Dear tifo. Thanks for your contribution. Fortunately for me the debt is so small as to not justify the expenditure of much time or money on their part and especially as they have no legal right to charge. My defence is not one of 'trying to get away with it', but that of being subject to a betrayal by Barclaycard which submitted me to harrassing treatment by Lowells. Their legal redress, as they own the debt, is through Barclays and not me. On the other hand, should they have knowingly purchased ownership of the debt without legal right to collect ...! There are laws governing harrassment in respect to the collection of debt and any undue pressure exerted in pursuit of an illegal claim can constitute a legal offence. I am investigating this line of research with a solicitor friend, I would urge you to do the same.

An update ... It is many moons since I applied to Lowells for a copy of the CCA which they politely acknowledged. There has since been no action that I am aware of. Would an avaricious company do nothing if there was an avenue of pursuit available to them? Not really! Thank you Consumer Forum.

Thanks folks, Still waiting for CCA. 5% eh! That's the same percentage chance of having a cancer op. or a heart op. or a prostate op. I've had all three!

May I ask a question of those with some legal knowledge of 'Statute Barred'? In my opener I stated that someone at Barclaycard had told me that my account was Statute Barred as it was over six years old. However, I have paid a small monthly repayment which has not varied over a nine/ten year period so .... Does 'Statute Barred' apply only to accounts that have lain inactive in the sense of 'moribund'. or can an account such as mine qualify as 'Statute Barred' because it has remained STABLE for more than six years? Well, it's a thought!

Thank you for the replies to my attempts to flog a dead horse! My eldest daughter is a chartered accountant and when I broached the matter to her the response was 'Don't worry - you haven't got any money so they can't do anything - if they went to court the judge would throw it out! I must be a born worrier.

May I again thank the contributors for their inputs which have been very useful so far. An update ... I have applied for a copy of the CCA and I now have to wait and see if there is one. I am expecting a reply from Barclaycard in the next couple of weeks regarding 'my complaint'! As regards Lowells I am still blocking their phone calls due to their usual threatening content. There are now two types of letter emmanating from Lowells coming through my letter box, one type is computer generated and designed to put pressure on the victim and the other type is a dictated response to my correspondence and requests, and this latter type are moderate and correct and as a decent and normal person would expect from a company trading under our laws. As far as my initial blurb is concerned there still seems to be an unresolved point in it in as much as ... The original CCA contract terms were altered ten years ago when the debt sum was consolidated as an interest free item and all future borrowing rights suspended. I maintain that a new contract was established between Barclaycard and myself over time and regular practice. Because of chronic ill health and the need to live off benefits my regular monthly contributions to the debt repayment were at best 'nominal'. However, the size of the debt and the relative size of the repayments do not alter the legal framework that governs such arrangements. It has now gone on for ten years. Of necessity Barclaycard must have altered this contract arrangement by selling the debt to Lowells. What is the legal relationship of the latter contract arrangement to the original CCA agreement? Because of the latter contract did Barclaycard inadvertently dispose of a required strict adherence to the terms of the original CCA agreement? Time! This seems to be an item that is legally adjustable in that ... the actual period of time an arrangement is met by both parties will determine the establishment of an over-riding contract. Ten years! Anyway, I await news from abroad. Thank you for your interest and yes, I will be donating something to this worthy organisation. Just wait a couple of weeks!

A grateful 'thank you' for the interest taken and advice given to number 1 dated 16-6-07@ 13.58. I have applied to Lowells for a copy of the credit agreement under the Consumer Credit Act. However ...... I received a letter containing two pages from Lowells this morning (not related to the request) which pose an interesting scenario, especially as far as the Consumer Credit Act is concerned ... I now quote the relevant paragraph from page one: You received from us Notice of assignment of the above account as required under Section 136 of the Law and Property Act 1925 to make the debt effective. The relevant section of page two is: I write to inform you that your Barclaycard account number *********** has been sold to Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd. on the *******. Lowell Financial Ltd. have been appointed as duly authorised collection agents for recovery of the outstanding balance. This second section is old news however ... Many questions arise in the mind as to property and ownership but ... Can an item supposedly governed by the Consumer Credit Act be suddenly transferred to the property act. Can Barclaycard assign the debt to Lowells under the Property Act? Can Lowells legally swop one law for another? If the debt is property and is claimed as being their property ... What has it got to do with me? They demand repayment of the debt but only attempt to substantiate ownership of the debt therefore, what legal right have they to make demands? As Lowells have committed this intelligence to paper then my path toward its resolving should be clearer to those with experience in these matters. Please, a few simple words of advice will suffice ... I hope! Regards and thank you.

Thank you very much for your contribution to my salvation, I will do it. I have also had another piece of advice which includes some of yours therefore, this system of cooperation works! Thank you again.

;-)Hi, I introduced myself yesterday but didn't get round to specifying the whole problem and my current ideas for tackling them. Barclaycard sold the debt owed by me to them to an associate company of Lowell Financial who now pursue the debt. I have received no correspondence whatsoever from Barclaycard over this matter but have been harassed by Lowells for payment. A number of years ago I fell on hard times due to extreme health problems and as such, couldn't keep up the repayment sums due. The sum owed had to be consolidated and an agreement was reached between Barclaycard and myself that I pay them a fixed monthly amount. I have maintained that arrangement for a period of ten years! I was therefore surprised to receive a threatening phone call from Lowells informing me of their purchase of the debt accompanied by demands for payment. I didn't agree to anything over the phone and said that I must contact Barclaycard about this matter. I did. The girl in the legal recovery department at Barclaycard was very nice and I am sure, tried here best to help me, especially considering the constraints she must have been under. The main point she made, apart from confirming the sale of the debt, was to inform me that the debt was 'statute barred' and advised me to write to Lowells informing them of this fact. I did. They said that they would investigate. They left me alone for a few months, apart from non-threatening offers through the post. Then the threatening phone calls started; apparently there were to be dire consequences if I didn't conform to what they wanted. I maintained that I had received no written instruction from Barclaycard to cease paying them the agreed monthly sum which I am still doing. This did not please Lowells. I am an OAP on a basic pension which includes a 'guaranteed pension credit supplement' and as such, I receive housing benefit and council tax relief. I can imagine that my current financial situation doesn't please Lowells either. However, because of Lowells behavior and worrying how to deal with it my attention has been taken away from Barclaycard who, when you consider it, and especially as everyone in the financial field know about Lowells reputation, dropped me into that particular cauldron with no consideration apart from their own pockets. They are dogs really. My attention is now focused on Barclaycard but not as I first directed it toward protecting me from Lowells, but to what were the legal consequences of selling the debt while it was being serviced, and had been without interruption for almost ten years. If I had paid Barclaycard nothing and they had let it lie dormant for six years the debt would be 'statute barred', but, in my case it had been honestly serviced. So why in this circumstance should I be singled out to be liable to repay a debt now legally owned by someone else whereas, someone who had never bothered to pay anything gets away with it. Can the law of the land be so inconsiderate? I hope to see a solicitor next week for a freebie interview - one of the benefits of being poor I suppose. However, I will have an hypothesis to put to them which is the following: Question: Legal - What is legal in respect to my agreed payments to Barclaycard over a ten year period (I still have their letter proposing it)? My speculative answer: ESTABLISHMENT - I am theirs and no one else's! There is nothing in the agreement that specifies 'transference of the agreement'. Yes, the extreme length of the period the agreement has run 'ESTABLISHES A PRECEDENT'. - The precedent establishes a relationship - In this case the lender and the debtor - I am the stated debtor and Barclaycard are the stated lender to whom the debt is due - That relationship precedes any other - Therefore, when the stated lender arranges transfer of a saleable item such as the loan arrangements, the relationship alters. However, as in this case the arrangements have transpired over a significant period and so the relationship (Barclaycard and me) are legally established IN LAW - It is no longer a temporary or even an expedient arrangement. Another question: Was it legal for Barclaycard to sell the debt to Lowells? They have actually done it and so the legality is commensurate with what happened. In this particular case Barclaycard infringed their own contractual obligation which was: THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO DEMAND REPAYMENT! Without the removal of the precedent the fact of the transfer from the original lender to a purchaser will RENDER NO OBLIGATION as far as the debtor is concerned. Lowells must establish a new one! No chance! The present arrangement of Barclays to the new debt owner (I continue for the moment until this matter is cleared up legally, to continue paying Barclays the agreed amount every month) has no precedent in law, even if it was 'lawful' for Lowells to purchase the debt. However, the right of the purchaser of the debt (Lowells) to seek recompence from Barclays will be substantiated once 'I have established my prevailing right'. Barclays actions have absolved me from any duty to repay the debt! In other words I must sort Barclaycard out; Lowells have no legal basis for claiming anything from me. Barclaycard may be able to sell the debt but they cannot transfer AN ESTABLISHED DUTY TO PAY. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about 'contract law' who would oblige with advice that 'legally binds' and will lead to a resolving of this issue. If this is proved it could help a lot of poor people out there. Thank you for being patient and reading this through to the end.

Hello! Trouble with Lowell Financial who say they have purchased credit card debt more than 10 years old - the usual harrasing phone calls from Lowells which have now been blocked - they can write instead - It is peculiar that what they write hardly ever matches the abuse and bullying contained in the phone conversations - I have received no correspondence whatsoever from the original credit card company who will remain anonymous for the moment - they said when I contacted them by phone last year I was 'not to worry' as it is 'statute barred' and as such the sale of the debt was an internal mistake and was in the process of being rectified - I was fobbed off, they weren't doing anything about it - Lowells say the debt is not 'statute barred' but will not say why - However, there is more to this .....