Hi,

I have a debt with Lloyds, due to a personal loan when I was employed by them.

Of course there was PPI on there, as an employee it was required of me in order to get the loan.

long story short,

I had to resign from my job with them due to moving hundreds of miles into a womens refuge to escape domestic violence.

They refused my ppi claim as I had resigned and wouldn't help me transfer my job to another branch.

I tried to get them to agree to reduced payments, while I got sorted; again refused.

As I had so much else going on, they really were the least of my worries and I ignored them.

Right or wrong, I know better now and wouldn't dream of doing it again.

The debt became statute barred in October 13,

I've found this out through the CAB.

I've been getting letters from Lowells, but having read advice on here, ignored them.

My credit file was clean, the default had dropped off.

I was accepted for a 'proper' bank account, and had to pass a credit check for my current job so I know it was fine.

Now all of a sudden, Lowells have placed defaults on my credit file for every month from October 13,

which is when I'm assuming they bought the debt.

They're saying last payment was made 2009, it wasn't, it was June 2007.

I obviously can't ignore them any longer, they're also threatening to take me to court, bless their cotton socks.

What do I do now please?

Thanks in advance!

a new owner cant change the original default date, only put their name on it instead.

but as you say the def has dropped off, then they cant do a new one for the same.

as is re a loan though, was there a formal default by them prior to the end of the loan term?

if sure is barred, next step will prob be a formal complaint/notice to correct your file accordingly.

wait further input

welcome to cag btw

you put them to strict proff on

when

where

how

who by

the alleged payment was made

dx

have you a record of the loan on a previous CRa file

showing the old efault?

when did you take it out?

I'd also get that PPI reclaimed..money you your pocket now its been sold on too.

dx

Yes,

I got a formal default notice in October 2007 from Lloyds, which went off my file last year.

They could have taken court action then but didn't, for whatever reason.

It's only since the original default came off that Lowells have started putting these new ones on, in their name.

My file was clean but they've trashed it. Thanks.

I don't, I've only ever accessed it online. It was definitely on there from Oct 2007, then it disappeared last October 2013. It was taken out May 2006.

Yes, I got a formal default notice in October 2007 from Lloyds, which went off my file last year. They could have taken court action then but didn't, for whatever reason. It's only since the original default came off that Lowells have started putting these new ones on, in their name. My file was clean but they've trashed it. Thanks.

re loan, bar prob runs then from that formal notice. provided no payments after. so is barred?

lowlifes cant do anything to 'reinstate', or then pursue. seems they're trying it on.

send lowlife a copy of the default notice

demand they immediately remove the account

or you will be complaining to the ICO.

and you will be seeking compensation as well

dx

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what the CAB told me.

What are my next steps in terms of getting the nonsense from Lowells off my file?

Also, I'd dearly love to complain to all the relevant bodies/regulattors etc, these people really are lowlifes aren't they?

as post 8

dx

Thanks Dx, I was typing my last reply as you posted it. Thanks for all your help today guys, I'll let you know what happens. Signed for post, printed signature and the "This is not an acknowledgement" at the top of every letter?

Please read these CONC regulations - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?426148-CONC-7.15-Statute-barred-debts

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what the CAB told me. What are my next steps in terms of getting the nonsense from Lowells off my file? Also, I'd dearly love to complain to all the relevant bodies/regulattors etc, these people really are lowlifes aren't they?

looks like they were sold a lemon, realised, and are now trying it on.

seems then the barred letter including request/complaint to correct cra file info (poss with compensation), otherwise further action?

Ooh, the lying little tinkers!!!!

Lloyds, despite knowing where I lived, didn't contact me after the default notice,

but they've clearly sold it on around the time the SB date came up.

That's very naughty and they've picked on someone who won't let them get away with it!

Well, that's the CCA request

and statement of account letters typed

and printed for Lloyds relating to PPI,

they'll be going off in the morning.

As for those Lowell creatures,

I'll wait and see if they comply with my letter re SB (great templates on here, top job!)

and removal of the nonsense they've put on my credit file.

I was really upset, but not any more. The fight is ON! Thanks again guys.

Has anyone ever had an issue with Lowells refusing to accept signed for & guaranteed next day letters?

Wrote to the address on their letter, not the PO Box one,

1 st class signed for on monday.

Not delivered.

I re-sent them addressed to the managing director at a slightly different address

but still in leeds by guaranteed next day.

Not delivered.

Royal Mail say there's no delays in the area

but the tracking status would only change when they're delivered.

It makes me highly suspicious.

AFAIK lowlife never sign for letters,

which is why we recommend free proof of posting only

If they refuse to sign for letters then it just proves they are prats. That can be prof you have attempted to contact them if they do take action

How, I mean HOW are these creatures allowed to practise????

the two registered letters are still somewhere in the system,

but the ones to the MD have been signed for.

I hope that helps others who have the misfortune to deal with them.

Lack of real people or people with the balls to do something about these agencys. If lhad it my way they would not exist tho thats in dream world

Ok, so I have received a reply today from the customer services manager, apparently.

My scanner's upstairs and I'm too lazy to go up there so I'll type it instead:

Dear reallyrathercross,

Thank you for your recent letters.

We understand from your recent correspondence that you believe you are not our customer.

In order to resolve this matter, we are currently undergoing an investigation into the account.

We have stopped any collections activity on the account until an outcome is reached

and during this time you will receive no correspondence from our collections team.

We apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused by our letters and will be in touch with you again in due course.

Your sincerely, Mr Lowlife.

What an absolute load of twaddle!

I sent the statute barred template with an added paragraph demanding they remove the defaults they've placed on my credit file.

This letter smacks of delay tactics to me, hoping I'll breathe a sigh of relief forget about it. Oh no, not I.

I will obviously be replying to this latest waste of paper, but if any of you have any advice as to what I should say, I'd appreciate it.

How long do I have to try and get this resolved with these lowlifes before being able to complain to the ICO, FCA etc?

TIA

So I wrote to the data controller, giving them 28 days to remove the defaults. They responded by sending another letter the same as the one before. I'm getting really rather cross with them now. What should my next move be, please?

as post 8 ICO..

as post 8 ICO..

The thing that's thrown me is the ICO ask you if the company have given you a final response,

and as the answer is no, their website says I have to go back to Lowells.

Going round in circles! Grrrr.

So do you reckon the ICO will take it on board despite Lowells being evasive and refusing to deal with it?

No they are going around in circles with me against Capquest & Shop direct, they cannot see the truth when presented to them, because of the failure to see a bit of paper stating final response, not forth comimg