Lowell Portfolio I Ltd / Capital One

[mr.ton]

How the hell can Lowell financials client be Lowell portfolio 1?

They are acting on behalf of themselves basically

[Yog sothoth]

How the hell can Lowell financials client be Lowell portfolio 1?

They are acting on behalf of themselves basically

Yep. As C1 washed their hands of the matter, Lowell are their own client. Makes you laugh, doesn't it?

[Yog sothoth]

Hampton's Legal are now threatening court again. Remember, even the OC couldn't produce the credit agreement, and Lowell have produced zero.

 

What do people think? Should I respond and point out what they ought to know anyway, or just ignore?

 

The thing is, they are saying they are going to obtain my credit file from Experian. Can they lawfully do this when the account is in official dispute?

[hillards]

Hampton's Legal are now threatening court again. Remember, even the OC couldn't produce the credit agreement, and Lowell have produced zero.

 

And Hampton are just another desk in the Lowell office of course.

 

You've done all you need to do. You've requested the documentation, ages ago, the OC failed to provide it. The DCA are just peeing into the wind here. If they did go down the court route, and it's doubtful the Leeds losers would, you have your paper trail to show you did all you could to help them prove you owed them money.

[Yog sothoth]

Yeah I guess. It's just them searching my credit history that bothers me. Maybe they are looking for evidence to support their case.

[spiritgirl59]

Hello there Yog

 

It seems the low life DCAs are all starting to crawl out from under their stones now the New Year is here

 

I agree with Hillards 100% - if they knew they had a case against you they would have had you in court by now!

 

I'm pretty confident that searching your credit file will not give them the appropriate documentation they need to take you to court - more hot air and scare tactics.

 

Whether they can actually look at your file while a case is in dispute I am not sure - but I expect another member will pop on here and advise when they see your post.

 

I'd file the letter and forget it for now, because you have done all you should.

 

If you feel really unsettled, send them a copy of your previous bog offs stapled together and tell them to "have a good read of the enclosed" as they've obviously not read the first copies, and you don't propose explaining the situation again!!!

 

Love SG x

[Yog sothoth]

Hi SG. I think you're right. I have a letter from the OC stating that they do not have and can not obtain a copy of the credit agreement. If Crap 1 couldn't find it, I'm pretty sure Lowlife can't!

[Yog sothoth]

The account has been passed to Red now, who I think are still part of Lowell Group aren't they?

 

They are threatening to file for my bankruptcy at court. First though, they intend to serve me with: "a Statutory Demand for payment under s268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a debt for a liquidated sum payable immediately"

 

Remember, neither they nor the original creditor have been able to come up with a copy of a credit agreement.

 

I've not had this approach being used before. Anyone know anything about it and has it any solid basis, given the lack of a CA or supporting documentation?

[Yog sothoth]

Hmmm...looking into other threads, it seems if they do send me a SD, I can apply for set aside on the grounds of the account being in dispute, ie. no credit agreement as per s127 CCA.

 

What does "set aside" mean?

[cerberusalert]

In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the end result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has been closed by the courts.

 

See http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244_e.pdf

[Yog sothoth]

So if a SD is served on me, I can apply for it to be set aside, and that means (if my application is successful) that it is effectively defeated?

[cerberusalert]

Yes... you need form N244 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244_e.pdf

[Yog sothoth]

Red/Lowell have now sent me this. Is this a SD or just a warning/notice of one?...

Edited February 21, 2010 by Yog sothoth

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello YS!

 

It looks like yet another DCA Threat, the part at the bottom seems to confirm this, i.e.:

 

If you wish to avoid a bankruptcy petition being presented against you...

 

BTW, I'd delete the Barcode, because they can probably scan that and work out who you are.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Yog sothoth]

Cheers BRW. Well I can't see how they can hope to succeed with this when they can't even prove the existence of a debt. I mean, this isn't some devious way around the need to meet the requirements of the CCA is it?

[Yog sothoth]

It's been very quiet but now I have a letter from Hamptons, threatening blood and thunder if I don't respond. I need advice really, because not long after my last post, Lowell sent me what they say is a copy of my CCA, a fuzzy photocopy of a C1 credit card app form, dated 2000. That may put a fresh complexion on it.

Incidentally, when I received the alleged CCA copy,. I just ignored it, and it's taken them nearly 18 months to contact me again. The Hampton's letter contains no reference to this.

 

OK, what I want to know is, can they lawfully pursue me for this? It dates from between 2000 and 2003, and the account was in formal dispute with Capquest (not Wescott, as wrongly stated previously).

 

Capquest stated in writing that they were unable to fulfil my s78 request and were passing it back to C1, so as it was in formal dispute, could C1 then lawfully sell it on? In other words, can Lowell legally claim ownership?

[Yog sothoth]

Anyone got any ideas about this? If an account was in formal dispute with C1, and thereafter with Capquest, and neither of those companies could produce a valid CCA in response to my s78 request, doesn't that render Lowell's potential action invalid (even though they have produced a copy CCA, by some magic)?

[hillards]

Anyone got any ideas about this? If an account was in formal dispute with C1, and thereafter with Capquest, and neither of those companies could produce a valid CCA in response to my s78 request, doesn't that render Lowell's potential action invalid (even though they have produced a copy CCA, by some magic)?

The person dealing with your case at Lowell's would have consulted someone with legal knowledge (Hamptons) and an expert in debt collection (Red) to ensure that the reconstruction of a CCA, probably nothing like the original, is perfectly acceptable by their agents (Tocatto) before fobbing you off, I mean, sending that to you.

 

But, you're right, because you placed the account into dispute with C1, Lowell should not be dealing with this. If you look in the Library, under the Debt Collection section, you'll find one headed "A letter when the account has been passed to another debt collection agency" which should be sent to the Leeds Losers.

[Yog sothoth]

Aha! This one...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?426-A-letter-when-the-account-has-been-passed-to-another-debt-collection-agency

 

Cheers. I'll modify and send and we'll see what becomes.

[Yog sothoth]

Update, for anyone who's interested:

 

I sent Hamptons the following letter ( wonder if they realise 'Hampton' is an old slang word for c**k?):-

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

 

Date: xx/xx/xx

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Your Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Re. your letter of xx/xx/xx:-

This account is in formal dispute with Capquest Ltd and has been since xx/xx/xx. I have previously informed you that this was the case and am at a loss as to why you are pursuing the matter further.

Not only is this a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, but it is also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998.

My previous dispute from xx/xx/xx has not been answered.

 

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. Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both unlawful and vexatious.

I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the original creditor for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as Lowell Portfolio /Financial Ltd/Hamptons cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities in relation to the matter.

 

If Lowell etc choose to ignore my dispute and do attempt enforcement, then I will respond with appropriate 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 and potential action via the courts.

 

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: after I sent Hamptons the above letter, in July 2011, it all went quiet.

 

Until yesterday, that is, when I received a letter from Lowell, headed YOU HAVE NOT REPAID YOUR ACCOUNT, and going on to inform me that the account will be sent to ScotCall, who they say are instructed to "pursue me ... to recover the full balance". It does not specify what this will entail, and I am not familiar with ScotCall.

 

It also does not say whether they have sold it on, or ScotCall are acting on their behalf, and refers to them as "one of our approved debt collection agencies".

 

As the account is technically still in dispute with Capquest (see above), surely Lowell shouldn't even be doing any of this?

 

Oh and btw, who are ScotCall and what are they like?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Yog sothoth

[hillards]

... Hamptons...Lowell...Red...Tocatto...ScotCall...Capquest...Lowell...

 

It's a bit like Wimbolden, but with more than two sides playing - they just bash these debts about between themselves, hoping to find someone who'll take pity on them and pay something. The fact that you've not heard much in all this time is adding to the argument that ignorance is bliss when it comes to these companies. Ignore them and they don't bother you much, send them letters and they think they have you worried and a little bit more intimidation will make you crack !

 

Oh and btw, who are ScotCall and what are they like?

 

ScotCall are about as low down the chain as you can get with debt collection. They threaten to come and visit you to talk about repayment. Yes, they have been known to do so in a couple of instances, but it's always been a local guy. They recruit them as 'home collectors' and send them round to try and persuade you to cough up, or they'll be back. Chances are, if you tell them to 'go away' once, you'll not see them again.

 

Then again, most of the time they don't call, so don't get the cream buns in especially as they are more likely to let you down and not turn up on the day they say.

 

As you say the matter is in dispute with Capquest and you've informed Lowell of this then I'd say it's down to Capquest to deal with the dispute. Lowell, Red, Tocatto and Hamptons are all the same company, they just use the different names to try and confuse you.

 

If you want to take action against them now, as you said you would if they continued to persue, then now is the time to do it. Otherwise your threats are as empty as theirs.

[renegadeimp]

Lowell have probably bought the debt.

[Yog sothoth]

Well yes, Lowell's did buy it, from Cap1, but I think they may now have sold it to ScotCall.

 

Incidentally, the debt is now ten years old and counting. Does that have any significance? I saw something on another thread about old debts being 'statute barred' debts but not sure what that means.

[renegadeimp]

Nope. Scotcall are the threat merchants, lowell use to do the dirty work. They only are ever used for lemon debts.

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB