Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Alfy
      Iva with Hanover now been passed to credit expert

      By Alfy · Posted

      Sorry I meant credit fix - I really wish I'd known this before - kicking myself right now  If they come back to me asking for more money I'll cancel it and start trying to deal with the debt myself let's see what they say  Feeling tempted to cancel it now but scared that some of the debts will do more CCJ's on me and I'll have to wait 6 years again.  2 of the CCJ come of this year and then I'll only have the iva in credit file - effectively if I'd have not took out the iva in 2021 I'd have clear score by now - but then again would I because I would have been hounded the last 3 years, as bad as it is it's saves me lots of headaches whilst my debt was still within the 6 year mark.  I think most of them are near there but in all honesty no point chasing them if I do cancel iva I'd jjst wait for the ones who contact me and then start the relevant letter process on them.  Of over 6 years easy if not still possible to write off. My true victory would be having the iva wiped off my credit file as mis sold or something that way I Don't have to wait till 2027 Other option is to fight back and ask for them to offer the creditors to accept payments so far and use the following method    Will your IVA firm agree to complete your IVA on the basic of funds paid to date? The Guidance lists a lot of factors to be considered in deciding whether a settlement on the basis of funds paid to date should be proposed. You should read the list. But that may not give you any feel for whether they apply to you or not. The following are my thoughts on when an IVA should be treated as settled, not failed. They assume that you have £75 or less to pay a month: if you would currently qualify for a Debt Relief Order, then your IVA should be settled now  There is no point in making your IVA fail and you have to apply for a DRO – it will not generate another penny for your creditors. If you are renting and owe less than £50,000, check the DRO criteria now and talk to National Debtline on 0808 808 4000 about whether you qualify. You may have been told at the start of your IVA that you aren’t eligible – still check now as the DRO criteria have changed, your situation has got worse, and some people were given incorrect information about DROs at the start. if you have no assets that would be realised in bankruptcy (eg a house with equity, car worth over £2000), then your IVA should be settled now Same as (1), there is no point in making you apply for bankruptcy after your IVA fails. if your only asset is a car that is worth less than £8000, then your IVA should be settled now A car that is worth say £5000 would normally be sold in bankruptcy and you would be given a small amount to buy a cheaper car. But your creditors would not get any benefit from this as the Insolvency Service takes the first £8000 raised to cover its own costs. if you have significant assets, the closer you are to the end of the IVA, the less reasonable it is to fail it If you have been paying your IVA for 4 years, you have done your best over a long period. It isn’t your fault you can no longer continue. The fact you may have had equity to release isn’t relevant as that simply isn’t going to be possible. if your situation will clearly improve soon, then it’s unlikely your IVA will be settled I mean real improvements, not hoping that prices fall. If I can get them to accept payment to date or threaten with cancellation hopefully they may accept it -  Other option is to try and borrow money and pay make a full and final offer  Or I can just ignore and hope for the best which I'm very tempted to do especially if they respond to my review with bullying tactics despite me being skint as a fart with no mortgage as renting  It's so stressful but I've just checked the iva agreement from 2021 and it's Cabot 2 accounts Lowell about 5 accounts and then lots of repeats of the same debt with for example zopa and Cabot same amount listed twice -  also loyyds banks but I'm sure that's older than 6 years and not on credit file anyway  If I can somehow remove the iva from my credit file I'd be happy 
    • NewsBot
      India's economy: The good, bad and ugly in six charts

      By NewsBot · Posted

      India has one of the world's fastest growing economies but the benefits are yet to fully reach the poorest.View the full article
    • NewsBot
      Tatti Lashes founders: 'We've got four GCSEs between us'

      By NewsBot · Posted

      View the full article
    • dx100uk
      Parking Eye 2 x ANPR PCNs - two different vehicles - PAPLOC now claimforms - Kenwood House, Tunbridge Wells - one claim discontinued one ongoing

      By dx100uk · Posted

      any news on your case? dx
    • dx100uk
      Debt advice

      By dx100uk · Posted

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd / Capital One

Yog sothoth

By Yog sothoth
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3835 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

Yog sothoth

Yog sothoth

Posted
Posted (edited)

Two years ago I CCA'd Wescot Credit over this debt. They wrote back to me to say that the OC (Cap 1) were unable to produce a credit agreement relating to the account, and therefore were closing the account on their files.

 

Great, I thought, that's the end of that. No agreement, no case.

 

But lo and behold, here is a letter from Capital One, telling me that the debt has been resold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, about whom I know nothing whatsoever.

 

in the same envelope was a letter from the aforementioned Lowell Portfolio, notifying me of the assignment of the debt to them.

 

Cheeky so and so's eh? They can't find a credit agreement but hey, we'll sell it again anyway.

 

Who is in the wrong here? I presume Wescot are, because the account was in dispute with them. They couldn't produce the CA so they were not entitled to pass it back to C1.

 

C1 also are, because of the same reasons.

 

What should I do? Write to Lowell and tell them that as the account is still in dispute they have no right of ownership of the alleged debt?

Edited by Yog sothoth
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

dannyboy660

dannyboy660

Posted
Posted (edited)

I would guess ignoring them is an option you should seriously consider.

 

You already know there's no CCA, so getting involved in a long drawn out battle, during which you can be sure Lowell will ignore your protestations and bombard you with pointless letters full of lies, seems a bit pointless. Lowell are almost certainly unaware this has already been through the mill, and they have bought it for a few pennies amongst a load of others.

 

You could make a complaint, but again nobody seems to take a blind bit of notice to it anyway. Depends on your point of view.

 

I would ignore them and if they send court docs, then do the CCA thing because you know you are onto a winner.

Edited by dannyboy660
small correction.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yog sothoth

Yog sothoth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hmmm, yeah, think you're right. If it was passed back to Cap 1, I'm guessing they probably had another look for the CA. The fact they've sold it on again without even contacting me beforehand does speak volumes, doesn't it? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hillards

hillards

Posted
Posted

Save yourself the hassle of dealing with the Leeds Losers on the phone and by letter, just send them a copy of the 'bemused' letter - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/175840-halifax-problem.html#post1900426

 

It just tells them to scuttle back into the corner and stop bothering you as you've already checked this out and dismissed it!

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
spiritgirl59

spiritgirl59

Posted
Posted

Hi Yog

 

I have the same bozos after me re an alleged Capital One account as well...they must have bought a job lot LOL :p:rolleyes:

 

Bemused letter has gone off from me as well!

 

Love SG x

Please note I am not legally qualified, I am offering advice based on my own personal experience in the hope that it may be of help to others in a similar situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dannyboy660

dannyboy660

Posted
Posted

Well, the bemused letter is all well and good, and I'm not knocking it, but you are confirming your identity to Lowell and acknowledging the debt is yours, so a default is their revenge. Once that letter is received you can't get the default removed, because you acknowledged the debt - just that it can't be enforced.

 

At least that's my understanding of it.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hillards

hillards

Posted
Posted
Well, the bemused letter is all well and good, and I'm not knocking it, but you are confirming your identity to Lowell and acknowledging the debt is yours, so a default is their revenge. Once that letter is received you can't get the default removed, because you acknowledged the debt - just that it can't be enforced.

 

At least that's my understanding of it.

In this case, it's already been shown that a previous DCA could not produce the paperwork, therefore Lowell should not be making yet another attempt at recovery of the debt, hence the 'bemused' letter - why are they handling data unlawfully?

 

It tells them to pass the matter back as the previous DCA has failed to comply with the law - I can't see how they have any basis to issue a default as this would breach the Data Protection Act, if nothing else...

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dannyboy660

dannyboy660

Posted
Posted (edited)
In this case, it's already been shown that a previous DCA could not produce the paperwork, therefore Lowell should not be making yet another attempt at recovery of the debt, hence the 'bemused' letter - why are they handling data unlawfully?

 

It tells them to pass the matter back as the previous DCA has failed to comply with the law - I can't see how they have any basis to issue a default as this would breach the Data Protection Act, if nothing else...

 

 

Of course, and it relies very heavily on a DCA, or in this case a Purchaser/Factor playing fairly and by the rules and guidelines. But you and I both know the reality is very different......

 

If you ignore them they do not have the benefit of your written acknowledgement that you are who they think you are etc etc and the debt exists. Lowell's know nothing unless you tell them 'voluntarily'.

Edited by dannyboy660
small addition...

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hillards

hillards

Posted
Posted
Of course, and it relies very heavily on a DCA, or in this case a Purchaser/Factor playing fairly and by the rules and guidelines. But you and I both know the reality is very different......

 

If you ignore them they do not have the benefit of your written acknowledgement that you are who they think you are etc etc and the debt exists. Lowell's know nothing unless you tell them 'voluntarily'.

Should there be a modified version of the 'bemused' letter to state that the debt is not acknowledged and headed 'without prejudice' then ?

 

I realise this will exceed the primary school level of English that most of the Leeds Losers failed to acheive anyway, but at least the letter can not be used as any form of acknowledgement that the alleged debt was in any way attributed to the person telling them to s*d off...

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dannyboy660

dannyboy660

Posted
Posted
Should there be a modified version of the 'bemused' letter to state that the debt is not acknowledged and headed 'without prejudice' then ?

 

I realise this will exceed the primary school level of English that most of the Leeds Losers failed to acheive anyway, but at least the letter can not be used as any form of acknowledgement that the alleged debt was in any way attributed to the person telling them to s*d off...

 

A slight tweak may be in order, but I'm not much of a letter writer really.

 

In this case, Wescot failed to satisfy the legal requirement so C1 'sell' the debt to a 3rd party purchaser to squeeze an extra few pennies and wash their hands of it. Creditors do poop on purchasers. Lowell now have a complete turkey on the books, but that's what they buy because they are cheap and have the biggest profit potential. The interesting part is they probably don't know for sure that it has already fallen at the first (last?) hurdle.

 

Ignoring them won't do any harm because you are salvaging some of your privacy from these 'people'. It's just a case of "Can you weather the storm, sit out all the threats??" If they do serve court papers, you can be fairly sure it will fail without the CCA so you have a pretty big advantage because even if it does exist, it's unlikely Lowell will get hold of it in time.

 

I just think the 'bemused' letter, although it's a useful shot across bows, acts as a warning in the sense they will now try desperately to get a CCA because they know what to expect from you. It's playing your Ace a little too early, perhaps, if you see what I mean.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yog sothoth

Yog sothoth

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Yes I agree. Although I'd get a degree of short -term personal satisfaction from sending the 'bemused' letter at this stage, it does alert them that here is someone who's going to fight so let's step up the game a bit. I can weather the letters they may send; it's just paperwork. And none of them have my phone number; even my own bank don't.

 

I may play the 'bemused' card at a later stage, when the font on their letters gets BIG AND BOLD and starts to include words like URGENT and FINAL DEMAND or, most amusing of all, is on RED PAPER!

Edited by Yog sothoth
Link to post
Share on other sites
hillards

hillards

Posted
Posted

In Lowell's case I'd just want to point out that they are wasting their time even trying and I would prefer them to drop the matter now. It just seems simpler to be 'bemused' than ignore and have them pestering?

 

As far as I am concerned, they are forbidden to take any action, so there is no question of them trying harder to get a CCA? I would normally send the first DCA a letter when they fail to comply with the CCA request, which I could later return to if any other muppet started making a noise...

 

And, I've now been reminded that I have a ream of deep red paper somewhere. I never used it for the purpose it was bought as I was laser printing black onto the red and it was virtually unreadable as a 'poster' as intended, the red was too dark to provide contrast - perfect for future correepondence with Lowell I think. :cool:

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
spiritgirl59

spiritgirl59

Posted
Posted
In Lowell's case I'd just want to point out that they are wasting their time even trying and I would prefer them to drop the matter now. It just seems simpler to be 'bemused' than ignore and have them pestering?

 

As far as I am concerned, they are forbidden to take any action, so there is no question of them trying harder to get a CCA? I would normally send the first DCA a letter when they fail to comply with the CCA request, which I could later return to if any other muppet started making a noise...

 

 

I am with you on this hillards. I sent to Lowells a copy of my original CCA request letter to the OC which was sent nearly 3 years ago (!) along with the bemused letter just to let them know that there is no CCA and they may as well call it a day now. I stated that I will not correspond with them further unless and until they provide a CCA (knowing full well they cannot as none of the other DCAs involved have been able to of course) so now I feel I am liberty to ignore anything else they send.

 

Personally I prefer not to ignore these pond lifes in the first place, but to let them know they are dealing with someone who knows what pillocks they are and they cannot pull the wool over my eyes (which I admit I do enjoy doing!).

 

I appreciate everyone feels differently and can totally understand where you are coming from also dannyboy :) There is no problem in ignoring them if that is what peeps wish, because whatever threat-o-grams they send they know they are on to a loser if they have no CCA.

 

Love SG x

Please note I am not legally qualified, I am offering advice based on my own personal experience in the hope that it may be of help to others in a similar situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shawn0109

Shawn0109

Posted
Posted

yog sothoth google bbc lowell and you will find the kink so you can watch it. I had a court hearing that they didnt attend yesterday and won Stat demand set aside here is the link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/177871-me-lowell-financial-costs-6.html#post1946625 they are the biggest waste of space on the planet. Forget them they aint worth the worry they dont have paperwork they dont have credit agreements and neither do the dumb ass crappy one who sold the debt to these low loife pond **** worms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
themagician

themagician

Posted
Posted
I believe Lowlife Portfolio were on Watchdog the other day. I missed it. Was there anything of note?

not really just the usual pond life activity of trying to obtain money from jo public who seriously did not owe it,but when found out by watch dog they back tracked and apologised sayiny this kind of thing does,nt happen very often " but we know it does all the time".

Link to post
Share on other sites
hillards

hillards

Posted
Posted
I believe Lowlife Portfolio were on Watchdog the other day. I missed it. Was there anything of note?

 

There is a thread about it, including links to the website where you can watch the video, or read the story. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/180176-lowells-make-watchdog.html

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yog sothoth

Yog sothoth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just received a letter from Lowell FINANCIAL (shades of Cabot here). Stating they are acting on behalf of "our client" Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, and ugently requesting I get in touch with them on the BIG RED PHONE NUMBER, or alternatively, pay up.

 

Pay up?!! For a debt where I have it in writing that the OC does not possess the credit agreement? Dream on, Lowlife.

 

Time for the bemused letter now for sure. Send it to Lowlife Portfolio though, or to Lowlife Financial? Hmmm...choices choices.

 

Ah well, as they are both at the same address, I'm sure one will pass it to the other if need be. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Yog sothoth

Yog sothoth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sigh...I sent the bemused letter. All was quiet, but now I have a letter from Lowlife telling me one of their 'agents' is coming in person to have a word. Time for the doorstepper letter I think. I'm so tempted to point out that Capquest closed their files because they admitted they didn't have a credit agreement, but I doubt it would stop them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...