Lowell Portfolio I Ltd / Capital One

[Yog sothoth]

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 May 4, 2009 by Yog sothoth

[dannyboy660]

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 January 23, 2009 by dannyboy660
small correction.

[Yog sothoth]

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?

[hillards]

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!

[Yog sothoth]

Woohoo! I like that. Consider it done!

[spiritgirl59]

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 :rolleyes:

 

Bemused letter has gone off from me as well!

 

Love SG x

[Dorabell]

I have sent the bemused letter two:) lowell have put a default on my file:mad:

[dannyboy660]

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.

[hillards]

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...

[dannyboy660]

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 January 23, 2009 by dannyboy660
small addition...

[hillards]

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...

[Yog sothoth]

Think I'll ignore them. Worked with other DCAs in similar circumstances.

[cerberusalert]

I thought it was a condition of employment at Lowells that they had to be lobotomised.

 

[beachcomber60]

Subbing

 

Debitarse have given up, so I think this lot is swimming to the surface to have a go.

 

Beachy

[dannyboy660]

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.

[Yog sothoth]

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 January 24, 2009 by Yog sothoth

[hillards]

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.

[Yog sothoth]

Oooh, I'm torn now.

[spiritgirl59]

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

[Yog sothoth]

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

[Shawn0109]

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.

[themagician]

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".

[hillards]

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

[Yog sothoth]

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.

[Yog sothoth]

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.