Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything? I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • 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
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

02/Lowell


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5257 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

Just as I thought I had heard the last from Lowell, they have re-surfaced with an introductory letter from themselves and a NOA stating they have bought a debt from O2 :mad:. However, this contract was cancelled aaaaaaages ago (about 3yrs) and is in fact showing as settled on my credit file back in 2006 :-x

 

Would someone be so kind as to point me in the right direction of a letter to send informing them that i don't need their letters for toilet paper as I have moved up in the world and now buy Tesco Value ones :D

 

thank you :)

 

xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you for that :)

 

What I do find rather odd is that the NOA was sent in the same envelope as the one from Lowell, both dated the same date, both with the same barcode in the top left hand corner and both with a little code down in the bottom right hand corner with 1 number difference between them. Since when did O2 sit next to Lowell in the office i wonder :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that :)

 

What I do find rather odd is that the NOA was sent in the same envelope as the one from Lowell, both dated the same date, both with the same barcode in the top left hand corner and both with a little code down in the bottom right hand corner with 1 number difference between them. Since when did O2 sit next to Lowell in the office i wonder :rolleyes:

 

Please send a copy of that letter to Companies House asking if it represents a breach of Company Regulations since it was sent by Lowells not O2.

 

CH are already on Lowells case over this behaviour, the more the merrier, the bigger the fine etc.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please send a copy of that letter to Companies House asking if it represents a breach of Company Regulations since it was sent by Lowells not O2.

 

CH are already on Lowells case over this behaviour, the more the merrier, the bigger the fine etc.

 

Will do :) It's concerning though that the DCA's can produce letters like this whenever they want, even if the account was settled with the OC, like mine! But even more concerning is why O2 sold this so called debt at the beginning of this year yet it was settled yonks ago :confused: It was never defaulted and was run perfectly until the end where they messed up a bit in closing the account resulting in a status 2 on the credit report but the last month showed 0 upon closure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't seen it before here's Lowells on Watchdog over mobile phone debts that 'aren't'.

 

Look out for the little black square (datamatrix) on the letters from '3' proving they are really letters from Lowells.

 

Link to BBC Watchdog

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been debated on here regarding many OCs and DCAs and it appears that the OC gives the DCA permission/asks to send the NOA for them.

 

Lowell are the leaders in Mass Debating :-o

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been debated on here regarding many OCs and DCAs and it appears that the OC gives the DCA permission/asks to send the NOA for them.

 

N of A's ar useless unless properly 'Served' in accordance with S 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't seen it before here's Lowells on Watchdog over mobile phone debts that 'aren't'.

 

Look out for the little black square (datamatrix) on the letters from '3' proving they are really letters from Lowells.

 

Link to BBC Watchdog

 

 

ooooooooooo I have one of them too! The little tinkers! tut tut, so Lowells telling Watchdog that they are reviewing their system is a load of tosh, coz they have obviousely done diddly squat :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

N of A's ar useless unless properly 'Served' in accordance with S 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

My NOA wasn't signed so does that mean it hasn't been served properly?

 

Anyone could have typed that up on headed paper so without a signature and name to confirm that it has been officially issued by the OC surely it would be invalid?......oh hang on, 'anyone' did! They go by the name of Lowells!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are lowells anything to do with moorcroft?

 

The reason i ask is that out of the blue i have had a letter from this lowell portfolio I about a debt from O2 that was with moorcroft. I had diputed the debt with 02 but they passed it on anyway. I then disputed the debt with moorcroft (i paid half the debt, god knows why) who happily avised they would take it up with 02 but instead, fabricated a payment agreement and then told me i defaulted on it. after writing to them about this they closed the account and refered it back to 02.

 

This was two years ago! during which time no communication has been sent from anybody.

 

Now this lowells show up after the other half and dont know what to make of it. They state the reason why the balance is due:

 

" 02 (uk) sent you a final bill with a breakdown of your balance which is made up of: call charges/line rental £55.15"

 

They have sent me nothing. I assume that like others dca's they are not on the level but i have never heard of them before this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the leeds losers are the "new owners"

well known for buying debts that are statute barred.unenforable or just do not exist:rolleyes:

they will try their arm now,to get payment where others have failed by any means they can,

 

send them the prove it letter,see what they come back with.

do not sign.and do not speak to them on the phone they will lie and threaten all the way,

 

would also report to oft and ts. as yet again lowell have brought a debt that is in dispute:mad:

 

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I will send the letter. I was going to call on Monday but now I will not bother. Although after my experience dealing with Moorcroft I dont know what a spoken conversation would have achieved anyway.

 

Have just checked my experian credit report and it shows the account with o2 as settled with no balance and has been like this ever since i began to check my report, which was about a year ago. There is no record at all of any agreement with moorcroft, probably because there wasnt one as they had just made it up without my consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I will send the letter. I was going to call on Monday but now I will not bother. Although after my experience dealing with Moorcroft I dont know what a spoken conversation would have achieved anyway.

 

Have just checked my experian credit report and it shows the account with o2 as settled with no balance and has been like this ever since i began to check my report, which was about a year ago. There is no record at all of any agreement with moorcroft, probably because there wasnt one as they had just made it up without my consent.

 

 

eleventh comandment.

dca must lie at all costs.

ALLEGEDLY:eek:

 

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowells caught out again. LINK

 

Debt collection agencies feed on live flesh. In these dark times there must be a surplus of legitimate prey to nourish them, but they will swoop just as greedily on unfortunates who happen to share a name or an ex-address of a defaulter. And once they have sunk their teeth into you, it is frighteningly hard to break free, as Gareth Stanton has spent five years discovering. The Lowell Group is convinced that he owes Barclays Bank a large sum of money and sends him regular letters demanding it. The fact that Stanton has never banked with Barclays and has spent many years telling them so does not abash them in the slightest. Occasionally, catlike, they will allow him a few months' breather, then pounce again. Now other debt collectors have begun aggressively prowling. "I receive continuous phone calls," he says, "and it's obvious that the staff regard me as some sort of criminal."

Debt collection agencies are licensed and regulated by the Office of Fair Trading, which last year condemned an unnamed number of them for unfair practices, including pursuing innocent victims and failing to investigate disputed cases. A common cause is sloppy data checking when the companies purchase debts. Stanton's case, though, is more sinister. Lowell, which, having ignored Stanton for five years, gets back to me within a week, explains that the three debts it purchased were in the name of a Gareth Stanton who shared the same birth date as our reader and lived a mile from him. The obvious conclusion is that he is a victim of identity fraud ('must be Identity fraud' is the new 'must be computer error' in the updated debt collectors book of dodges).

 

 

 

Lowell, mortified (at being caught out surely) that it did not investigate Stanton's protests earlier, has offered to help cleanse his name by contacting the three credit bureaux and the police. It will also pay him compensation. Anyone wrongly hounded by debt collectors can now complain to the Financial Services Authority. Citizens Advice Bureaux will also take up cases.

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - my friend is also being pursued by lowell for an 02 debt - the notice of assignment also came in the same letter as the one from Lowells - not recorded.

 

So if the NOA has not been served correctly what does that mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats how mine turned up too. A letter from "o2" (well it had their logo at the top) saying the debt had been passed on and that all communications had to go through Lowells and providing an address that was slightly different to the one on the lowells letter(which was a PO Box one) I have written to the one on the o2 letter as it looked more like a proper address. I didnt really pay much attention to it at first but now i think about, it is is a bit odd. Why would a letter from two different companies come in the same unmarked envelope? I always thought o2 used envelopes with their logo all over them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just checked my credit report and it still shows my o2 account as settled and satisfactory.

However, I noticed that an unrecorded enquiry has been made by Lowells financial on 27/02/09. The letter that they sent last week advised that a debt was passed over to them from o2 on 02/04/09. So why are they looking ay my credit file a month beforehand.

Is this normal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

normal for lowell.on mine 18 months before,listed as trace,strange that as lived in same house for nearly twenty years.:rolleyes:

and left default on sisters 5 month before barclays claim to have sold it to them.:confused:

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...