Another update, this time from a case involving Lowells bless them. So the story goes something like this…………………….
Lowells claim to have purchased a debt relating to a regulated consumer credit agreement. Lowells claim that they are entitled to be paid. Consumer requests the agreement under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Lowells seem to think that Carey v HSBC helps them, and that they only have to do what Carey says to get them home. Alas, they should also read the Court of Appeal ruling on s78 which goes further than Carey and is often overlooked. That authority is kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries.
Anyway, good old lowells fail to comply with s78, they dont send legible documents, they dont send the complete agreement ala Kotecha, they dont send the statement of account, and contrary to s78 they dont send the documents all together, note s78 states “agreement together with”….. so it all has to be provided together not piece meal.
In addition, Lowells have problems with the default notice, it doesnt give 14 days, it doesnt state the correct amount to be paid.
And they also have an issue concerning s86c Consumer Credit Act as there are not notices of sums in arrears.
So we point out all these issues to their solicitors, who promptly ignore it and seem to think that if they ignore it enough then it will all go away.
So the matter comes before the Court, Lowells havent put right any of the above, so the Judge after hearing perfectly crafted submissions from Thomas Brennan the barrister who we instructed, dismissed the Claim at the first hurdle, finding that the Claimant had not discharged s78(1) Consumer Credit Act and therefore the Claim must be dismissed.
Maybe, just maybe, rather than forcing a client to go through this chaos and mayhem, and the stress of court proceedings, Lowells will look at cases a little more carefully in the future.