Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell - Default ? old vanquis debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3931 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hiya,

 

I am currently paying Lowell for a defaulted vanquish credit card debt.

(No issues there really, I owe it and pay less to Lowell than vanquish with no interest)

 

However Lowell have now decided to add that I am in default with them via the credit reference agencies.

(I have nothing relating to the original Vanquis default on any CRA file)

 

Can Lowell say that I am in default with them even though I pay and am up to date when actually I was in default with Vanquis ?

 

Hope that makes sense?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

has this ever shown on your CRA file?

 

you say its not there now?

 

how old is this debt

when did you take the card out?

 

what made you start to pay lowlife..you fell for the threat-o-grams?

 

have you ever sent them a CCA request to check they have the LEGAL RIGHT to demand money from you?

 

something smells here

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If vanquis registered a default then all lowell can do is substitute their name .

 

Do you have a notice of assignment to lowell?

 

Did they send you a default notice or intention to file a default?

 

What is the default date on your credit file?

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick replies,

 

I originally defaulted with Vanquis about 12 months ago, But there has never been ANY record of my account with them with the CRA's

 

(I started with a standard Vanquis card then was upgraded to a Gold Card- at this time the original card shows as settled and then nothing else from Vanquis has ever shown on the CRA's reports)

 

I decided to start paying Lowell about 4 months ago (through choice, I owe the money so should pay it back somehow) and a default has appeared on my CRA for May of 2013.

 

 

Yes I did have a letter of assignment etc and it does relate correctly to what I owed vanquis.

 

Cheers

Edited by enrico.balazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I'd ready something somewhere (From Lowells website) .

It is likely that your original creditor will have registered a default with regard to the outstanding debt on your credit file.

When the account is purchased by us, we are legally required to transfer the default into our name.


So if there was no registered default by Vanquis - then Lowell cant add a default as long as I am within my agreement with them ?

Who do I contact, Lowell or the CRA's ?

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

are you saying the account was NEVER on your cra file?

 

and IS now showing

please be clear.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarification please, in post 5 you state the original card show as settled (on CRA Files?), and now shows on CRA with Lowell?

 

The ''settled'' entry will have been when Lowell acquired the debt after which the original entry would be removed and Lowell will report to the CRA and must show the original default.

 

So as far as I can see the entry is correct.

 

Out of interest which CRA are you using.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brig, if the default is recorded as happening in May 2013 it cannot be correct, as the account at this time would have been owned by Lowell. Lowell were not in a position themselves to default the account.

 

But it’s best to check with enrico again – can you confirm that Lowell have recorded a default that BEGINS in May 2013, rather than simply taking over an old default? What is listed as the actual default date – is it May 2013, as you stated? This is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the true default date is 30th April 2012 as shown above NOT December 2013

 

You are reading the status history the 2013 is the start of th is years status history NOT a later default date and has not yet been updated with this years status from January 2103 onwards.

So the entry appears correct!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused as hell. Where does it say April 2012.?

I think that what the op was saying is that when his card was upgraded they marked his original account as settled. Not the time of sale.

Has a post been removed?

 

If not maybe the OP could post his credit file entry.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused as hell. Where does it say April 2012.?

I think that what the op was saying is that when his card was upgraded they marked his original account as settled. Not the time of sale.

Has a post been removed?

 

If not maybe the OP could post his credit file entry.

 

I would appear that the OPs post showing the CRA file details has been removed, it clearly showed the APRIL date.

 

May have had personal data???

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No posts have been removed by the Site Team although the OP did edit his post #11.

 

Thanks ims, it's just left later post out of context.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never mentioned April 2012 ! I edited post 11 for date accuracy.

 

Simply put, the default has never showed on my CRA files until May 2013 when it has been added by Lowell with a default date of 30th April 2013.

 

Account type

Credit Card

Account number

************9415 0

 

Account start date

24/07/2008

 

Opening balance

£ 3,522

 

Repayment frequency

Monthly

 

Date of default

30/04/2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last entry above clearly shows default date 30/04/2012 not 2013 what you are reading is the status history as previously advised, December D. 2013 D history not up dated.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - Just realised it said 2012!. Old age creeping in

 

So, Its OK for Lowell to show that I have a default with them even though I never had a default registered by Vanquis?

 

I only started paying Lowell about 4 months ago and have not missed any payments with them (if that makes any difference)

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanquis are not known for selling accounts with out them being defaulted, the dates seem right for default and sale D.D April 2012.

 

My intuition tells me that between the settled card and the reporting of the upgraded card the default was placed and the account sold.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

I think the settled card is a bit of a red herring - It's marked as settled in Aug 2009 when I did a balance transfer between my old Vanquis card and the new Vanquis card that then defaulted.(different account numbers)

However since the settlement in 2009 the has been no record of ANY vanquis transactions on my CRA's - its as if I never has the new card!

Hence my query about Lowell adding the default now

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanquis always when upgrading cards mark credit files on the 'original' card as settled when the balance on the old card ids transferred to the new card.

 

I don't think there is any further I can advise, unless you seek archived credit reports for the period the data is missing, the default will have already been place before Lowell acquired the debt.

 

You could expend £10 on a SAR to Vanquis.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks but as a last throw of the dice, I keep a reasonable eye on my CRA files, and I know that there has been no recorded activity at all (even when I was paying them) for this defaulted card and no default ever registered by Vanquis - So if I can prove this, then Lowell have acted improperly by registering a default in their name for an agreement that I never had with them?

 

Thanks for your advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks but as a last throw of the dice, I keep a reasonable eye on my CRA files, and I know that there has been no recorded activity at all (even when I was paying them) for this defaulted card and no default ever registered by Vanquis - So if I can prove this, then Lowell have acted improperly by registering a default in their name for an agreement that I never had with them?

 

Thanks for your advice. :-)

THE SAR is your way forward!!

Good luck, please keep us posted on developments.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...