Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

stockport6

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About stockport6

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks. It was worth a try. I would have been happy with a sincere apology from them really but they don't even have the decency to do that. **** that lot of them
  2. that's what I am asking. even though they may pay the £500 in the next few days. The date it should have been paid by was 11/02/16. So I have charged them a late payment fee which they have said in writing they will not pay. So can I take them to the small claims court for the late payment fee? I am not really bothered about the money. I just want them to have a small part of the agro they gave me and if that means them having to attend court to defend it I will be happy with that. Even better if I won would be to send the bailiffs in
  3. I still have not received the £500 payment I sent Lowell an email stating that they are late in paying and that I have added a late payment charge to them of £200 plus interest. They replied by saying the below. In that case can I take them to the small claims court as they have put in writing they will not pay. As previously outlined, you will receive no further monetary value from the Lowell Group of Companies and any further contact in this respect will not receive a response, including any letters we may receive. Any action you may instigate will be defended. This is the last response you will receive. I trust that this clarifies our position.
  4. Would I be able to send a letter to Lowell stating that for everyday after the proposed cut off date by FOS that I will charge them £50 a day. is that enforceable? Thanks
  5. I am starting to regret accepting the FOS decision. I sent the acceptance form back on the 14Jan and I still have not had any contact from Lowell about payment and even worse they are still refusing to let the CRA remove the default that they have already agreed is not mine.
  6. I have accepted the £500 from the FSA/Lowell. I have now opened a new complaint with Co-op seeing as they sold my address to Lowell without carrying out any basic checks to see if I was indeed the original debtor. see where that takes me. I also have to see if I can get the CRA;s to remove any links to my addresses from any other persons of the same name. That is going to be very difficult as I have spent the last 7 years trying to sort it out and I am still getting letters about debts that are not mine but the DCA quote the CRA as the source of their information. Very tired of it all now.
  7. Thanks Scarlet., My SC was granted with a review date as at the time they granted it I was in the process of cleaning up the mess that EGG had created by linking other peoples addresses and accounts to my CRA files. (and presume my genuine addresses to other peoples CRA files). The MOD accepted that the details on my CRA was incorrect so granted me SC with a review date. This is when my SC was suspended as I could not account for the default and could not supply details as it was not mine. Only when Lowell admitted in writing in the Jan 14 was I able to supply this to MOD and they then granted me the SC again. In the time between suspension and it being granted again there were a number of internal roles that I wanted to apply for but they needed VALID SC. With regard to the loan. I did not want to risk lowering my score any further so used websites that stated if you would be accepted without leave markers on your files. The only one I could get was 16%. I agree that the deterrent is just not there. I thought that the authorities would have taken a view that even though Lowell knew the details were incorrect they still refused to grant permission for the CRA to remove it and hence breaching data protection. I know FOS don't really deal with DPA. If I was in US I could have got $83 million dollars instead of an insulting £500. the money is not really the issue. I just wanted Lowell to feel some of the pain I have.
  8. I have just emailed FOS back to ask how they came to the figure of £500. I found the below on their website which is guidance for awarding compensation. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm
  9. Thanks. Its a shame I cant just get comp for them being so rubbish at what they do. its the mental impact I cant quantify.
  10. Thanks. there is no deterrent at all for these low lives to stop impacting peoples lives in such a way. They simply do not care what damage they do. The CRAs are just as bad. The issues all started in 2009 when EGG linked my addresses to someone of the same name. since then I have had many letters demanding money for debts that are not mine. Lowell is the only one though that took it to a default and CCJ, The rest just keep sending letters and ringing me. The real problem now is not with my file (apart from the incorrect default) it is with the other person or persons that I was linked to in 2009. I have cleaned my files up but I am betting anything the others have not. My old addresses and possibility my new ones are on THEIR files and so when a DCA does a search they get mine and it all starts all over again. I tried to get the CRA to do something but they just said only the owner of the files can change it. Even though it is my address details they can see and that they know are incorrect. running out of energy for it all now.
  11. I have been in dispute with Lowell for a long time now regarding a default on my CRA files that is not mine and has been proven by the FOS not to be mine I received the final decision (below) from the adjudicator but still feel that it is not enough and really want Lowell to pay for what they have done. £500 seems a small amount. I just wished I was in US as a woman their sued one for $83 million and won for the same thing. Should I accept it? ------------------------------------------------------- final decision complaint by: complaint about: Lowell Financial Ltd complaint reference: date of decision: 15 November 2015 complaint Mr C complains about court action by Lowell Financial Ltd for a debt that isn’t his. background Mr C’s address was first linked to a person of the same name in 2009. This affected his credit file with several credit reference agencies. Mr C believed the issue had been resolved in 2014 after he first complained to Lowell. In April 2015 Mr C received court papers from Lowell relating to a different debt which doesn’t belong to him. Mr C complained again and Lowell investigated. Lowell accepted that a mistake had been made. Lowell explained that it had put procedures in place in 2014 to stop Mr C being connected to their customer of the same name. However, Lowell had passed this debt to one of its sister companies which wasn’t aware of the history. The legal action was later discontinued and Lowell offered Mr C £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience he’d been caused. But, Lowell said it couldn’t remove the link to its customer on Mr C’s credit file. It said this could only be done by the business which had created the link in the first place. Mr C wasn’t happy with the compensation offered by Lowell. He has also continued to get texts from them. Our adjudicator recommended that the complaint should be upheld. As Lowell accepts Mr C isn’t connected to any of its accounts, she said Lowell should remove the record from Mr C’s credit file. She also recommended £450 compensation for the inconvenience and upset caused to Mr C. Mr C was still unhappy with the compensation recommendation. He says it doesn’t take into account the financial impact this has had on him. Mr C says he has been forced to take a loan at an exaggerated rate and he would like the cost to be taken into account. He also says he hasn’t been able to get a mortgage and has been denied credit. Finally he says he’s been denied the opportunity to earn a higher salary because the default prevented him from getting security clearance. my findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I have taken into account the information sent to us by credit reference agencies and by the business which first created the link. The lender which created the link between Mr C and its former customer with the same name has explained that its customer’s account defaulted in March 2010. The lender then passed the debt to an outside debt collection agent. This is when the mistaken link to Mr C’s address seems to have been made. It’s not clear how this happened as the debt collector is no longer trading. The lender thinks there might have been a ‘mis-trace’. The lender says it then updated its records with Mr C’s address before selling the account to Lowell in January 2013. At this point it deleted its entry with credit reference agencies. As Lowell is now the owner of the debt the default is registered by Lowell. The credit reference agencies also say Lowell is the data controller for the account and is responsible for sharing the information with them. As the data belongs to Lowell, the agencies say they can’t independently remove or change the information. One of the agencies has also told us that Mr C made contact in July 2014 to challenge the record. The agency says it contacted Lowell but Lowell wouldn’t agree to delete the link. Lowell said the information was correctly registered because the address details had come from the original lender. The agency says it will remove the link if Lowell confirms the information is wrong. It’s clear that Lowell wasn’t responsible for creating the link. But, I’m satisfied that Lowell is now responsible for maintaining the entry on Mr C’s credit file, which it knows to be wrong. Lowell knew in January 2014 – when it dealt with Mr C’s first complaint - that Mr C wasn’t connected to its customer. Therefore, when the credit reference agency contacted Lowell in July 2014, it should have authorised correction of Mr C’s credit file. Similarly, when it passed the debt to its sister company it should have known that the address was wrong. I don’t agree that it’s Mr C’s responsibility to contact the credit reference agencies. He’s already tried this unsuccessfully. Lowell’s response is surprising and unhelpful, particularly as it’s accepted all along that Mr C and its customer are unconnected. For these reasons, Lowell must now instruct all credit reference agencies to delete its account altogether from Mr C’s credit file. Lowell must also pay Mr C compensation for the upset and inconvenience it’s caused him. I consider an award of £500 to be fair in all the circumstances. Mr C says Lowell’s mistake has caused him financial loss as well so he’s entitled to more compensation. But, having taken everything he’s said and provided into account, I don’t agree. I have noted that Mr C has taken a loan at 16% APR. But he hasn’t shown that a similar type of loan was available at a lower rate from a different provider. If Mr C had been denied cheaper credit I would have expected to see searches on his credit file from those creditors. But there are none In fact, Mr C says his partner took out loans for home improvement and furniture in her name because she had a better credit rating. I accept this might have been inconvenient, but it isn’t evidence of financial loss. Mr C also claims he wasn’t able to apply for a number of jobs because his security clearance was suspended until Lowell removed the default. He says the suspension was lifted when Lowell confirmed there’d been a mistake in February 2014. Mr C has forwarded an email from a colleague threatening suspension of his security clearance. This email was sent in March 2014. Therefore it implies Mr C had security clearance until then. Also, the email is not specific about the information Mr C needed to provide to prevent his security clearance being lapsed or suspended. In any event, I’d also have to consider that Mr C’s job applications might have been unsuccessful for other reasons. Therefore, I can’t award compensation for loss of salary expectation. my final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is that I uphold Mr C’s complaint against Lowell Financial Ltd. I direct Lowell to instruct all credit reference agencies to delete its account from Mr C’s credit file. Lowell must also pay Mr C £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 15 January 2016. Athena Pavlou ombudsman
  12. Hi Bazooka Boo did you get chance to read over this and advise what legal action I could take
  13. You do not understand how lucky you are for them to remove the defaults. I have been battling for years to get mine removed and they are not even my debts
  14. Thanks. Sent to watchdog. I really want to hammer Lowlife for this but do not have the finances to back it up. it is also very difficult to prove what losses I have incurred from this happening. it has affected my mental health as the whole thing has really got me down now. My partner has had to bear the credit for both of us and I have felt helpless to get this sorted once and for all. I have even contemplated changing my name I have been that desperate, I also want the CRA done for this as they have been next to useless. The fact that they actually charge you for a service that is not fit for purpose. the fact that any one of these companies can directly go onto your files and create things that have not been checked or validated. what are we paying them for? When you question it they are always on the businesses side I just want them all to pay and for Lowell to lose their licence. I have considered a small claims against them but again proving loss is difficult. If anyone has any suggestions how I can hurt these institutions please let me know
×
×
  • Create New...