Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Can a PPC (claimant) refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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
      • 161 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 Unable to Prove Vanquis default


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2752 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

Hi

 

I had a default placed on my account by Lowell Portoflio 1 limited.

It only appeared about 4 months ago and had no relation to anything else on my credit file

- it appeared out the blue as a default with a value of just over £100.

 

I've since sent an initial letter that I found online, talking about how as they are the data processor they are responsible for providing with certain pieces of information etc.

 

I have gone back and forward with them using letters

- I had a response from them telling me they were unable to provide any of the information relating to the account or the default notice as they didn't keep this on their records.

They have advised that they will also not remove the default.

 

They mention in their latest response that the default is from a debt relating to a Vanquis account

- I;ve only ever had one account with Vanquis and it clearly shows on my credit history as being a well managed and then settled account with no missed payments.

 

I'm stuck as to what to do next!

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have had a last response from Lowells, you can go several ways with this. The FOS can deal with a complaint, as to how the default is affecting you and if it is a mistake can ask Lowell to pay you compensation. The ICO can deal with any complaint about wrong data being processed. The credit reference agencies are also responsible for data, so you can complain to them as well.

 

Was your last response from Lowell from their Compliance and Data Protection Officer or just customer services ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

For starters, Lowell cannot place a default. They are allowed to update a default that has been filed by an original creditor by placing their name against it once the debt has been bought.

 

Can you type out exactly what it says on your credit file. If it is a mistake, it should be deleted.

I would also contact the credit reference agencies and add a notice of correction to this entry whilst disputing it with them. CRAs have a duty to ensure the data they hold is correct and they should contact the creditor for information.

 

Just to be on the safe side, contact Vanquis to see if they have placed a default against your name in error.

 

Once you have exhausted ALL avenues, I suggest that the FOS and the ICO be avoided. They are good at what they do but they take forever. I would be writing to Lowell and give them 14 days to remove the entry and if they fail sue them through the county courts.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have had a last response from Lowells, you can go several ways with this. The FOS can deal with a complaint, as to how the default is affecting you and if it is a mistake can ask Lowell to pay you compensation. The ICO can deal with any complaint about wrong data being processed. The credit reference agencies are also responsible for data, so you can complain to them as well.

 

Was your last response from Lowell from their Compliance and Data Protection Officer or just customer services ?

 

Thanks for this. The email was from their 'Head of Customer Services'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

For starters, Lowell cannot place a default. They are allowed to update a default that has been filed by an original creditor by placing their name against it once the debt has been bought.

 

Can you type out exactly what it says on your credit file. If it is a mistake, it should be deleted.

I would also contact the credit reference agencies and add a notice of correction to this entry whilst disputing it with them. CRAs have a duty to ensure the data they hold is correct and they should contact the creditor for information.

 

Just to be on the safe side, contact Vanquis to see if they have placed a default against your name in error.

 

Once you have exhausted ALL avenues, I suggest that the FOS and the ICO be avoided. They are good at what they do but they take forever. I would be writing to Lowell and give them 14 days to remove the entry and if they fail sue them through the county courts.

 

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly how the default appears on my Experian file. As I say, it just appeared from nowhere.

 

lowell.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting; that default has been live for over 4 years yet it has suddenly appeared on your file. Have you checked the linked addresses to see if there is one that you don't recognise?

 

I would now sign up to Clearscore and Noddle to see what they say as well.

 

Vanquis would be my first contact to see if they have defaulted you (or not)

 

If you haven't raised a formal complaint with Lowell (and headed the letter as such) that is something to do as well

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you will find that the argument that DCA's cannot add defaults that were not previously noted, is subject to dispute. I seem to remember reading posts on CAG where court cases and legislation was quoted which showed that a new debt owner can add a default, providing it is correct.

 

If Lowell are saying it is Vanquis, perhaps the easiest way is to contact Vanquis in writing ( enclose a copy of Lowells letter) asking for a written explanation of why they have sold a debt to Lowell in your name, when you are not aware of any debt owing. Then see how how they respond, before taking a next step.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just now spoken to Experian who have advised that they will query this as a 'no account' with Lowell. Interestingly, the guy at Experian told me they have this debt as relating to a communications provider, whereas the letter from Lowell tells me it's Vanquis??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you will find that the argument that DCA's cannot add defaults that were not previously noted, is subject to dispute. I seem to remember reading posts on CAG where court cases and legislation was quoted which showed that a new debt owner can add a default, providing it is correct.

 

If Lowell are saying it is Vanquis, perhaps the easiest way is to contact Vanquis in writing ( enclose a copy of Lowells letter) asking for a written explanation of why they have sold a debt to Lowell in your name, when you are not aware of any debt owing. Then see how how they respond, before taking a next step.

 

If you could find the links regarding the court case, that would be brill.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just now spoken to Experian who have advised that they will query this as a 'no account' with Lowell. Interestingly, the guy at Experian told me they have this debt as relating to a communications provider, whereas the letter from Lowell tells me it's Vanquis??

 

Yes well, this is Lowell we are talking about. They are not called the Leeds Losers for nothing. Most debt collectors only have the basic info on any account when they buy it and they have to go back to the original creditor if they need more info.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would contact Vanquis to see if they have erred in some way. As you say, you're account is up to date then there should be nothing there.

 

As Experian are saying 'Communications Provider' did you change a mobile phone contract in 2012? Or a landline?

 

I would only complain to Lowell, not just get more info. Once a complaint is filed, they should investigate properly.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you even have a vanquis card?

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

does the end 4 digit match the one you know about?is the ref number 16 digits?

might be a clue here as if its not

then its not a credit card as not 16 digits...

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

did you even have a vanquis card?

dx

 

First post!!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for information I had a default that I queried with Lowell as it was added years after the ICO guidance on when a default should be added.

 

I complained to Lowell who initially claimed it was nothing to do with them but the OC - when I pointed out that the default was added 7 months after they told me they bought the debt they basically realised what they'd done. I had pointed out the ICO guidelines and that I would take action and the result was lowells accepted the default should have been years earlier, corrected it (which meant it disappeared) and paid me over £650 in compo for the privilege.

 

So I guess I'm saying DCA's do add defaults but they should makes sure they do so in accordance with the guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the plot thickens.

 

According to my credit file, the default under Lowell's name is in relation to a 'Communications Account' specifically BT plc. The default amount is around £100.

 

In the latest communication from Lowell, the name Vanquis as the original creditor and the outstanding balance as £886.00. I've since spoken to Vanquis who have confirmed they have an account in my name which was settled (an account I know about) a number of years ago and well managed. They also confirm the account number Lowell are quoting does indeed relate to someone with my name, but a different address and date of birth.

 

I'm stuck with what to do next, other than to formally complain to Lowell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you get that in writing from vanquis? If so, you then send a copy to Lowell alongside your complaint. They should then do what is right.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update - I had queried this with Experian but wasn't holding out much hope.

 

 

Experian have updated me to say they have spoken to Lowell

- Lowell have confirmed the debt relates to an address which isn't anything to do with me and have given Experian permission to update the address.

 

That was yesterday and as of this morning, my Experian report no longer shows any account for Lowell and my score has gone up.

 

Surely getting a resolution from these idiots can't be that simple???

Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the other credit file providers?

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Just wanted to update this. I've now managed to have this default removed from Experian and Equifax reports, now just awaiting a response from Callcredit. Both Experian and Equifax quried the validity of the default/account with Lowell and the very quickly responded to both, advising that the address could be updated (to an address which has nothing to do with me).

 

Fingers crossed Callcredit get it sorted and hopefully that's me seen the back of these Lowell [problem] artists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...