Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. According to Lowell's letters, the account in question was opened in 2015. We've lived at our current address since 2010 (and TalkTalk confirmed on the phone that our address does not match that registered for the account). His DOB and signature also won't match.
  2. Interesting addition, thank you. One thing though - although I am sending off a Prove It letter disputing that the debt is ours, I can't ask them for a copy of the contract... if I'm stating the debt is not ours, then under data protection laws they cannot send me a copy of a contract that we are not party to I mean... if the case is not dismissed based on our defence or when Lowell receive the Prove It letter then presumably Lowell would have to submit any contract as part of their evidence in the case and we would get to see it then. But unless that happens we can't request a copy of a contract we are not party to.
  3. Okay well that's fine because they don't. They can't possibly have, because we have never had an account with TalkTalk at ANY address and therefore have never made any payments because we never had any such account.
  4. Thank you everyone for your advice. I am sending Lowell a Prove It letter stating that the debt is not ours, as well as submitting our defence to the court stating that the debt is not ours.
  5. Lowell are allowed to send out god knows how many letters to anyone with the same name as the debtor and the onus is on all of those people to respond and say "I'm not the person you're looking for", rather than on them to conduct any proper due diligence or investigation to find the person, and if you don't respond they're allowed to take you to court based on nothing more than you having the same name as the debtor? For all I know they may be taking multiple people with this same name to court for this one debt? I know it's our fault for not sending them a Prove It letter etc to stop this before it got to court action but tbh my past experience of DCAs have been that they will continue to pursue no matter what you do. And we knew the debt was not ours so the letters felt like empty threats if you will. But given that the debt is not ours, and that can be proved, the court cannot rule in Lowell's favour and make us pay it, can they? Maybe I am being naive but I cannot see how the court can effectively rule "Well, yeah, the debt is provably not yours but you didn't respond to the DCA's letters demanding you pay this debt and "let" them take you to court based on nothing more than your name, so we're gonna make you pay the debt anyway."?
  6. Tbh we may have done... there have been that many letters and I haven't read them all in detail (and I've previous experience of DCAs threatening court action - including sending a blank pro forma claim form saying "this is what it will look like when we file a court claim against you" - just to try and scare you into paying). I know it's partially our own fault for not dealing with this before it came to court action but tbh I kinda felt like if Lowell want to waste their money and the court's time filing a court claim when literally the only information they have that connects us to the debt is my husband having the same (very common) name as the debtor then on their own head be it. I'm not particularly concerned about the court claim as we know the debt is not ours so the court cannot enforce a debt that is provably not ours. I just want to state clearly in the defence we submit how flimsy Lowell's premise for chasing us for this debt is - that they have proceeded to court action based on nothing more than a name and having made no attempt to identify that hubby is actually the debtor.
  7. As stated in my post, I am submitting our defence to the claim online atm. I just wanted to include, if possible, some mention of what if any regulations Lowell are in breach of. In hindsight, we probably should have sent them a Prove It letter to make them go away but tbh both hubby and I are very busy and we just didn't get around to it - I was intending to draft one during the Christmas holidays but the court claim form has obviously pre-empted that. And tbh it's annoying that the onus is put on us to prove we are not the debtor when Lowell have made 0 effort to actually identify the debtor and have more than likely just sent out letters to everyone with that name. I've had a google around and found that Lowell (allegedly) adhere to the Code of Conduct of the CSA which states that members should "take reasonable steps to ensure that the person being contacted is in fact the customer" so I am including that in my defence, noting that they clearly haven't done so. They are taking us to court over this debt based on nothing more than my husband having the same name as the debtor. (Sadly, hubby made the call to TalkTalk and he didn't record it. But we are confident that the debt is not ours and that if Lowell or the court check with TalkTalk they will be able to verify that.)
  8. How can the court possibly rule against us or charge us anything when the debt is not ours, has never been ours, Lowell have done nothing to ascertain that we are the debtor they are seeking before taking us to court? They literally have nothing other than a name to suggest that we may be the debtor they are looking for - they can't have, because we know we aren't. We can't get any kind of written confirmation from Talk Talk that the debt is not ours because, as the debt is not ours and we are not party to it, they cannot/should not tell us anything about it because of data protection. Hubby only got them to admit on the phone that the debt is not connected to us/our address by saying "Okay, if I tell you MY details, can you tell me if they in any way match the details of the debt" and he did and they said no, they don't match the debtor details - and they shouldn't really even have said that much.
  9. Thanks for the link etc but none of that is relevant because the debt absolutely is not ours so the particulars of the defence are easy. It's not our debt. It never was. We can't ask for copies of documentation etc because we are not party to any agreement/contract so under data protection we can't ask for it. I just want to know what the regulations are about DCAs chasing people for payment of a debt when they haven't even bothered to even try and make sure the person they are chasing is the debtor. Are they in breach of any regulations by doing this? If they're not, no big deal. But if they are, I would like to state that in my defence. Thanks.
  10. Hope I can get a quick bit of advice/knowledge from you guys. Lowell have been sending my husband the usual series of threatograms over a Talk Talk account debt and have now sent us a county court claim form. What makes this especially fun is that this debt is absolutely not ours. We have never had an account with TalkTalk. Hubby has even phoned TalkTalk and verified that he has never had an account with them (and they actually confirmed to us that the debt is question is not and never has been registered at our address - but we can't really use that info because under data protection they shouldn't even have told us that much). Hubby has a very common name and I can only assume that Lowell, being unable to find the actual debtor, have just sent out speculative threatograms to everyone they could find with that name in the hope of bullying someone into paying. We haven't bothered replying to the threatograms because, quite frankly, why should we? It's not our debt and we are under no obligation to send them personal and/or financial information (also, in my past experience of DCAs chasing a debt for a previous resident of our address, these companies are extremely reluctant to remove a name/address from their records unless you can provide them with an alternative address at which to chase - they would rather continue to pursue payment at an address they know not to be that of the debtor than have nowhere to send threatograms to). I am submitting our defence to the claim on the website and it's fairly straightforward because it amounts to, Sorry mate, not our debt, sod off. But I would like to get Lowell in as much trouble with the courts as I possibly can for their unscrupulous shenanigans I would like to know what the regulations are (I know there are regulations DCAs are supposed to follow, not that they often do) about chasing debts/issuing court action etc when they haven't even ascertained that the person they are chasing is the actual debtor. Are they in breach of regulations here? Or are they actually allowed to send out threatening letters to everyone with the same name as the debtor they are seeking and take people to court just because they have the same name as a debtor? Any help/thoughts/guidance much appreciated.
  11. Quick Q if anyone can help please.. . for the Small Claims Track Questionnaire that I have to fill out and file with the court (and serve copies on all other parties) do I HAVE to complete my mobile number and email address etc under the Contact Details section? Given that I have to send a copy of this to Parking Eye, I really don't want them having my mobile number or email address.
  12. I;m guessing the process now is that a date is set for a court hearing and I have to research and prepare my argument as to why the sign at the entrance constitutes invitation to treat not a contract etc. Will look up the relevant cases etc. I've already photographed and measured etc all the signs in the car park - details are in a document attached further up the thread. It's also relevant, I think, that the sign nearest to where I parked is the one that is a full 30cm higher than it should be on the planning permission - when I stood directly under it, when first taking photos/measurements etc, I *still* couldn't read all the small print at the bottom, it was that high up!
  13. it seems that Parking Eye are set on pursuing this. I've since received in the post my own Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track form from the court which I need to return to them and also, from Parking Eye, a mahoosive pile of papers in response to my defence - their pile of bumf includes a full print-out of the Parking Eye v Beavis ruling and various diagrams and examples of the signage at the car park in question. I've scanned the pages in which they set out their response to my defence and would appreciate and advice on where I go from here - what it likely to happen next and how I defend against their claims in court (as I assume this is now going to proceed to a court date). TIA. PE Response.pdf
  14. Yeah I know, I was young(er) and foolish back then and drowning in debt and struggling with bereavement and pregnancy and illegal redundancy and I didn't know about CAG and I let myself be bullied and threatened into making payments - payments that I couldn't even afford! AND they used to phone me up and demand that I increase my payments! I can't believe, looking back now, that I was stupid enough to talk to DCAs on the phone. But that is how these vultures make their money. .. by preying on people who don't know their rights and who can be bullied and pressured. I will continue to ignore Erudio's threatograms and keep an eye out in case they decide to chance their arm and send out a claim form. Thanks again for your help dx.
  15. I had student loans through the SLC when I was at Uni (finished Uni in 1997!!). I have never earned above the threshold for repaying the loans and used to apply for deferment on this basis each year. However somewhere around 2004-2008 SLC starting screwing me around, failing to send me out my deferment paperwork, losing the paperwork I sent in etc etc etc (I have long suspected this was deliberate) until eventually my deferment didn't go through in time, the loan became payable and, because I couldn't afford to pay, I missed a payment and bingo, I had arrears which meant I didn't qualify for deferment! I don't think I ever made any payments to them because my financial situation at the time was terrible - particularly cos of my bank pushing me further and further into debt each month by applying bank charges for unplanned overdraft, which then pushed me further overdrawn each successive month, incurring more and more charges etc etc etc! I've not heard anything from SLC, or contacted them, for a looooooong time - I don't even know how long but am guessing it has to be at least 7 years cos we moved house that long ago and SLC have never had this address or contacted me here. However, recently I have started getting letters from Erudio chasing this debt which has, apparently, "reached maturity". So my question is... how do I proceed from here? My loan is one of the older ones where you had to be earning over a certain threshold to repay. I have never earned over that threshold and don't earn anything at present (stay at home mum). I've not been in contact with SLC - or any DCA or anyone about this debt - for, at best guess, at least 7 years. Does this mean the debt is statute-barred? Any advice on how best to deal with this would be gratefully received. Oooh thank you admins for combining these threads! I hadn't even remembered that I'd previously asked for advice on here re this debt, it was all so long ago!!
  • Create New...