Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
    • Danny - point taken about the blue paragraphs.  Including them doesn't harm your case in any way.  It makes no odds.  It's just that over the years we've had judges often remarking on how concise & clear Caggers' WSs have been compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica-length rubbish that the PPCs send, so I always have a slight preference to cut out anything necessary. Don't send off the WS straight away .. you have plenty of time ... and let's just say that LFI is the Contract King so give him a couple of days to look through it with a fine-tooth comb.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell Portfolio I


ICY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5828 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

i will when they send me the next letter telling what the apparent debt is for, i still need to send the s/b letter re the 2 barclaycard (non)debts will get onto that today. While i am writing to complain about thames sending me payments requests despite telling them its a s/b debt they are chasing

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also can i do anything about them placing a seach on my credit file without permission

 

Entry Number:P1

Name and address:

Searched on:12/11/2007

Searched by:LOWELL FINANCIAL LTD

Application type:Unrecorded Enquiry

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

snap, got same letter here too, funny enough mines also barclaycard

 

Alhough this is starting to get out of hand now, got another "you lived at this address" letter yesterday no idea what this ones for although if things keep as they are i will find out on monday ish worrying thing is the address they have given i lived at about 3 years ago (i think although this could well be longer, i have no way of knowing at the mo)so looks like it may not be a S/B one this time:(

 

OK have got the second letter for this one, apparently i owe 1st credit £382.50 I have never heard of 1st credit, although a quick google shows them as debt buyers, so who knows what the debt is for, change of tact on this one though they have sent a differently worder letter, this time from lowell financial saying they are acting on behalf of their clients lowell portfolio, how can they be clients when they are the same company:-| up to now all the follow up letters for the other 2 amounts have been from lowell portfolio.

 

Dear Me

 

We have been instructed by our client Lowell PortfolioI Ltd to write to you in connection with your outstanding balance as described above. Our objective is to help both you and our client (THAT'LL BE YOU THEN) find a solution to this problem (NOT A PROBLEM TO ME, YOU CAN STICK YOUR DEMAND SOMWHERE PAINFUL). We urgently request that you contact us today before our client (YOU) instructs us to take further action to recover the balance.

 

You can prevent further action happening by taking the following steps.

 

1. By sending us payment in full

2. By contacting us to agree a method of payment over an agreed term.

h

On contacting us you will also be given the opportunity to discuss how we can work together to find a solution to clear your outstanding balance. However, until you contact us we will be unable to offer you our assistance in outting an end to this matter without the possible need for legal enforcement. Ignoring this probem will only make your situation worse(OH IS THAT SO), therefore we strongly recommend you contact us now on 0845 300 9416

 

Yours

Andrew Bartle

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Lowell

 

Perhaps your understanding of S5 of The Limitations Act 1980 is somewhat different to everyone elses. Please explain what further action you or you acting as agents for yourselves as a client may take.

 

I am not aware of any action you can take legal or otherwise.

 

I should point out that as I have already informed you that this debt is Statute Barred and you continue to infer you have some legal action you can take you are in fact the ones who may be facing legal action from me (and dozens of my friends on CAG)

 

yours etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Andrew Barlte fella gets about a bit.

 

 

He works for three different companies

 

Red

Lowell and now

1st Credit.

 

This is one of the biggest scams in history and needs sorting now.

 

 

OK have got the second letter for this one, apparently i owe 1st credit £382.50 I have never heard of 1st credit, although a quick google shows them as debt buyers, so who knows what the debt is for, change of tact on this one though they have sent a differently worder letter, this time from lowell financial saying they are acting on behalf of their clients lowell portfolio, how can they be clients when they are the same company:-| up to now all the follow up letters for the other 2 amounts have been from lowell portfolio.

 

Dear Me

 

We have been instructed by our client Lowell PortfolioI Ltd to write to you in connection with your outstanding balance as described above. Our objective is to help both you and our client (THAT'LL BE YOU THEN) find a solution to this problem (NOT A PROBLEM TO ME, YOU CAN STICK YOUR DEMAND SOMWHERE PAINFUL). We urgently request that you contact us today before our client (YOU) instructs us to take further action to recover the balance.

 

You can prevent further action happening by taking the following steps.

 

1. By sending us payment in full

2. By contacting us to agree a method of payment over an agreed term.

h

On contacting us you will also be given the opportunity to discuss how we can work together to find a solution to clear your outstanding balance. However, until you contact us we will be unable to offer you our assistance in outting an end to this matter without the possible need for legal enforcement. Ignoring this probem will only make your situation worse(OH IS THAT SO), therefore we strongly recommend you contact us now on 0845 300 9416

 

Yours

Andrew Bartle

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Andrew Barlte fella gets about a bit.

 

 

He works for three different companies

 

Red

Lowell and now

1st Credit.

 

This is one of the biggest scams in history and needs sorting now.

 

 

Not sure he works for 1st credit, and they are not a leeds based company i am assuming that 1st credit and the leeds mob are not linked.

 

Lowells go as:

Lowell Portfolio I

Lowell Financial

Reds

Hamptons Legal

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I beat lowell, I wrote to them quoting limitations act sent a seperate letter for each account they are trying to claim for, got 2 letters today each about a barclaycard , still no word on the 1st credit one

 

Mr me

 

Our ref -

Original Creditor - Barclaycard

Balance outstanding - £0.00

 

I am writing to inform you that after further investigation of your account it has become apparent that it is now subject to Section (5) of the Limitations Act 1980 and as such we have now closed the account and can confirm no further correspondance will be sent to you.

 

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this matter.

 

Andrew bartle

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr TWS while I admire your campaign against our friends in Leeds I think I should clear up a misconception.

 

Just because a debt is Statute Barred does not mean it does not exist any more. The debt still exists but it is not legally enforcable. Lowell are entitled to ask for payment of it if they have legally purchased it. They are not allowed however to make out that they have any legal powers to enforce collection or that the non payment of the debt to them will in any way be reflected on your credit reference files. If someone pays Lowells any money against this Statute Barred debts the courts will assume that such payments have been made of their own free will and that Lowells are legally entitled to keep the money. Lowells are very careful in the wording of their letters and certainly stretch the legal boundaries to their limits but they must cease collection activity when informed that the debt is Statute Barred and the alleged debtor has no intention of paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...