevant, as it outlines what must be included in a valid DN.

 

In that case, no. I did not realise it was a good idea to exhibit bits of the law themselves? Evidently I've misunderstood somewhere. I thought it would be enough to simply refer to these. Oh well, too late now I suppose.

 

Regards your skeleton - I think it could get stuck into the main points that defeats their claim a bit quicker and stronger. Let Andy review it and offer feedback when he gets a chance to look in.

 

Thanks for the feedback shamrocker. I didn't know whether it was better to go chronologically so to speak or to get straight to the main points where I think their claim fails. I went for the latter in this draft. Hopefully Andy will have a chance to comment later. I'll have some time for redrafts later this evening.

[shamrocker]

Yes, Andy will put you straight re. the skeleton.

 

I don't think you need to worry too much about not including s.87/88, as you've passed the point over to Lowell to refute. I'd need to see their WS again, but I think there is scope to focus in on the fact you've made a positive assertion regarding the lack of valid Default Notice, so the Claimant is compelled to defeat that point by demonstrating their compliance - otherwise, no judgement! They've not made an ounce of effort on that crucial aspect of their claim, yet they have made submissions in respect of the agreement, balance and assignment. These are things I'd be pushing very hard. Also, you can always print off 3 copies of s.87 and 88 - take them with you and then if there are any issues raised over the relevance of these two sections as a foundation to Lowell's right to claim, then you can always volunteer to provide them for reference (don't dare bring them out without the agreement of the judge though). Just angle the argument so that it is clear and unambiguous that you've pleaded that a 'valid' Default Notice MUST be served before any action can be taken or succeed - that it's your position and belief that this obligation hasn't been fulfilled - and, given ample opportunity, the Claimant still hasn't attempted to evidence this. This is fatal to their claim. I'm sure Andy will advise on this too.

 

P.S. The Claimant has not denied that it's relevant in any way, so try to extract their words (or lack of) to support your assertion that this is critical to the claim.

[mollywobbles]

Thanks a lot shamrocker, that all makes sense.

[mollywobbles]

Also, you can always print off 3 copies of s.87 and 88 - take them with you and then if there are any issues raised over the relevance of these two sections as a foundation to Lowell's right to claim, then you can always volunteer to provide them for reference (don't dare bring them out without the agreement of the judge though).

 

Just in case, can you advise where I'd find a source to print these off from?

[AndyOrch]

Claimants WS approved in post #120 fro Shamrocker to peruse.

 

 

Relevant Legislation

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/87

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/88

 

Will run through your skeleton shortly

 

Andy

[mollywobbles]

Thanks Andy, it's much appreciated.

[AndyOrch]

Okay ...apologies for the delay.

 

The above is rather repetitive and is verging on becoming a supplemental witness statement rather than a skeleton argument.......if its additional to your witness statement...fair enough if its going over old ground all ready covered it becomes a SWS.

 

The point of a skeleton is to bullet point your main points which will become the basis of your defence and best argument to defeat this claim...so you can easily refer to them when required and also for the benefit of the judge.

 

Section 87 and 88 is quite clear what the claimant must provide and follow before it can seek any remedy ......very difficult for a debt buyer to do this as its no longer available or never was available from the OC...and therefore the claim fails.

 

A reconstituted version of a NoA is irrelevant and useless..its does not provide evidence that a valid one was ever sent and therefore assignment was never legally completed.

 

With regards to your point 4.....you must appreciate that their statement is a template statement thats been adapted to fit your claim...this 20 letters claim I have now seen it on 5 statements from this paralegal on other threads...so you are correct to raise and request strict proof to evidence it. I would even go as far to inform the court that the statement is readily available on internet forums and used in a vast number of defended claim and padded out with reconstituted versions of documents and screen shots of the debt collectors in house audit systems...not the original creditors......and this approach is used widely by this claimant to push through claims and base its evidence on " the balance of probabilities " but never on genuine original documents which is of course what the court directs in all its directions.

 

Andy

[mollywobbles]

Ok, thanks Andy. I think I am getting a better understanding of what it should be... Shame its so late in the day!

 

Can I ask - when you say too repetitive do you mean of itself or of the WS? I.e to improve should it be shorter / more succinct or different in terms of content?

 

And have I got all my references to the various laws / acts correct and included all the relevant parts? I'm obviously not an expert...

[mollywobbles]

With regards to your point 4.....you must appreciate that their statement is a template statement thats been adapted to fit your claim...this 20 letters claim I have now seen it on 5 statements from this paralegal on other threads...so you are correct to raise and request strict proof to evidence it. I would even go as far to inform the court that the statement is readily available on internet forums and used in a vast number of defended claim and padded out with reconstituted versions of documents and screen shots of the debt collectors in house audit systems...not the original creditors......and this approach is used widely by this claimant to push through claims and base its evidence on " the balance of probabilities " but never on genuine original documents which is of course what the court directs in all its directions.

 

Do you suggest that I include a sentence to this end in my skeleton argument? Or more that I should / could bring this up on the day?

[AndyOrch]

Im not sure whats in your WS but if any of the above is ...then it does not need to be in the above........only anything from their statement that you have picked up since submitting your statement should be in the above....plus your main points of attack.

 

I would assume that 60% of the above is already in your witness statement ? CCA/CPR etc etc

[shamrocker]

MW - if you can get hold of one of the Claimant's WS that Andy refers to above, then I'd also make a copy of that and take it with you along with s.87/88 - the point about making this bold claim of sending 20 letters without evidencing it and with you refuting it will certainly cast a little bit of doubt in the mind of the judge...particularly given the claimant's attempt to win the claim on the 'balance of probabilities'. If their representative disputes that what you're saying re. the other witness statements, you can always say that you have a copy of some in your file should it be needed to eliminate any doubt. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they've made a bold claim and not supported it with proof.

 

I'd like to suggest that you also challenge the balance, but can't comment too much without sight of the statement they have given. I say this because they make an attempt in their WS to brush past the possibility that some of the balance is made up of unlawful penalty charges. Working on the assumption that they've provided very few statements, I'd think about attacking this on the basis that you've challenged them on two points - 1. They've not adequately evidenced how the account balance was arrived at. 2. You've challenged them to make submissions in respect of the any charges - therefore, have they deliberately been scant with the statements so as to hide the existence of unlawful penalty charges? Again, I would need to see the statement(s) they've disclosed before I can gain a true feel for it. Are you familiar with the case for challenging £12 default charges as unlawful?

 

The above, in addition to your arguments around the lack of valid DN and 'reconstituted' NOA might just tip the balance in the judge's mind. They may look to find a way of allowing the claimant to get away with a non-existent DN etc. but if you can really muddy the waters over the claimed amount, it might just sway the judge to decide that the case isn't worthy of any flexibility on their part. After all, you've denied that the balance is accurate, and the Claimant has performed poorly in satisfying this aspect their claim. Just throw doubt on it from every angle you can and let them explain why they've been so crap in supporting their case - despite your pleadings and challenges.

[mollywobbles]

Good idea shamrocker. I will search around for a thread I could use. If Andy / anyone has a link, that would be great. I'm working on a redraft. Could also post up the one statement of account they've sent?

[shamrocker]

Good idea shamrocker. I will search around for a thread I could use. If Andy / anyone has a link, that would be great. I'm working on a redraft. Could also post up the one statement of account they've sent?

 

Yes please - post it up. I'm off to bed now but will log in in the morning for a peek. I might not have much of an opportunity to comment much though due to work, but I'll try my best.

[mollywobbles]

Thanks so much for all your help!

[mollywobbles]

Here is my second attempt at a skeleton argument...

 

In the xx County Court before District Judge XXXXXXXX

 

Claim number xxxxx

 

 

Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd V xxxxx

 

Defendants Skeleton Argument

 

29th October 2018

 

Introduction

 

This skeleton argument is filed in support of my defence dated 25th May 2018 and witness statement dated 13th October 2018 in this claim.

 

As the defendant in this case, I wish to respectfully make the following points in my defence:

 

1. The Claimant claims in paragraph 7 of their witness statement that the account was subject to legal assignment on April 21st 2017 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law and Property Act 1925, and further claims that notice of this was sent through the regular post. The Claimant has not provided any proof of posting nor are they able to provide an original copy of the Notice of Assignment. The Claimant’s exhibit CH4 is a ‘reconstituted copy’, which, if arriving by post would not be recognisable as true correspondence of any kind from the Claimant being as it is simply a template letter printed on plain paper. Although the Claimant has made repeated reference (in its particulars of claim and subsequent witness statement) to a notice of assignment, a reconstituted copy does not provide evidence that a valid one was ever sent. Therefore assignment was never legally completed. The Claimant is in breach of Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as they did not express notice of assignment in writing.

 

2. The Claimant claims in paragraph 8 of their witness statement that a further 20 letters were sent. It is denied that any such letters were received. Although the Claimant makes reference to these letters, they have not provided any evidence for their content or indeed, their existence.

 

3. In paragraph 20 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to their exhibit marked CH2, which the Claimant alleges ‘clearly sets out purchases, payments, contractual charges and interest on the account’. The reconstituted copy of my alleged credit agreement with Shop Direct which the Claimant provided in response to my request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (see the Claimant’s exhibit marked CH1) states a credit limit of £1000. Their response to the aforementioned request did not detail how the alleged balance claimed for at the time of £2487.09 had been arrived at. Through my defence, my CPR 31.14 and my Section 78 request I have repeatedly raised the need for the Claimant to substantiate the claim by way of itemised statements which detail all transactions on the account and illustrate how the claim amount was arrived at. The Claimant has not been able to clarify by way of an itemised list how the alleged balance was derived, or the legality of any charges applied to this balance.

 

4. In paragraph 5 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to a Default Notice being served. Under Sections 87-88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a Default Notice in the prescribed form must be served before an agreement can be terminated. The Default Notice must specify the nature of the alleged breach, as well as outline what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken. If this notice is not complied with a default can then be issued. I have never received a Default Notice in relation to my dealings with Shop Direct, nor was a copy of one produced following my Section 78 request, my CPR 31.14 or within the disclosed documents. The Claimant has had ample opportunity to substantiate their claim that a Default Notice was sent. However, the Claimant states at point 17 of their witness statement that they do not have an original copy of the Default Notice. Instead the Claimant provides what it terms ‘a screen shot of the Assignor’s computerised system that shows a default notice being sent’. I respectfully suggest to the court that this ‘screen shot’ cannot be considered to provide evidence of compliance with Sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it is my understanding that the court seeks original documentation in all its directions and the Claimant has not been able to provide these.

 

I hope its an improvement. I've tried to take your advice, cut out parts that were repetitive from my WS, and focus more on responding to theirs. If I can find (an)other(s) thread(s) with the same made up claim re. 20 letters, I will expand my paragraph 2 as suggested above. Any other suggestions for improvements gratefully received.

 

I must sleep for now though so I'll be back in the morning.

 

So much thanks to all who've helped today.

[mollywobbles]

Good morning,

 

I've made a few small edits to my skeleton argument but basically it's the same as the last version I posted last night.

 

I've uploaded here the statement of account (redacted as best I can. Previous comments on how I did it before were not ignored, but I'm working from a mac, don't have MS paint and don't seem to have an equivalent. Please hide if it doesn't meet requirements). I've basically got an hour or so before I need to print this off and take it to the court so I'm hoping what I've got here is ok. Any final thoughts for improvements or especially for glaring errors would be appreciated.

 

In the xx County Court before District Judge XXXXXXXX

 

Claim number xxxxx

 

 

Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd V xxxxx

 

Defendants Skeleton Argument

 

29th October 2018

 

Introduction

 

This skeleton argument is filed in support of my defence dated 25th May 2018 and witness statement dated 13th October 2018 in this claim.

 

As the defendant in this case, I wish to respectfully make the following points in my defence:

 

The Claimant claims in paragraph 7 of their witness statement that the account was subject to legal assignment on April 21st 2017 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law and Property Act 1925, and further claims that notice of this was sent through the regular post. I have never received a Notice of Assignment. The Claimant has not provided any proof of posting nor are they able to provide an original copy of the Notice of Assignment. The Claimant’s exhibit CH4 is a ‘reconstituted copy’, which, if arriving by post would not be recognisable as true correspondence of any kind from the Claimant being as it is simply a template letter printed on plain paper. Although the Claimant has made repeated reference (in its particulars of claim and subsequent witness statement) to a Notice of Assignment, a reconstituted copy does not provide evidence that a valid one was ever sent. Therefore assignment was never legally completed. The Claimant is in breach of Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as they did not express Notice of Assignment in writing.

 

The Claimant claims in paragraph 8 of their witness statement that a further 20 letters were sent. It is denied that any such letters were received. Although the Claimant makes reference to these letters, they have not provided any evidence for their content or indeed, their existence.

 

In paragraph 20 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to their exhibit marked CH2, which the Claimant alleges ‘clearly sets out purchases, payments, contractual charges and interest on the account’. The reconstituted copy of my alleged credit agreement with Shop Direct which the Claimant provided in response to my request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (see the Claimant’s exhibit marked CH1) states a credit limit of £1000. Their response to the aforementioned request did not detail how the alleged balance claimed for at the time of £2487.09 had been arrived at. Through my defence, my CPR 31.14 request and my Section 78 request I have repeatedly raised the need for the Claimant to substantiate the claim by way of itemised statements which detail all transactions on the account and illustrate how the claim amount was arrived at. The Claimant has not been able to clarify by way of an itemised list how the alleged balance was derived, or the legality of any charges applied to this balance.

 

In paragraph 5 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to a Default Notice being served. Under Sections 87-88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a Default Notice in the prescribed form must be served before an agreement can be terminated. The Default Notice must specify the nature of the alleged breach, as well as outline what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken. If this notice is not complied with a default can then be issued. I have never received a Default Notice in relation to my dealings with Shop Direct, nor was a copy of one produced following my Section 78 request, my CPR 31.14 request or within the disclosed documents. The Claimant has had ample opportunity to substantiate their claim that a Default Notice was sent. However, the Claimant states at point 17 of their witness statement that they do not have an original copy of the Default Notice. Instead the Claimant provides what it terms ‘a screen shot of the Assignor’s computerised system that shows a default notice being sent’. I respectfully suggest to the court that this ‘screen shot’ cannot be considered to provide evidence of compliance with Sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it is my understanding that the court seeks original documentation in all its directions and the Claimant has not been able to provide these.

docs1.pdf

[shamrocker]

I think that's still too much along the lines of a WS. Don't use 'I' or 'in my' etc. Try to write it like you're a third party looking on - "Despite the Claimant's pleading and numerous requests in respect of the need for a valid Default Notice being served, the defendant has failed to demonstrate their compliance with s.87 and s.88 of the Consumer Credit Act, and thus have no grounds for remedy of any alleged breach of the agreement." That's roughly how I would write it. You can query the balance, but the judge will ask you whether you refute it and on what grounds.

 

Sorry - am struggling bit for time today but will keep looking in.

[mollywobbles]

Thanks Shamrocker. I've edited my paragraph about the default notice according to your suggestion and changed the ordering so the DN part is first. The rest of it will have to do. I think it was mostly that paragraph where there was too much first person. Wish I had more time to spend on it but I don't. God this whole process is so stressful, especially with two children under two in tow.

 

Here's the final version.

 

In the County Court at Brighton before the District Judge

 

Claim number

 

Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd V mollywobbles

———————————————————————————————————————————

 

Defendants Skeleton Argument

 

29th October 2018

 

 

Introduction

 

This skeleton argument is filed in support of my defence dated 25th May 2018 and witness statement dated 13th October 2018 in this claim.

 

As the defendant in this case, I wish to respectfully make the following points in my defence:

 

1. In paragraph 5 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to a Default Notice being served. Under Sections 87-88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a Default Notice in the prescribed form must be served before an agreement can be terminated. The Default Notice must specify the nature of the alleged breach, as well as outline what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken. If this notice is not complied with a default can then be issued. I have never received a Default Notice in relation to my dealings with Shop Direct, nor was a copy of one produced following my Section 78 request, my CPR 31.14 request or within the disclosed documents. The Claimant has had ample opportunity to substantiate their claim that a Default Notice was sent. However, the Claimant states at point 17 of their witness statement that they do not have an original copy of the Default Notice. Instead the Claimant provides what it terms ‘a screen shot of the Assignor’s computerised system that shows a default notice being sent’. Despite the Defendant's pleading and numerous requests in respect of the need for a valid Default Notice being served, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate their compliance with s.87 and s.88 of the Consumer Credit Act, and thus have no grounds for remedy of any alleged breach of the agreement.

 

2. The Claimant claims in paragraph 7 of their witness statement that the account was subject to legal assignment on April 21st 2017 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law and Property Act 1925, and further claims that notice of this was sent through the regular post. I have never received a Notice of Assignment. The Claimant has not provided any proof of posting nor are they able to provide an original copy of the Notice of Assignment. The Claimant’s exhibit CH4 is a ‘reconstituted copy’, which, if arriving by post would not be recognisable as true correspondence of any kind from the Claimant being as it is simply a template letter printed on plain paper. Although the Claimant has made repeated reference (in its particulars of claim and subsequent witness statement) to a Notice of Assignment, a reconstituted copy does not provide evidence that a valid one was ever sent. Therefore assignment was never legally completed. The Claimant is in breach of Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as they did not express Notice of Assignment in writing.

 

3. The Claimant claims in paragraph 8 of their witness statement that a further 20 letters were sent. It is denied that any such letters were received. Although the Claimant makes reference to these letters, they have not provided any evidence for their content or indeed, their existence.

 

4. In paragraph 20 of their witness statement, the Claimant makes reference to their exhibit marked CH2, which the Claimant alleges ‘clearly sets out purchases, payments, contractual charges and interest on the account’. The reconstituted copy of my alleged credit agreement with Shop Direct which the Claimant provided in response to my request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (see the Claimant’s exhibit marked CH1) states a credit limit of £1000. Their response to the aforementioned request did not detail how the alleged balance claimed for at the time of £2487.09 had been arrived at. Through my defence, my CPR 31.14 request and my Section 78 request I have repeatedly raised the need for the Claimant to substantiate the claim by way of itemised statements which detail all transactions on the account and illustrate how the claim amount was arrived at. The Claimant has not been able to clarify by way of an itemised list how the alleged balance was derived, or the legality of any charges applied to this balance.

 

I am going to file the court copy in person today. What about the copy for Lowell? Send in the post late in the day? Or hand to the rep on the day?

Edited October 24, 2018 by mollywobbles
formatting change

[mollywobbles]

Just an update for the benefit of anyone reading this at a similar point in their case.

 

I got to the court today only to be told I could not drop off the document in person as they don't have an open counter service at this court anymore.

I was told I needed to call up and make an appointment in order to drop of the document.

Obviously it would have been helpful if they'd told me that when I called yesterday!

 

Anyway, as it happened another member of staff who was coming back from her break saw me getting upset about this and intervened.

I can only assume she took pity on me as I had both my toddler and my newborn in tow whilst trying to sort this out, because she took the document, checked the reference number and date stamped it as arrived today.

 

My only alternative was to leave it in a drop off box, which perhaps would have been fine but who knows?

There'd be no proof I'd left it there if not...

 

Anyway, just a word of advice to anyone in a similar boat to specifically check whether they accept documents in person.

[dx100uk]

take a photo on your mobile it get time stamped too