Lowell yet again..............

[lookinforinfo]

If you are going to send them the statute barred letter, add on the end that

they know they are pursuing a aged debt which is in contravention of OFT

guidelines. Therefore, should they write to you again asking for payment once

they have received your letter, you will complain to Trading Standards and point out that Red are unfit to hold a Consumer Credit Licence.

[dannyboy660]

Sending them the Statute Barred letter shifts the burden of proof to them to prove the debt is Not Statute Barred. They are idiots so remember this when dealing with them. They are full of flatulence. Do not worry about them. Had they any proof they would have taken you to Court. They have diddly squat so its time you told them so.

 

In what way does sending them a statute barred letter do that?? They already know the debt is statute barred!!!

 

It's a complete mystery to me why you don't seem to recognise the danger of confirming the fact that you are whom they suspect you are, and you are receiving their correspondence. Why do their job for them??

 

You should be aware that by sending the SB letter you open the floodgates to all kinds of crap, in the same way as you do when confirming your address etc on Credit Expert and similar sites. The OP says in an earlier post:-

 

"I have finally got a letter from Red who say they are acting on behalf of thier client Lowell (snigger).The letter mentions the debt but there is no proof of debt or even the date of debt. They mentioned by phone a couple of months ago now that it was from 1992.Its so lame I am half tempted to ignore the letter or is worth firing off the template letter to them ?"

 

It's an obvious case of an 'angling expedition' for information, and sending an SB letter is completely pointless, unless the OP has a squeaky clean record for at least 6 years, and/or wants to make a formal complaint and follow it right through. Remember - the debt may be statute barred but there is nothing in law to stop them pursuing. Besides if the debt IS from 1992 it may not be SB !!!!!!.

[Philx]

In what way does sending them a statute barred letter do that?? They already know the debt is statute barred!!!

 

It's a complete mystery to me why you don't seem to recognise the danger of confirming the fact that you are whom they suspect you are, and you are receiving their correspondence. Why do their job for them??

 

You should be aware that by sending the SB letter you open the floodgates to all kinds of crap, in the same way as you do when confirming your address etc on Credit Expert and similar sites. The OP says in an earlier post:-

 

"I have finally got a letter from Red who say they are acting on behalf of thier client Lowell (snigger).The letter mentions the debt but there is no proof of debt or even the date of debt. They mentioned by phone a couple of months ago now that it was from 1992.Its so lame I am half tempted to ignore the letter or is worth firing off the template letter to them ?"

 

It's an obvious case of an 'angling expedition' for information, and sending an SB letter is completely pointless, unless the OP has a squeaky clean record for at least 6 years, and/or wants to make a formal complaint and follow it right through. Remember - the debt may be statute barred but there is nothing in law to stop them pursuing. Besides if the debt IS from 1992 it may not be SB !!!!!!.

Conflicting suggestions, thats OK because I appreciate all the information provided. Do you suggest I follow my current policy of ignoring them ? How long would the harrasment continue do you reckon ? What are the potential outcomes ? Thanks.

[dannyboy660]

Conflicting suggestions, thats OK because I appreciate all the information provided. Do you suggest I follow my current policy of ignoring them ? How long would the harrasment continue do you reckon ? What are the potential outcomes ? Thanks.

 

It's up to you, you could send the SB letter but if it is from 1992 (your first post said '93?) there is a chance it might not be SB yet, in which case you can expect to jump to the top of the hitlist. Once they know they've got the right target it could go on indefinitely as Lowell are incredibly persistent.

 

If you don't take the bait and remain indifferent to the whole thing, they will eventually give up because SB or not there's very little they can do unless or until you acknowledge the debt, and their right to collect on it.

 

I'm certain you'll get a difference of opinion on this one, but in that position you may do yourself less harm if you do absolutely nothing, except keep the letters and log any calls - just in case. Let them do all the work, because there's a high probability that despite all the threats, they will be in no position to do anything about it anyway.

 

Without knowing exactly what the debt is, I don't see any point in trying the CCA route either. It's almost as if they are not 100% sure they have the right person and they're waiting for you to confirm their suspicions.

 

Whatever you decide, best of luck to you

 

 

I'm a Plonker....of course it's SB!!!!! Still, everything else remains the same.

[ODC]

Dannyboy

My point in sending the SB letter is to get rid of Clowells once and for all. Once they accept a debt is Statute Barred (which Clownells being imbeciles may be difficult) and you have told them that they will not be getting any money from you then they are in direct breach of OFT guidelines in chasing you for it. Clownells being the professional company that they are would never dream of breaching OFT guidelines especially when a complaint to the oOFT will cost them £400. The OFT are unambiguous about chasing Statute Barred Debt once you inform a DCA that you will not be paying up.

[dannyboy660]

Dannyboy

My point in sending the SB letter is to get rid of Clowells once and for all. Once they accept a debt is Statute Barred (which Clownells being imbeciles may be difficult) and you have told them that they will not be getting any money from you then they are in direct breach of OFT guidelines in chasing you for it. Clownells being the professional company that they are would never dream of breaching OFT guidelines especially when a complaint to the oOFT will cost them £400. The OFT are unambiguous about chasing Statute Barred Debt once you inform a DCA that you will not be paying up.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across.

 

I do understand what you are saying. To pursue a SB debt may be a breach of the OFT guidelines, but most importantly it is in NOT unlawful. It's not difficult for them to counter any action by OFT. They can send you two or three letters a week and call you everyday for the rest of your natural life, once they know who and where you are. Lowell have no qualms about not sticking to the guidelines, but try to stay within the law. (I had to say that for balance).

 

The way to get rid of them, is ignore them. They can not be sure they have the right target until you confirm it, and that's what the SB letter does, they may go quiet for a while but anything at all within the last 6 years will mysteriously emerge. They will also find a way to tag your record with the CRA's. Having been pursued by Lowell for a debt that wasn't mine, I can say with a degree of confidence that I was told unofficially by staff at OFT that I could have "just ignored Lowell altogether and done far less harm" for myself.

 

By not responding the cycle will eventually come to an end with nothing recorded at the CRA's, but the SB letter, if they even bother to read it, just confirms exactly what they wanted to know and is no guarantee the recovery process will stop. You have the satisfaction of knowing they can't take you to court, but it will increase the likelihood of you becoming a target in the future. Lowell are building a reputation for their tenacity and I really can't see the point of offering yourself up as a target on their database.

[ODC]

Clownells have been chasing me for three years in their various guises all of which I ignored. They still kept coming. Once I knew for a fact that my debt was well and truly Statute Barred I sent off the CB special to them. They admitted one was Statute Barred and wrote it off. The other one they invented an imaginary payment which I was able to prove irrefutably that I could not have paid. Clownells had shot their bolt and had to admit defeat.

 

All the poster has to do is quote from this little snippet of the OFT regulations. It works and leaves the Leeds Losers in NO DOUBT

 

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

Yes of course the debt exists but a DCA actually could be guilty of a Criminal Offence if they pursue.

[dannyboy660]

 

continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to

harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of

Justice Act 1970.

 

Yes of course the debt exists but a DCA actually could be guilty of a Criminal Offence if they pursue.

 

 

Yes it "Could" amount to harassment in the same way the "may" take you to court. Strange how it never seems to work that way.

 

 

Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

 

"Even though the lender may be barred from pursuing recovery, a debtor may decide to pay the debt after the expiry of the time limits. Because of this you should allow a debt which is otherwise statute-barred if the personal representatives pay the debt and you receive evidence that the payment has been made."

 

 

Like I said earlier, It's a matter of personal opinion but I work on the basis that they have no authority whatsoever and they can write or phone all they like on a SB debt, or a debt you don't owe at all, but I refuse to do anything at all which is of use to them, or any of their kind.

 

How did your harassment complaint end up???

[ODC]

As you say its a matter of personal choice, but hhaving successfully ignoring them I felt it was time to put an end to things. Harrasment complaint still ongoing.

[dannyboy660]

This is a rare occasion when we are not in complete agremeent, but I think the end result is the same, just different roads to get there.

 

Persevere with your complaint. I let them get off lightly much to my shame, but if I'd known then what I know now.......

 

Go get 'em.

[tomterm8]

My own inclination has always been to ignore them completly, until it becomes very clear that they are sure it is you they are targeting.

 

There are disadvantages both ways, however, since doing it dannyboy's (and my) way may result in a GAIN (Gone Away information Network) being registered against you, and they may step up harassment by contacting neighbours etc.

 

i wouldn't send a stat barred letter without first sending a S.A.R. to the original creditor and confirming completly that the debt is statute barred. Curlyben's "prove it" letter is better, IMHO.

 

It's all tactics - there isn't any way to be certain which way is better, and no way is perfect. Either way can work.

[ODC]

Let me clarify.

 

I knew it was me the Leeds Losers were after. I KNEW exactly when the debt was Statute Barred and only THEN did I play the Statute Barred card. Clownells tried a couple of sneaky tricks to CONvince me it wasnt Statute Barred but failed miserably and are now the subject of a complaint

[Philx]

Have just received a second letter from Red still ignoring them and have not responded.Still not sure what to do...........

How often is a GAIN used ? What are the implications of that ?

[Philx]

Just received my third letter from RED this time offering me reduced terms.I am still ignoring them rather than replying.They still attempt to phone us.To confirm the "debt" is from 1992.

Is the general consensus I am doing the right thing ? How long will this carry on for ? Whats the chance of them issuing a GAIN notice and what are the ramifications of this ?

Thanks.

[spamheed]

They will keep it as long as they think they may get something from you.

along the lines of

"it's your debt so pay up"

"No"

"It's your debt so pay up"

"No"

and so on and so forth, they have no teeth, can do nothing whatsoever to make you pay, the law is clearly on your side and they know it.

All they are doing is harrassing you by continuing to contact you.

 

They are obviously not going to respond to your letters, so report them for harrassment.

 

Quote

"GAIN information is automatically removed from your credit report six years from the original date of repossession."

 

"If there is GAIN information on your credit report, which you believe is incorrect, this information can be disputed directly with Equifax. This service is called Notice of Dispute. If you wish to dispute information with Equifax"

 

The above statement from Equifax would seem to indicate that a GAIN notice should be placed soon after the default and within the 6 year period and not after the debt is already statute barred.

 

Surely if the debt is proven as statute barred, then the permission to process would be equally affected, wouldn't adding a notice to someones file after such a long time be a breach??

 

Principle 5 of the Data Protection Act

"Under this Principle a Data Controller must review their personal data regularly and delete the information that is no longer required for their purposes. The industry standard for the length of time credit related data should be held is six years. However each Data Controller needs to assess individually the type of data they hold and make a commercial decision based upon whether or not the data is still required for their own data processing."

 

Also, Principle 4 states that "Personal data must be accurate in that it must not be "factually misleading".

 

Surely a GAIN notice would be misleading as "the subject" has not relocated, rather the debt has exceeded its statute