Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

ScarletPimpernel

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,425

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ScarletPimpernel

  1. ScarletPimpernel
    You could add it to the paragraph on resolution, making it clear that as the debt has been shown to be irredeemably unenforceable,they should now cease reporting it to the CRAs.
  2. ScarletPimpernel
    Although you might feel ashamed about your situation, there's no need to be. Bad things sometimes happen to good people, and the fact that you have acknowledged the problem and are finding ways to deal with it shows that far from failing your children, you are doing the right thing.If you are depressed, please go and see your GP. Dealing with problems is hard enough without being unwell at the same time.
  3. ScarletPimpernel
    There aren't templates for this sort of thing. Send them something like this:
  4. ScarletPimpernel
    I recommend Mental Health First Aid training. I teach it, so may be biased, but we get universally good feedback. Stress can be a triggering factor for manic episodes in bipolar disorder. OP, if you are concerned about your wife's mental health, you should be able to contact her psychiatrist or CPN directly without having to go through the GP. Alternatively, and if you think the situation warrants it, there will be a MH crisis team in your area who will be able to advise you. There's also help and support at bipolaruk.org.uk
  5. ScarletPimpernel
    Just a small point, but the OFT Guidance hasn't applied since the OFT ceased to exist!
  6. ScarletPimpernel
    The more you engage with them, the more they think they've got a chance of persuading you to pay. Just ignore them.
  7. ScarletPimpernel
    I think we are starting to go round in circles, as so often happens with RLP cases. CAG's view is that theft, including shoplifting is wrong, but that the criminal justice system is the appropriate way to deal with it. There is no place for a parallel system such as RLP, and so no-one should pay them. This is the advice that has been given, and reiterated several times in this thread. Once you have the advice, and/or have done research elsewhere, it's up to you to make a decision on what to do; no one else can make it for you, and asking the same question over and over again won't change our advice. Consequently, I'm locking this thread.
  8. ScarletPimpernel
    No, it's a template threatogram. It's an arbitrary time limit in a templated letter sent by a DCA, so who knows, and who cares.... Wait until you have received a sealed court claim. A SAR would do no harm, as it will let you discover if there are any penalty charges, but it goes to the original creditor, not the DCA. If it's statute barred then that will stop the matter in its tracks. If you are certain it's SB I cannot imagine any reason for not disposing of the matter at once by telling them, but that is a matter for you, and if you choose not to tell us the full story (which is, of course, also a matter for you), then any advice we give is hindered by not having all the facts.
  9. ScarletPimpernel
    You should remove references to Default Notices under the Consumer Credit Act, since - as mentioned above - mobile phone contracts are not credit agreements and thus not subject to the CCA.
  10. ScarletPimpernel
    You have quite plainly disputed liability for the debt, so Lowell should have suspended all collection activity whilst they investigate. You could send them another letter:
  11. ScarletPimpernel
    I agree. You should make clear to FOS that the matter is subject to a CCJ. I'd also write a very short letter to Lowell telling them that you will continue to make payments in accordance with the court's order, and they should take the matter up with whomever they bought this lemon off if they have a problem with it.
  12. ScarletPimpernel
    Lowell tried this with me, claiming a much later default date than was the case. Even when I produced a copy of the actual default notice I'd kept - that showed it was statute barred - they went on to the 'we're getting statements' stuff. The statements came, together with another demand for payment. I took great pleasure in pointing out to Lowell that the statements proved that the cause of action (which is what matters for statute-barring), was indeed well over 6 years before. I made a formal complaint, and they replied saying that the original creditor had provided them with different information so they believed it wasn't SB. Patent nonsense, since Lowell had had the statements, but I think it shows that they are either alarmingly incompetent, or they just try it on - I know which I think it is.
  13. ScarletPimpernel
    By coincidence, last week I was working with another former RAF paramedic who has PTSD. They were doing almost back to back tours in Afghanistan because there were so few of them - and a budget cut meant that a number of paramedics were taken out of training just before they finished their courses, so others had to keep going back. PTSD is worth £53 a week in benefit, which seems to me to be a pittance.
  14. ScarletPimpernel
    The EU cross-border enforcement directive now applies to the UK, so whilst it may be improbable I wouldn't say that it's impossible.
  15. ScarletPimpernel
    This whole matter is YOUR responsibility; YOU failed to return the hired kit in accordance with the agreement YOU entered into. YOU are the person who committed a criminal offence. You really do need to stop making excuses and expecting others to do things because you can't be bothered, and take responsibility for your actions. Yes, it is possible that you could be arrested if you return to the UK.
  16. ScarletPimpernel
    I do not think RLP are likely to become involved with this. Clearly a report has been made to the police, who have treated it as theft, which is a criminal matter. You have not only deprived the owner of the equipment of the kit itself, but also the rental income he'd have had since you should have returned it. Since you left the country, and didn't bother to contact the owner or arrange for someone to return the kit, the police have no reason to believe that you did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of his equipment. I am not sure why you think that the police or owner should contact you - you need to take responsibility for your actions, and deal with the consequences.. I think you should do the right thing, and either arrange for the kit to be returned at once, or contact the owner and arrange to pay to replace the kit and compensate him for the lost income. Even if you do this, you could still be arrested if you return to the UK - returning stolen property is a mitigating factor but doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed. However, I think it would be reasonable to ask the owner to withdraw the police complaint if compensated, and I think the police would be unlikely to take it further if that was the case.
  17. ScarletPimpernel
    If you are absolutely certain that he didn't make the payments, send something like this:
  18. ScarletPimpernel
    Try something like this: Be prepared for them to come back with some waffle about being provided with different information by the original creditor, at which point come back and we can make them prove it.
  19. ScarletPimpernel
    If the last payment (cause of action) was in 2002 or 2004 then the account should have dropped off CRA files long ago. Lowell can't invent a new default date just so they can keep it alive - although that is exactly what they tried to do with one of my accounts, although they weren't reporting it on the CRA files. I think that the only way to deal with this - if you are certain it's SB - will be to challenge Lowell. You can do this in writing, without acknowledging the debt and/or affecting SB. Happy to draft something suitable if you like.
  20. ScarletPimpernel
    You say the account was closed in 2002 - and then that it was closed in 2004!
  21. ScarletPimpernel
    What have Lowell put on your credit file? - if it's a default, when is it dated? What does the debt relate to - loan, bank account, credit card, catalogue or what?
  22. ScarletPimpernel
    What is shown on your credit file?
  23. ScarletPimpernel
    Thanks for pointing me at this thread. Any claim against a debtor resident in NI would have to be brought in the NI courts. DCAs are much less likely to go to court in NI than they do on the mainland. This is not just because the usual suspects like Carter and Restons can't act in NI - they just use a NI based solicitor - but mostly because there is no bulk issuing centre and the NI courts are much stricter on them producing the documentation their claims rely on when the claim is issued. As we all know they rarely have this, preferring to rely on people being intimidated by a court claim and their solicitors' tactics to get easy wins. There are a couple of DCAs in NI, one being Scotcall in disguise, another a massive two-person operation run from a grubby office above a hairdressers on the Newtownards Road, who sometimes act for mainland DCAs. All they do is send out letters, though.
  24. ScarletPimpernel
    Apparently Mackenzie had earlier lied to the court, falsely claiming that he was ill and couldn't attend a hearing. Just fancy that - a DCA telling lies! Here's hoping he runs into Big Angus in the showers...
  25. ScarletPimpernel
    Read the sticky 'the case RLP dropped' (the title says it all), which involved Debenhams and a vulnerable person (by age) who was targeted by RLP. I'm not aware of Debenhams taking a single case to court. In any case, you have been dealt with by the appropriate statutory authorities; RLP aren't a substitute or alternative to these. RLP will send various silly letters - but that's all they can do - and you can safely ignore them.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...