Lowell Portfolio I Ltd / Capital One

[KaptRoger]

Hi Yog.

 

The site team will advise best, but a debt becomes Statue Barred after 6 years in England or 5 years in Scotland if not payments or written acknowledgement has been made. This means that after sending an SB letter all they can do is bluster (unless they somehow prove that you have sent in a written acknowledgement or have made a payment).

 

Some companies will write back and accept the the debt is SB'ed and that will be the end of it. Some don't and carry on writing. The guidelines strangely say that until the "debtor" writes to say that the debt is SB'ed they can continue their normal collection activity, and can still chase the "debt" even after the SB letter but cannot threaten court action. Its a strange world.

 

Writing an SB letter gives you the best chance of them going away forever. The Brigadier drafts some very good letters (I think its part of his day to day job), it would be worth your while asking him to draft one for you or find one on this forum and adapt it to your needs.

[Yog sothoth]

Brill, thanks. I'll check back to see if I have acknowledged the debt. I certainly haven't paid anything, and always referred in letters to 'the alleged debt'.

[Yog sothoth]

Does anyone have a 'Statute-barred' letter template I could cannibalise? This debt is deffo SBed. I've searched the forums but they are so massive I'm getting lost!

[Guest]

I think there is a template on here

[cerberusalert]

You'll find it in the library; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?68-debt-collection-library

[Yog sothoth]

Aha! Cheers.

[Yog sothoth]

I have sent Scotcall the following letter:

 

 

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

 

 

 

Date: xxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Your reference: xxxxxxx

Creditor Reference: xxxxxxx

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with Capquest Ltd and has been since xxxxxxx.

 

Not only is this a breach of OFT Collection Guidelines, but is also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Frankly I am surprised that I need to remind a firm of Debt Collectors about the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Capquest and the original creditor were unable to provide documents relating to the account, which meet the strict requirements of the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), and relevant regulations made under that Act.

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to yourselves or any other party.

 

As Capquest are in default and have also committed a criminal act, by failing to provide an adequate response to my Consumer Credit Act request, and have also, by passing personal data connected with the account to a third party (ie yourselves), breached s10 Data Protection Act, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are hopefully aware, whilst the matter remains in default, for the reasons outlined, enforcement action is NOT permitted, and under s127 CCA this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the original creditor for resolution of any alleged defaults or breaches, as Scotcall cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities in relation to the matter. This issue was similarly pointed out to Lowell Financial, who presumably have re-sold the alleged debt to Scotcall.

 

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish, either explicitly or implicitly, to make an appointment with you or your "representative".

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission, such as the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

If Scotcall etc choose to ignore my dispute and do attempt enforcement, then I will respond with appropriate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards Authority, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office and Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Please ensure that all correspondence is in writing, dated and signed by a responsible person.

 

Yours sincerely

 

[Yog sothoth]

UPDATE: Lowell have now replied, having put Scotcall back in their box. This is six months after I sent the above letter.

 

They have basically said the account is on hold until I explain to them what the nature of the dispute with the original creditor is. What to do now? As I have referred in letters to the account being in dispute with the OC, does that count as acknowledging the debt? I could do with knowing what "acknowledgement" means.

[Seminole]

Acknowledgement could be a payment or a written and signed statement (eg in a letter) that you accept liability for the debt. I would have thought that stating that the debt is in dispute would not constitute acknowledgement. It would probably come down to the wording. For example that you are disputing £100 of the debt would probably be acknowledgement of the remainder. However, simply stating that the debt or the whole debt is in dispute wouldn't be acknowledgement.

[Yog sothoth]

OK, so in other words, despite their pursuing me and my s78ing them and sending them 'bemused letters', it could be Statute barred? I think I've previously misunderstood it then. I thought because there had been correspondence, that kept it 'alive' from their side of things.

[Seminole]

No, unless there is a CCJ, nothing from them could restart the SB clock.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Standard debt collection letters seeking payment DO NOT COUNT as RELEVANT CONTACT from a DCA or creditor.

 

OFT GUIDANCE ON DEBT COLLECTION 2003/2006/updated Nov.2012.

[Yog sothoth]

So I can send them a letter pointing out that it is statute barred? Is there a template for that, because I wouldn't be sure how to word it?

[IdaInFife]

Yog if you look in the library you will find a template

[ims21]

Yog if you look in the library you will find a template

 

Yep...here you go....

 

Use whichever of these two suits your purposes

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?404-Data-Protection

Edited October 24, 2013 by citizenB
replaced broken links

[Yog sothoth]

Excellent, thanks very much!

[Yog sothoth]

Strange, when I try to access the library to get a template, I get a message saying I don't have permission to access the page.

[ims21]

Here you go

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?404-Data-Protection

[Yog sothoth]

Thanks

[Yog sothoth]

Just thought I would add that I sent the following to Lowell...

 

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by me. I do not admit or acknowledge liability for this debt.

 

I would further point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on a simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would also point out that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) say in their Debt Collection Guidance on Statute Barred Debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”. As you state in your letter of xxxxx that "there is no contract between Lowell Portfolio and [myself]. The agreement that effectively makes me liable for the debt is between [myself] and capital One", and I have not heard from Capital One within the aforementioned period, I believe the OFT statement to be pertinent in this case.

 

No payments with regard to this alleged debt have been made within the past six years, nor have I acknowledged any liability for said debt within that period.

 

Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period then, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “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 the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR)

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully