Lowells Customers- Put them on notice!!!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Guests can only read threads (and they can't see certain threads at all). As DB says, a member who reads threads without logging in will appear as a guest. If I check threads on my iPhone I sometimes don't log in, so I'd appear as a guest on those occasions. There's no reason to be suspicious - most members here read threads as guests before joining.

 

That said, DCAs clearly do monitor CAG on occasion, but I suspect not as much as some people think.

[the_shadow]

Guests can only read threads (and they can't see certain threads at all). As DB says, a member who reads threads without logging in will appear as a guest. If I check threads on my iPhone I sometimes don't log in, so I'd appear as a guest on those occasions. There's no reason to be suspicious - most members here read threads as guests before joining.

 

That said, DCAs clearly do monitor CAG on occasion, but I suspect not as much as some people think.

 

Exactly... theyre busy people!

 

They have all those "home visits" to do :D:D

[dannyboy660]

Sorry DB, Gordon got there before you! And look at the mess he's made in the process... Are you volunteering to give him lessons?

 

I'd give him something......but I'm not sure we could get him on the plane to Switzerland to carry it out.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

My apologies if anyone found that offensive. It was intended as a joke from someone who has not been re-educated in these rather unusual (in my opinion) PC days. I'm new in town......

[dannyboy660]

Irrelevant nonsense post removed.

Edited February 22, 2009 by dannyboy660
Irrelevant post made under the afluence of incohol.....

[sosumi]

There aren't so many trolls around nowadays, as I'm sure the old troll baiters amongst us have noticed. Latest tactic seems to be trying to put people off posting, and one way to do that is create the impression they know who you are by people visiting DCA's sites after CAG via cookies (that's a complete myth), clicking certain links, or the "we are watching you" as was seen on UK26 thread.

I wondered how long it would take, and you just happened to be the first to introduce the 'Guest' thing on this particular thread, when we'd already established that guests are no big deal. Perhaps you missed all that.

 

Let me just quickly make clear I am not suggesting you are Troll, or even one of the bad guys....no offence was intended but I'm just a bit surprised, or perhaps disappointed that you don't seem to grasp the point that's being made.

 

Back to business, I think, with or without paranoid guests.

I'm glad you've raised this DB.

I regularly visit DCA's web sites. I'm looking for information about them. Do I want to be logged in here when I do that? Do I heck!

Where perhaps I might have been better served learning how to write to DCAs without quaking, I've been finding information which I bring back here. And when I'm not here it's generally my health that's to blame, or the fact that I'm trying to write a book, when I have chance! Sometimes I'm half-asleep, sometimes I'm just dealing with my own problems. Reading someone's thread when I'm logged in doesn't necessarily mean that I'm preparing to reply, or even that I want to be noticed, so sometimes I don't log in for that reason. I'm not comfortable suggesting letters for people to write, because I have no confidence doing them myself. Other people are much much better at doing that than me. But I'm reading the threads because, like most people, I gain courage and heart to stand up to these companies, and if I think I can help I will. When UK26 returned from court this week, I was literally chilled to my bones in a friend's house in Whitby, trying to keep a fire going in their front room. My IP address would probably have been Sheffield. The next day I was in Whitby Library.

Does this make me a spy? No it doesn't, because I'm not. But the thought (and the paranoia) does freak me out considerably.

UK's court case thread is private for a reason specified on the day it was made private. I'm very sorry the particular individuals to blame were from Leeds, but not everyone visiting, or even from the North of England, or from the South, East or West and adjoining isles that make up the whole of the United Kingdom, are here to spy.

Sometimes I read the forum in the early hours, when I should be asleep but either I can't or I'm having a near panic attack. Or I'm very doped up on medication. I keep that to myself, because I'm no use to anyone then, but the very existence of CAG gets me through the night.

I don't like the 'waving' either. I think it puts people off joining. Sometimes there's a need for privacy, and I think the Site Team have got that covered. But for genuine guests it's a bit like a smack in the face.

Leave them alone. As people here have said many times, the trolls tend to show themselves up sooner or later. They're pretty rare, and they tend to be pretty thick too!

[dannyboy660]

I'm glad you've raised this DB.

I regularly visit DCA's web sites. I'm looking for information about them. Do I want to be logged in here when I do that? Do I heck!

Where perhaps I might have been better served learning how to write to DCAs without quaking, I've been finding information which I bring back here. And when I'm not here it's generally my health that's to blame, or the fact that I'm trying to write a book, when I have chance! Sometimes I'm half-asleep, sometimes I'm just dealing with my own problems. Reading someone's thread when I'm logged in doesn't necessarily mean that I'm preparing to reply, or even that I want to be noticed, so sometimes I don't log in for that reason. I'm not comfortable suggesting letters for people to write, because I have no confidence doing them myself. Other people are much much better at doing that than me. But I'm reading the threads because, like most people, I gain courage and heart to stand up to these companies, and if I think I can help I will. When UK26 returned from court this week, I was literally chilled to my bones in a friend's house in Whitby, trying to keep a fire going in their front room. My IP address would probably have been Sheffield. The next day I was in Whitby Library.

Does this make me a spy? No it doesn't, because I'm not. But the thought (and the paranoia) does freak me out considerably.

UK's court case thread is private for a reason specified on the day it was made private. I'm very sorry the particular individuals to blame were from Leeds, but not everyone visiting, or even from the North of England, or from the South, East or West and adjoining isles that make up the whole of the United Kingdom, are here to spy.

Sometimes I read the forum in the early hours, when I should be asleep but either I can't or I'm having a near panic attack. Or I'm very doped up on medication. I keep that to myself, because I'm no use to anyone then, but the very existence of CAG gets me through the night.

I don't like the 'waving' either. I think it puts people off joining. Sometimes there's a need for privacy, and I think the Site Team have got that covered. But for genuine guests it's a bit like a smack in the face.

Leave them alone. As people here have said many times, the trolls tend to show themselves up sooner or later. They're pretty rare, and they tend to be pretty thick too!

 

Wow. Sosumi, that's a mighty post!!

 

I think, no, I can honestly say that CAG is one of the rally points for everyone who wants to see some honesty and openess in the economic workings of the UK and it's partners today.

Let's not put people off joining in by creating an unnecessary fear.

Edited February 22, 2009 by dannyboy660
Removal of irrelevant link & clarification

[Angel104]

I had a debt with black horse and suddenly got a letter from DLC debt collectors saying they now owned the debt. Can someone tell me if black horse should have informed me that they were selling the debt.

[dannyboy660]

I had a debt with black horse and suddenly got a letter from DLC debt collectors saying they now owned the debt. Can someone tell me if black horse should have informed me that they were selling the debt.

 

32.2.4. Assignment of debts

 

Assignment is a process whereby debts are sold on to another organisation, and is common practice within the industry.

For an assignment of a debt to be legally effective, it is necessary to assign both the rights and the responsibilities of the creditor under the agreement.

Partial assignment which, in effect, assigns the right to enforce but not the associated responsibilities will be invalid and will preclude the assignee from enforcing the debt.

There are two types of deed of assignment - equitable and absolute. The first assigns the right to pursue the debt to the assignee but not the obligation of the OC. The second assigns both the rights and obligations of the assignor to the assignee. However, in order for this to be legally binding you as the debtor would have to give your consent to such an assignment.

 

If the notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid (e.g. unlawful charges or DCA admin/collection charges).

Even if the amount doesn't include charges but is misstated it is still invalid.

If the date is incorrect it is legally invalid (i.e. does not tie in with the deed of assignment - the execution of assignment should be the same as the date shown on the notice).

The case that supports this is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

Edited February 22, 2009 by dannyboy660
removal of irrelevant link

[alfwithhair]

As a NOC from the leeds losers how does the one my son received from them shape up.

 

Capital One headed paper, but all the usual Lowells markings and in the same envelope as a letter dated two week after indroducing themselves.

As you notice it says 'assignment'

Yet the lowells leter says 'sold' they say they have bought the debt.

 

Edited February 22, 2009 by alfwithhair

[ODC]

The notice of assignment must be sent by registered or recorded post. The little square in the middle of the so called letter from CAPONE shows in fact its from the Leeds Losers.

 

There is no signature on the so called notice of assignment

[alfwithhair]

The notice of assignment must be sent by registered or recorded post. The little square in the middle of the so called letter from CAPONE shows in fact its from the Leeds Losers.

 

There is no signature on the so called notice of assignment

 

So basically its a load of old tosh then?

[ODC]

So basically its a load of old tosh then?

 

Bit like a CAPONE CCA:D;)

[angry cat]

Err!

I have never seen a Capital One letter without their return address-

Also why would a CapOne letter have a Lowell dematrix/datamatrix on it-

 

Clearly the letter eminated from Lowell and not CapOne

 

AC

[angry cat]

Caution guys,

that little mark holds all your data! Not really advisable to post that on the open forum!

 

AC

[alfwithhair]

Caution guys,

that little mark holds all your data! Not really advisable to post that on the open forum!

 

AC

 

Thanks AC, have edited the matrix now so lets see what the clowns read from it now I have altered it

[ODC]

Lowell obviously think their 'customers' are as stupid as their telephone threat monkeys

[ncf355]

I'm intrigued re the previous comment on Novation

 

Does it mean for a DCA to be in a position to sue for the debt (which I understand can only be via full, legal assignment, otherwise they require the OC to be a joint litigant?) they would in fact require onvation and hence my signed agreement to them taking over as creditor?

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'm intrigued re the previous comment on Novation

 

Does it mean for a DCA to be in a position to sue for the debt (which I understand can only be via full, legal assignment, otherwise they require the OC to be a joint litigant?) they would in fact require onvation and hence my signed agreement to them taking over as creditor?

 

Good question glad you asked this as it brings up the next very important point concerning this issue.

 

In the case of an absolute assignment (valid one obviously) the DCA can issue proceedings and defend themselves as sole defendant.

 

In the case of an equitable assignment the DCA does not have title (this remains with OC) and the DCA can therefore only bring litigation jointly with OC and in the event of litigation against should enter OC as co-defendant, certainly in cases where a counterclaim is entered.

 

The DCa can of course be granted Power of Attorney by the OC but this is unlikely and would require proof.

 

Without POA any attempted County Court Action by the DCA should be brought jointly by the DCA and OC where no valid assignment under LoP1925 exists.

 

You cannot claim in County Court for something for which you have no title.

Without a perfected assignment under LoP 1925 title rests with the OC.

 

I would check any County Court case thoroughly to see if the claimant actually has the lawful right to enter the claim in the first place.

 

 

No valid NOA can mean no title. No title means no right to claim.

 

People need to be aware of the implications of such a very simple error.

 

 

And the answer to your point is Yes. You are correct.

[ncf355]

Just what I thought

 

Cheers TLD, I have an immense feeling of glee now

 

Lookout Mr DCA, you are in the crap

[Toulose LeDebt]

Just what I thought

 

Cheers TLD, I have an immense feeling of glee now

 

Lookout Mr DCA, you are in the crap

 

 

You are very welcome, go get em.....

 

As the DCa can just sit on their desks eating bananas and typing random information about you for the CRA's to publish with their tails there is little benefit in taking you to Court when they know they can easily lose and just as much damage can be done against you with a default.

 

It might pay to force the issue sometimes and issue proceedings yourself for DPA 1998 breach if nothing else.

 

Remember the status of Data Controller rests with the OC not the DCA without an assignment, the DCa has status of data processor.

 

OC can give permission for DCA to process data but defaults etc should be registered in the name of the title holder not the DCA.

 

Court proceedings should be issued against DCa and OC where no valid assignment exists as both are answerable.

 

One can only guess how often the Solicitors from Barclays Bank PLC get beaten up in Court over Lowells failures and shortcomings as Co-D before they get brassed off with the Leeds Losers and stop doing business with them.

 

The Banks legal teams will be very busy when the appeal fails later this year, patience will be stretched if they start getting dragged into Court daily because the DCA's are trying to bend the law.:D

Edited February 22, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[shredder10]

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1 by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

 

Does this mean if it is not sent back it is deemed served. for instance sent to previous address then signed for by current occupants?

I know this is worse case scenario but it could happen.

Edited February 22, 2009 by shredder10

[shredder10]

bump. can anybody answer previous post, thanks

[silverfox1961]

As I see it, If they send the letter to your last known address and it doesn't get sent back, then it is deemed to have been served however, If you have told them your new address and then they send the letter to your last address then it is improperly served.

 

fox

[alfwithhair]

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house,

 

 

A question then; for the DCA to send the NOC on OC headed paper in the same envelope as an introductory letter by standard post would be deemed as not being served correctly,

 

But does it make it nul and void?

 

for example: if you contest the assignment in court on the grounds it was never served, would it then be up to the OC to prove they sent it, which of cause they didn't as the DCA did, so would be unable to provide any proof it was ever served.

 

Surely informing lowells the have dropped a b**lock will just prompt them in to sending out a new NOC by recorded thus serving it correctly.

 

I ask this as I have 3 of this kind of NOC's from other DCA's apart from lowells

Edited February 22, 2009 by alfwithhair

[Toulose LeDebt]

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house,

 

 

A question then; for the DCA to send the NOC on OC headed paper in the same envelope as an introductory letter by standard post would be deemed as not being served correctly,

 

But does it make it nul and void?

 

for example: if you contest the assignment in court on the grounds it was never served, would it then be up to the OC to prove they sent it, which of cause they didn't as the DCA did, so would be unable to provide any proof it was ever served.

 

I ask this as I have 3 of this kind of NOC's from other DCA's apart from lowells

 

It wouldn't be up to the OC to prove as this could only be brought into question if you had already admitted receiving it and thus were querying the authenticity. Although technically correct I wouldn't risk leaving a judgment on this matter to a judge as he could easily choose to deem it served since you admit receiving it.

 

You just put the DCA to strict proof that the notice was served in accordance with the LOP. Difficult for them without proof of postage.

 

They on the other hand cannot put you to strict proof that you did not receive it as you cannot prove a negative.