Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. Could you post up what they've sent please so we can see what the charge is? Cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like -   Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because you have are the ones trying to threaten me about this non-existent "debt". Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence.   That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
  • 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

Morses / Lowells - No CCA


johealey
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2254 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 CCA'd Lowell as they held a Default against me for Morses Club for £329 which I do not recall owing back in 2009, which was defaulted in 2015.

 

Lowell have come back to me sending me a printed statement, which to be honest, I could just type up on a few sheets of paper!

 

The letter states

 

"we note that you state that we have failed to comply with your request for information under sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as such you feel that this account is unenforceable.

 

The duty to supply documentation under Section 77-79 of the Act does not apply to an account under which no sum is, or will, or may become payable by the debtor.

Therefore it would not apply where the balance has been written off, as is the case with this account".

 

"In accordance with Schedule 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Act that deals with the exceptions to any request under Section 10,

Lowell is not prepared to cease processing your data in respect of the debt claimed from Morses on the basis this is required for the performance of the said contract to which you are a party.

 

At the point of application of this account with Morses a Fair Processing Notice was agreed to by you to share/pass personal data. Consequently, when Lowell purchased the rights to and benefits of the account, this included the Fair Processing Notice and the requisite permission".

 

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires Lowell to give you notice of the assignment of the debt to them from Morses. Our records show that our letter of assignment sent to you on the 23rd June 2015 following the purchase of the debt from Morses which satisfies the relevant provision of the Law of Property Act 1925".

 

"We are not prepared to remove any default registered with the credit reference agencies in respect of this account as we consider the data remains correct and accurate".

 

It goes on but it's the same standard blah blah blah.

 

Any help would be really appreciated in response to their letter, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are correct

just because they hold no CCA doesn't mean the default must go

and anyway

its was the OC that registered it not a DCA.

they just inherited it.

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 you feel that you did not owe Morses in the first place then you should take it up with them.

Perhaps they had someone on their books with a similar name to yours.

 

It does seem strange that you didn't receive any demands from them since there would have been many before they would right off the whole amount.

 

Simply write to Morses explaining that you do not recognise the default against your name and ask for details how the amount was arrived at. If they have the wrong person then of course the default against you would be removed.

Edited by dx100uk
paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt should ahve been defaulted back in 2009 and you havent paid or acknowledged it since then it was stat barred many moons ago and Lowells default is misrepresentation and that isnt fair processing of data.

 

they do this just to punish you and it is getting more common

 

Confirm when you last paid anything to Morses or Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...