BBC - Lowell - chasing debts - Watchdog - Blog

Also consider making a complaint to the OFT and reporting them to Watchdog. Lowells were recently on Watchdog for sending out letters for debts that do not exist. According to Lowells it's all been fixed now so that letter is obviously just a figment of your imagination

Who obtained the judgement is quite important as assigning a CCJ without the courts permission may be considered an unlawful assignment. You can just about be 100% certain that no permission was sought from the court.

Have you asked your IP to put that in writing?

When asked if Nathoo is the right person to represent the industry, CSA executive director Kurt Obermaier appeared to dodge the question.

A CCA request wouldn't apply to your Sky account, however there are other ways of disputing the amount claimed as owed such as reclaiming charges on the account and reclaiming any billing they have applied when no service has been provided. Also you should receive some form of notice of assignment as realistically I could just fish your details out of the bin and send you a letter stating that you owe me money. It wouldn't mean that you do or that I have any right to collect it.

Who obtained the judgement? Was it Eversheds or another DCA?

It's no longer owned by A&L so nothing to worry about. I would also add that they have made a bit of a mess of informing you of these changes as it's a joint account. The term allowing money to be set off from a joint account to pay a debt solely owed by one of the holders of the joint account is classed as both an ‘unusual’ and ‘onerous’ term. A firm can only rely on terms that are ‘unusual’ and ‘onerous’ if they have been brought fairly to the customer’s attention. The Banking Code states that customers must be given personal notice of any terms that are to their disadvantage. The FOS do not think it enough for a firm simply to include the revised edition of the account terms when it is sent out with routine statements to its customers. The FOS have also upheld that such a term was ‘unfair’ within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This was because it creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, to the detriment of customers. Specifically, it has the effect of making Mr X a guarantor of Mrs X’s debts – but without giving him the information that a guarantor should usually be given. In a case where this very situation occurred the FOS told the firm to transfer the money back to the joint account – leaving it to find other ways of recovering the money that Mrs X still owed.

Do you know if any charges have been added to the account? Have you received a Notice of Assignment?

No. However if there are a large number of penalty charges on the account then you may be able to argue that the default notice is invalid. If this is the case it leaves the creditor in a very difficult position legally as you can not simply remedy an invalid default notice by sending a new one. Perhaps you mean any collection charges (as there is no basis in law form companies adding them unless they are part of the terms of the contract). Penalty charges certainly don't get knocked off before legal action in my experience.

The CSA are hardly likely to fine any of it's members. It was set up by the industry, for the industry. There would be no point IMO in complaining to the about anything.

Hi and welcome to CAG. When roughly were the cards and loan taken out? Are there any charges on these accounts and if so what percentage of the balance do you think these might be? Are you a homeowner? These are non priority debts and what they are simply doing is stamping their feet a bit and throwing their toys around a bit at the moment because they know they are at the bottom of the heap in terms of getting paid. If they took you to court and you admitted the debt then you could apply for a time order. This would give you time to pay and would probably be set at around the amount you are currently paying. Also interest would be frozen as these are consumer debts. I would also add that judges generally take a dim view of creditors who take people to court when you are attempting, to the best of your ability, to pay it.

I appreciate that you have a lot on your plate at the mo' but please do do as 42man urged you earlier in the thread and report 1st Credit to the OFT. They are already in the brown stuff as far as the OFT are concerned and they have imposed requirements on 1st Credit The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices The full list of the requirements that 1st Credit need to follow is here Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to: Enquiries Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX [email protected]

Most mobile phone contract are not covered by the Act, so initially send the prove it letter posted above. I would add to the letter the sort of evidence you require e.g. a copy of the contract and any terms and conditions relating to the contract as well as a statement of account. Even if this is in relation to your old Vodaphone contract you can still dispute any sum claimed as owing on the grounds of any charges added to the account and also any unfair terms in the contract. Lowells (who Red are part of) were on Watchdog recently for sending out threatograms to people for old mobile phone contracts where either they had got the wrong person or the amount claimed as owing was complete rubbish or the debt itself was statute barred. You might wish to let Watchdog know that nothing would appear to have changed, despite Lowells promises. As for their Pre Litigation Department, this title is completely meaningless and you should treat them with the contempt that they so richly deserve.

Simply put, no. For a fuller explanation have a read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html#post1843811

A CCJ would enforce the debt. CCJ's don't become statute barred. However, if the CCJ is more than 6 years old and it has not been enforced then they would need to go back to the court and ask the courts permission to enforce it. They would need to explain to the court why they have previously chosen not to enforce it.

Yes I would cancel the DD. You can send them the following via recorded delivery. You'll need to possibly amend it slightly as you did make a payment.

No, you don't need to send them anything. Yes. Are you applying for costs due to their abuse of the insolvency process? Please do make that complaint to the OFT. Hopefully Capquest will eventually follow in the footsteps of 1st Credit http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186046-there-god-1st-credit.html

Yep that's another of their favourites. Of course in Scotland (apart from using the correct Act and form - big hint Capquest) an SD has to be served by a sheriffs officer or messenger-at-arms, so a bit more expensive than sticking a stamp on an envelope, and you can just tick the box marked 'denied' and sign it and hey ho it's off to set aside we go. Maybe that's why they only get as far as sending the legally incompetent threatogram.

After the 12 working days are up they are in default of supplying the copy of the agreement and you can withhold payments if you so wish. The 30 days (or one calendar month to be technically correct) no longer applies as the summary criminal offence was done away with and any attempt to enforce while they are in default would be dealt with by the OFT under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008.

Great find Ben, well done. Too right 42man. At least 1st Credit have never been quite so stupid as to threaten me with an SD under The Insolvency Act 1986. Capquest have done it twice.

When roughly was the account opened?

If it's still with the bank you don't need points 6, 7 or 8 and you can remove the notice of assignment bit from point 4.

It's a bit of a grey area and it's probably best to look at what the Prescription and Limitations Act actually states. Negative Prescription 6 Extinction of obligations by prescriptive periods of five years The grey area arises because you have acknowledged the obligation thus indicating that the obligation still subsists. I would take the view that the obligation has been extinguished, however it could be argued that the obligation still subsists because it has been acknowledged. I think your first approach would be to send the DCA a statute barred letter and see what their response is.

Has the account been sent to a debt collection agency to be dealt with or is it still with the original creditor?