Lovells/Red DCA

[Gazza01]

Info on Lovells, just to let everyone know that I have been harrassed by these bottom feeders - up to and including them calling a particular number twice [bad bad mistake as that is a civil service number - strangely enuff still waiting for an explanation, but i'll deal with that security breech in time].

 

Lovells, got sick of my asking for documentation and explanations and sicced a new Firm on me by the name of:

 

RED Debt Colection Agency

PO Box 203

Leeds

LS11 1BG

 

I sent them the following:

 

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

I do not acknowledge any such debt & require any evidence of such.

In particular, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79), I request a true copy of any credit agreement between myself & any client you are representing to be supplied to me within 12 working days as specified in the above Act.

You are notified that you are legally obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not.

I enclose a payment of £1.00 which represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act.

I also request a signed true copy of the Notice of Deed of Assignment of any above referenced agreement & your confirmation as to whether it was absolute or equitable.

Furthermore I draw your attention to The Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance that states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question & that under the Guidance it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable.

In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods & continuance of this action will leave me with no option other than to report this incidence to the OFT & Trading Standards Dept.

 

I ADDED THE FOLLOWING:

 

Furthermore, this account was put I dispute back in 2007, at which time I requested information under the Information Act 2008, which to this date have not been supplied despite prompting on several occasions. The industries own code of conduct [now set in law from April 2009] states no action may be taken until the dispute is settled. This clearly has not taken place.

 

Any court action will be contested to the fullest, and you are required to supply your previous documentation and any further documentation by registered post to prove delivery as this is the first I have been contacted by yourselves. If you dispute this fact, please supply proof of delivery.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

At the bottom of letter I added in Biro Writing:

 

THAT LOVELLS STILL HAVEN'T SUPPLIED REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW.

 

Yes, peeps Lovells/Red DCA are one and the same... Cheeky Buggers.

 

It will be interesting to see what these bottom feeders comeup with next - and yes my card was before 2004 [no T&C's], no reply from Capital One since Late 2007 requesting account info via SAR.

 

The Battle Continues, tune in next week for the next episode of bottom feeders diseapearing up own Ars% - if they can find their own Ars%, that is.

 

Gazza01

[diamondgirl]

Like the letter look forward to next weeks episode and I doubt if they can find it.

DG

[fermi]

Yep. Red Collections are a "Trading style" of Lowell portfolio..

 

They haven't passed it on to another company at all.

 

Have fun.

[sam614]

my guess for the responce you will get.

threatogram from desk 4 scary hamptons:rolleyes:

we are not solicitors,but like to pretend:D

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[Gazza01]

Hiya All,

 

Update time.

 

Just received a pair of letters... from Lovells not Red!!!!

 

You'all can guess what I received ... the standard We are in reiceipt of credit agreement request... will attemp to supply in the 12 day period... will advise if long than 12 days... Not under any obligation under provision of section 77 and or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 against which your account agreement is governed, to supply you a deed of assignment as you have suggested.... we include a copy of our letter [threatogram, pay up or else...] advising that they purchased this account from CrapOne in August 08 [er did i not put in a SAR asking for ALL papers, does that not include deed of assigment I wonder? I think so, I know so... oh dear ... we have a Inf Act 08 breach... Oh that confirms they Lovells are in Breech as account in dispute since 07... you guessed it lets all say it together, Breech!!!]... blah blah blah...if you have any questions please call 0113 3086044 [i think not, having already endured the pleasure of their calling my work place before I stamped on them about their harresment].

 

Truly a set of people who cannot get a grip... of their own Ars&'s.. let alone do their job's properly. Ah... I forgot their job is to be clueless and brainless.

 

Ah well, back to normal life as we await the next episode of :

 

Bottom Feeders up own Ars% : "Can clueless and brainless Bottom feeders find own Ars%?" Tune in next week to find out!

[sam614]

I know where andys ar*e is cause i kicked it good style:D

 

ms swallows i think you will find below her nose,as she talks through it.

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[westendwendy]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think thay have to send you the actual Deed of Assignment but have to send you a Notice of Assignment.

 

If the 12+2 days are up have you actually sent the Account in Dispute letter to Lowells?

[ODC]

Obviously Ms Swallow has been reading the posts on here and realises that her ridiculous statements about having 42 days is a load of Lowells crap.

[Gazza01]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think thay have to send you the actual Deed of Assignment but have to send you a Notice of Assignment.

 

If the 12+2 days are up have you actually sent the Account in Dispute letter to Lowells?

 

Hiya

 

I did that with CrapOne back in 07.

No escape for them down that route me thinks...

[Gazza01]

Obviously Ms Swallow has been reading the posts on here and realises that her ridiculous statements about having 42 days is a load of Lowells crap.

 

You're right.. She knows exactly what she is doing... She knows common sense when she sees it thinks it feels it...

 

She knows how the law works...

 

Not.

[Gazza01]

Hellooo A...

 

Well the saga continues, now Red have popped up [sorry is that Lovells, Red. Lovells... I'm confused...] to say :

 

We have now referred your account to our client for thier autherisation that legal action to be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days.

 

If you contact us now and negotiate settlement of your account or enter into a monthly re-payment plan we will submit your porposal to our client and await thier decision. If accepted this will mean we will not commemce proceedings against you to recover the debt or to petition for your bankruptcy should your balance exceed the insolvency threshold of 750.

 

We do not intend to correspond with you further regarding this matter, unless you enter into an asgreement with us for re-payment of the debt. Any further correspondence may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you (if this is seen as viable option), or from a licenced Field Agent who may call at your poperty during a period to be notified to you to either collect the outstanding debt or assess your means with a view to continuing with any permitted action to recover the debt.

 

Call NOW on telephone number 0844 844 3744.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Karen Williams

Head of Recoveries.

 

Now where do I start in disecting this threatogram missive?

 

A] Red have not replied concerning my request, addressed and paid to themselves for information about this account - Breach coming.

b] They state will not comunicate any further except if they take it to court - threat, Breach.

C] this is a threatogram, vias a vis Court Action, despite the fact account in dispute - threat, Breach

D] Contact themselves to make payment, despite not providing any proof as requested that they own this purported debt [them and Lovells via asking for Notice of Assignment] - threat, Breach coming.

E] Threatening Bancruptcy - threat, Breach.

F] Visit from a Field Agent - I am sure I made it plain to Lovell's that the only acceptable contact would be by letter, vis a vis Harressment letter which applies to these fool's who are employed by them - threat, Breach.

 

Truly they have'nt got a clue

 

ps

I copy out the letter here so others can know what to look for and know what remedial action to take with these people. [Phone/Visits - Harresement letter; Request for proof of debt - see appropiate letters; details of account - SAR Request; Account in Dispute - Dispute Letter].

 

Laters

Edited May 21, 2009 by Gazza01

[ODC]

Do not worry about their imaginary Licensed Field Agents. They dont exist. They are all in Andy B's mind.

 

I think its time to report their sorry asses to the OFT and TS for their many breaches of OFT Guidelines and the CPUTR 2008