Jump to content

rc14

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About rc14

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. may want to check out my court case which I also won. Judge had similar reservations and experian were hopeless and only corrected my file when I won bet you struggled to get lowell to comply with information requests under dpa and cpr
  2. Hi just a warning but when I forced Lowell into court I struggled to get their defence papers too. They actually posted them by hand through my front door on the eve of the hearing. The judge did not accept that I had not had adequate opportunity to become aquainted. I was granter a free appeal on the basis that the judge had erred and won. However with the appeal I had to make an application forcing Lowell to comply with a DPA request. This time they emailed their appeal defence twenty minutes shy of the time limit on the judges direction notice. Keep checking with the courts if they have Low
  3. Yep with you on that one. Sent me mysterious letters relating to a loan from 1988 which was fully repaid and nothing was owed. Might I make a prediction. You will get a letter saying please find enclosed a copy of the Notice of Assignment issued under the law of property act 1925 section 136. Don't look too hard its a phantom enclosure. When you go back and ask for it again you will get a copy of the letter which they claim to have sent you previously. You won't remember having received it before. Watch the inks still wet. Bunch of clowns. Good luck
  4. My complaint to the ICO and the OFT is that MMF are willing to retrospectively falsify notices of assignments. I was able to prove this because the fabricated NOA they sent me had my current address. At the date they claimed to have sent it they held a different address. MMF claimed in an earlier response to my complaint that they had purchased a debt from Mackenzie hall who had given an old address. They said that they had received my current address from call credit when they checked my file. The date that they claimed the NOA was sent was prior to MMF obtaining that address. Schoolboy error
  5. Me neither my case is with the Financial Ombudsman along with a complaint about Call Credit allowing access to my file. They have suggested the Financial Conduct Authority. Anyone any thoughts?
  6. Hi further update Motor Mile who seem to be contracting Foot in Mouth Disease. MF have sent me a dubious looking copy of their assignment letter. Its dated 11 April 2012 and obviously I have never seen it before. I have gone back suggesting the ink is still wet and why it has my current address when they had been given a different address by the previous DCA Mackenzie Hall that sold the debt to them. I also questioned why they would not have bombard me with threats for the rest of the 18 months they held the account after the NOA had been issued. Has anyone out there got any concerns about the
  7. Glad to hear that CAG is on the case to sort this bunch of amateurs. I have had another reply from Barry Ellershaw in which he claims to have attached a copy of my Notice of Assignment, no date given and of course it was not even in the envelope. I experienced the same tactic from Lowell Portfolio who were not able to prove their case when I followed through with my threat to take them to court. Basically there was no debt to sell to MMF, no default and no lawful assignment. I got a hundred quid from Mackenzie Hall as an apology for passing the account to MMF, but Motor Mile still digging them
  8. Global Recovery have written to me to confirm they are closing their books on me after I pointed out they were the second debt purchase agency to link me to another person of the same name in Leeds. Its so kind of them but I want an explanation as to why they think they had the right to rattle my cage asking me to pay £2668.16 for a debt to a company I had never heard of and never had any business with. Beggars belief and beggars they are!! I have reported Motor Mile to OFT and FOS and encourage others to do they same.
  9. I stuck in a complaint yesterday to OFT and got the same email. Global Recovery wrote to me saying they have brought a debt of £2668.16 from Motor mile who have never spoken or written to me. I have never dealt with them my credit file is clean and there is no explanation. I am tempted to phone them and have some fun. Already had Lowell's scalp for posting wrong info on my file. See how they explain this case of mistaken identity.
  10. congratulations that's Lowell's way of saying we lost you won and we don't want to mess with CAG ers
  11. congratulations that's Lowell's way of saying we lost you won and we don't want to mess with CAG ers
  12. The FOS the ICO the OFT the CSA and West Yorkshire Trading Standards all sided with Lowell. Fortunately we still have impartiality in the courts who can't be influenced by politics and money. I had to rely on them to confirm Lowell had failed to prove their ownership of my account. There is no regulation and anyone who tries for Freedom of Information against Lowell find get the Standard fob off. In my opinion all the above are a disgrace to regulation. Anyone share my opinion?
  13. Then my money is on them backing down before or on the day. They cant take another whooping they really will start looking like a vexatious litigant.
  14. I had to submit a DPA request under Section 7 supported by a Direction Notice from the Judge which cost me £45.00. Lowell had told me that a previous request for documents made under Section 31.14 of CPR was not appropriate and thats why they ignored it. Their arguement was that S18 CPR applied as it was fast track. They basically obstruct as much as they can and the ICO did nothing to help. Lowell will have a computer log of all actions, but dont be suprised if its heavily redacted. Send the DPA recorded if you still have time. It will be interesting if they come back to the courts and say th
  15. Hi word of caution on the LOP 1925 S136(1) and 196(4). I refered to both stating that Lowell could not prove sufficient service. The Judge in the first case beleived Lowell when they said 196(4) only applied to mortgages. The Circuit Judge at Appeal corrected Lowell's misunderstanding and confirmed this did apply. However, the Judge felt proof of standard postage applied meaning all Lowell needed to do was show proof they had posted a letter using standard postage. The Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7 (service by post) being rellevant. In this case Lowell would not have been able to prove eve
×
×
  • Create New...