Isn't it...

One of the greatest Youtube clips there is. Mr. Hitchens' absolute lack of sorrow and lack of need to justify his remarks are about how I feel about the hopefully imminent demise of these two companies, who have been trading for far too long.

01133086000 - who calls me? It's the entry for Lowells on whocallsme. Seems we have a very tempremental Lowells employee on there.

Silver, gold, platinum and diamond repayment plans? Seriously? Do we get green stamps if we decide to take one of these plans up? FFS!

Intrum and AK about to fizzle out. Oh, what a tragedy - my hearts bleeds. Let's see if we can give them that final push over the cliff.

Yep, report all DCAs concerned to all arbitration bodies concerned. Then, as your conduct clearly is unacceptable, go and sit on the naughty step - before a collector takes it from you. Reliable cracks me up - that has to be one of the most laughable lines in any DCA correspondence from any company.

This was a more of less copy of a letter I sent to Moorcroft some months ago. I'm not in a position to scan or Photobucket the letter, but I was quite pleased with it. Never heard a thing since. >> PRE-OFT DIVISION >> I have been in the middle of a long-running dispute by LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC. To address points made multiple times over. It is a legal requirement to fulfil my CCA Request (as submitted to AIC in April 2008) before legal proceedings in the County Court can take place. This letter reminds you that you are obliged to carry out the content of that letter in full, even if it not actually read by you. To prevent complaints to the Ombudsman Service, the Office of Fair Trading and Stockport Trading Standards, it is essential that you settle this problem without delay. The request should be carried out in full (the contents of my letter to AIC complied with in their entirety). Both myself and my advisor do not wish to take this course of action, but if the content of my previous letter cannot be acted on within 14 days of you receiving this letter, complaints may be issued by myself without further notice. I would draw to your attention that if the request is not addressed, the following penalties may be levied upon Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd. 1. A substantial fine. 2. Review/revocation of your Consumer Credit Licence. 3. A County Court Judgement entered against your company. I would emphasise that should said complaint go in my favour, then any court costs incurred on my part will be vigorously pursued, for which Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd may be liable. Yours sincerely, F_DCAs (fake signature). Please note I am NOT open to telephone contact by your company at ANY time.

Has anyone managed to find out which agencies/companies were involved in this case?

Mother who drowned son, 11, over cash crisis detained indefinitely | Mail Online Debt-ridden mother who drowned son in bath is detained - Crime, UK - The Independent Debt drove mum to drown son | The Sun |News The Mail in particular contains some really bigoted, crass, simple-minded and unhelpful comments, which is just about what I'd expect from that paper. Shame that none of the articles seem to name which agencies/companies were involved in driving the situation to something as desperate and as upsetting as this.

EstebanVeao - Everyone in the country is a taxpayer - what do you think VAT is? Do you work for one of these companies?

IJ's usual form is to try to fob you off in the other direction and say you need to contact the original creditor for this info. Don't fall for that one - once they get the request and £1 statutory payment, they're obligated to comply and should under NO circumstances continue ANY kind of collection activity until the request has been fulfilled. If they should honour your request (past experience will dictate that they won't), then what they send you should be scanned (with all personal details, barcodes, reference numbers removed) as the agreement may have flaws in that makes it legally unenforceable anyway.

What a surprise! Lloyds TSB again! I'd submit complaints to the ICO, the OFT and the FOS. It's true that nothing positive or constructive will probably come out of it, but it's worth saving the complaints on record, because you can bet your bottom dollar that LTSB WILL attempt to wind you up. The more complaints they get, the more likely it'll be that their contempt towards its customer base will need radical change. And so too may the complaints bodies' indifference towards customer complaints. As one poster has already rightly noted, LTSB are infamous for being difficult for SAR requests, but that also applies whenever any customer has any kind of problem.

Ignorance is no excuse for wrongdoing. It's applied in various criminal trials worldwide and it applies to this also. i whole-heartedly concur - high time for the 'regulatory bodies' (tee hee!) to be actually doing what they're supposed to be there to do, whatever that is these days!

OFT for all three. Cabot shouldn't be passing it on after they've got the SB letter.

One more thing - if you'll be living in Oz, have LTSB send the statements to the Australian address. I'd also remind them they need to take special care in sending it. Let me know how you get on. To be fair, LTSB won't cancel the charges out - they're sly that way! You'll have to start a reclaim process to put the account well and truly into dispute.

If the entire debt is made up of charges, there should be a letter in the Templates Library for this. It's more probable (in fact, certain) that LTSB owes YOU money. If you haven't got all your statements over a long period, you might need to Subject Access Request LTSB (cost of £10 for this). Official deadline is 40 days, but don't expect that LTSB will be on time - they never are with SARs! When you request your statements, assuming you don't have them already - make sure you ask for all statements going back to 1995. LTSB will probably tell you they can only supply from 1999 onwards, but don't be put off. Continue pressing them for statements pre-1999 if you have to (and you probably will!). Oh, and don't forget the 8% interest you can put on top of whichever charges you're trying to claim back. There's an online calculator somewhere that helps you to do this - it's easy enough to find with a Google Search. Even if you're moving to Oz, I would still pursue - it's your money, it's a lot of money, and you have a right to claim it back. If nothing else, it'll throw LTSB into disarray (more so than usual!), and that's a good enough excuse for pressing ahead with a claim. As for APEX, they can be told it's none of their business - the debt is in dispute, and the mechanics of this don't concern them. I'm happy to see LTSB consigned to history - it's because of them that I'm on this forum!

If the whole sum consist of charges, it should be claimed back under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Section 2083 cites about 'disproportionate penalty charges'). Be prepared for LTSB to stall, lie, and attempt to mislead you - as they always do. You owe APEX - and LTSB for that matter - nothing.

I would ignore. You don't have to deal with AIC. If it's LTSB, the agreement will be flawed in some way. Wait for further advice on the enforceability issue. But if it's badly worded or unclear, it may also be worth reading up on the Consumer Credit Act and see where it stands as regards your situation.

I hate this bank with a passion. The sooner it becomes history, so much the better.

Report them. Might be worth mentioning - if there've been other threads stating the same thing - that this is hardly a one-off incident.

Report them.

Yep - SB letter and report them. MF are all bark and absolutely no bite. They wouldn't take legal action in a million years - the only time they'd show up in court are as defendants. Show them that you bite, though.

According to Cr*p Towns (1 or 2, I don't recall), Hackney Council was apparently so corrupt, that its own Fraud Department was put under investigation. Figures that they'd have ties with JBW.

Agreed - ignore them. Intrum are full of s**t, and soon give up. Any call you get, if you don't have the means of recording what's said, refuse to co-operate in any way with them.

I'd be inclined to make it a criminal matter as well. 'Technically we are in breach'??? I can't believe that even the stupidest DCA would be stupid enough to actually admit that! Actually, scratch that - I can. This is demanding money with menaces from what I can see. "We're in breach of the law, yes, but we're going to continue logging damaging data against you because of an agreement we can't prove actually exists" is how it reads to me. I'd cite a Section 10 with the ICO as well, as well as the OFT.