I was recommended here from posting/reading on MSE, thanks in advance for taking the time to read/comment.

I've received a letter today (dated and postmarked 3.2.14) from them

stating they have been instructed by Fredrickson International Ltd on behalf of Lowell Financial Limited

to issue court proceedings on the 17th Feb.

I don't want to panic but the words court and CCJ have got me flustered.

I've noticed Lowell placed a default on my credit file which is in it's 5th year (default date Sep 2008)

and they've got my month of birth incorrect, along with a linked address I've never heard of.

It's marked up as 'account type: communications' and I believe relates to a phone contract.

I'm aware of a relationship I had with a phone company that went sour over an upgrade

and led to me stopping paying them yet I've never acknowledged the DCA's.

The alleged debt is £900.

Any help or advice on what my next steps should be/what to send would be greatly appreciated

When you say Lowells have placed a default on your Credit file, do you mean they have updated one that was originally placed by the Original creditor/company ?

Lowells themselves are not able to register a default - only update.

Have you not received previous communication from Lowells, they should have sent a Notice of Assignment which advised that the account had been passed to them and on what date and details of the account itself.

Did you ever receive a Default Notice from the original company ?

If this does proceed to litigation, those would be two items you would require.

There will be no agreement as such if this is a Mobile phone contract as it is a service contract. If you do not have any knowledge of this then I would suggest you write back to Frederickson and advise that you have no knowledge of this debt or of Lowells and should they proceed to litigation you will defend yourself on those points.

That they are required to prove their involvement - you have received no Notice of Assignment

That they are required to prove that the debt is yours.

That if they do proceed to litigate, then you will expect them to fully support their claim with evidence.

You should head your letter - I ACKNOWLEDGE NO DEBT TO EITHER YOU OR ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

Thanks for your advice CitizenB

They may well have updated the previous one from the phone contract supplier as a linked address is under the name of that supplier yet the default under Lowell's.

I do not recall receiving a default notice from the original creditor yet I did have 2 address changes and would not have sought to update them.

Over the last 5 years the DCA have sporadically sent me mail - mostly threatening letters, I couldnt distinguish whether they were notice's of assignment but when I googled the contents most of the advice was to ignore as they were being bullies and treading a thin line with their wording, bordering on the illegal.

So I'll send the 'prove it letter' and amend to state that I've received no notice of assignment and that they are required to prove the debt is mine.

Based on the other helpful advise I've seen on this forum - I'll send recorded to Bryan Carter and normal to Lowell & Fredrickson.

Am I right in saying the next stage is to send a CCA request - dependent on them replying within the 16 days?

Thanks,

It will be pointless sending a CCA request as this is a service contract and there will be no signed agreement.

Ok, thanks. I'll send the prove it letter and be sure to include your points. I'll update as and when I hear back.

What paths can it take from this point?

If they think they can get away with it, then they will litigate. I see they say that they will start proceedings on the 17th. Having seen other threads where they have warned the person they are going to proceed.. then it is almost certainly in the system. I imagine the next person you will hear from will be either Bryan Carter giving you a few more days or a claim form.

With it presumably being in the system, is it still the best case to let it get that far

Would a full and final settlement in exchange for removal of default perhaps be better?

With it presumably being in the system, is it still the best case to let it get that far? Would a full and final settlement in exchange for removal of default perhaps be better?

If you dont believe you owe the debt, why would you want to offer a full and final settlement ! It would also make a nonsense of the letter you are about to send !

Or is it simply the amount that you are questioning ?

I don't believe I owe the debt as I was up to date with all payments until the dispute.

Yet knowing that there was an agreement and that the dispute hasnt been resolved this far down the line

(and the likelihood that in court I'll hear "why didnt you attempt to resolve it with the creditor"

- even though they were less than helpful in resolving the issue with me to the point I gave up out of frustration).

Essentially

I'm thinking they can prove an agreement was in place and that I was complying with the terms

of this agreement through the fact I was paying them

- up until a dispute occurs and then

I was billed for the entire 24 months remaining of the contract in full.

Which is now against me as a debt I've defaulted on.

Is it too late to address the dispute with the original creditor

- won't they just refer me to the DCA?

Could I exercise the Data protection act to see everything they hold and thus what the DCA is likely to present as a case?

Sorry for sounding a bit panicked,

I'm just thinking I'll send a prove it and

they might be able to prove there was a relationship between myself and the phone provider.

Righto, well if the account was yours, then they will very likely be able to establish a relationship. Whether or not they can prove there is an outstanding debt to the amount they claim is another matter.

Almost certainly if you attempted to deal with the oriignal company they will advise you to deal with Lowells. In which case, why do you not simply put your case to Lowells.. advise them that whilst you might have had an accoutn with XYZ, you certainly have no knowledge of any outstanding debt and for sure, not to the amount they are attempting to claim. Ask them to provide evidence this sum is outstanding rather that prove there is a relationship.

You could probably say, that had you been informed sooner of this then you would have been able to raise a dispute.

How does that sound ?

Cheers CitizenB,

in their correspondence they don't reference the phone provider as yet

so I'd be joining the dots for them at this stage although I think that is a better way to go.

How likely would they be to prove a sum is owed?

I also saw an article about statute barred being from the last date you acknowledged any 'debt',

can this be construed as the last payment date to the original creditor before the dispute

when I was paying in full as was to be expected

- as Ive not acknowledged the DCAs?

This would mean it would be very close to becoming SB'ed (3 months).

Statute barred clock starts ticking from when a payment is due and missed.

After that first payment has been missed then the creditor could then start the process required in order to issue a default notice - terminate the account - sell it on or issue a claim against you.

So.. if a payment was due say in April 2008 and you didnt pay then the day after the missed payment - the creditor could start the ball rolling. Whether they do or not is up to them.. but they COULD. Their first step would be to issue a Default Notice and give you 14 days to remedy the breach. If you didnt then it would be from that point that you could start the clock ticking.

So it would likely be around June/July 2014 that the account became statute barred.

This is my understanding of the way things are !!

Update:

BC have responded confirming debt relates to original telco supplier

and account number with them.

Pretty much word for word below.

It was assigned to Lowell

"and you would have received notice of assignment at the time of assignment"

- isnt that a bit presumptive of the solicitor!?

the original creditors policy is to provide agreements to its customers at the point of contract and statements throughout.

.. therefore youve already been provided with validation of the debt...

Our client, who we're acting on behalf of believes this debt is lawful.

We're acting in good faith and have been lawful and will defend any claims of harassment.

Send your payment proposals by 13th March or collection activity will resume.

----

What should be my next play?

Well yes indeed it is an assumption on the part of BC.

As the original creditor was a mobile telephone company then they would NOT have sent out ANY agreement as they dont exist for this type of contract !!

TBH, I have no idea what your next move should be, hopefully others will have some ideas for you.

I'd be keen to try and employ some sort of stalling tactics to take me into a period

when I could play the statute barred card..

. I'd imagine they are approaching this from the same 'race against time' perspective though.

Update - they've sent me a letter saying my account is on hold whilst they await original statements from creditor.

From months of trawling articles like this I believe now is the time to act on this.

and if they can't do this in 12+2 days I can tell them to sling their hook

- only problem is I cant find the articles that stated these laws etc so I can prepare my letter.

Can anyone confirm this is in fact the case?

Thanks

its a service contract theres no time limit.

not like a CCA

as they've not issued a claim

it was a threat-o-gram

designed to make you respond

and you fell for it.

if you had a dispute with the original provider

[who was this pleae]

you need to gather as much written info regarding this to throw at carter

should they persist.

which for £900 they will.

if it IS that close to SB [ if one exists for a service contract]

might be better to ignore them

unless a claimform arrives.

what does your cra file say about this debacle?

dx

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.....until such time a claim is received.

Regards

Andy

its a service contract theres no time limit.

 

not like a CCA

 

as they've not issued a claim

 

it was a threat-o-gram

 

designed to make you respond

 

and you fell for it.

 

if you had a dispute with the original provider

[who was this pleae]

 

you need to gather as much written info regarding this to throw at carter

should they persist.

 

which for £900 they will.

 

if it IS that close to SB [ if one exists for a service contract]

 

might be better to ignore them

 

unless a claimform arrives.

 

what does your cra file say about this debacle?

 

dx

Thanks for the response DX, I havent actually responded to these letters yet.

It was a major phone contract retailer.

There was a dispute which i stupidly only ever dealt with over the phone

- was bounced around to no avail and ended up cancelling the DD.

Credit file lists a default to Lowell, the default date is significantly later than the last payment date however

(presumably the original contract end date).

What is the situation with statute barred defences in these circumstances.

Is it the last payment date to the original service provider?

I havent acknowledged any debt or relationship with the original service provider to the DCA or Bryan Carter as yet.

What is the likelihood that they could gather the information from the original credit provider

- and if so, typically how long would this take them?

Thanks for your time to respond.

you need to send the service provider an sar

and get all the info they hold

if it was under dispute

then you need that evidence.

there is no credit involved at all.

dx

Just an update - radio silence on this one since my last response (good 8 weeks at least) - last I heard was they were awaiting more information from the original credit provider (yeah, right!).

The only issue I have with this now is the reported default date being much later than the last payment date.

I obtained a different credit report recently and it's showing as 'reported until December 2014' - is there a process I can go through to get it removed from my file using the last payment date as the point at which the six years was counted from?

sadly the ICO guidelines have now changed.

Hey dx100uk - I read the document but it only seemed to highlight that it would remain 6 years from the default dates as supplied by the lender to the CRA - but this seemed to be at any date of their choosing as long as they followed the process.

Seems quite a grey area?

as I said above too.

did you get that sar off?

dx