Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update! I emailed both Andrzej.Tuleja and James_Goldsmith at Whirlpool dot com. I got a phone call from their executive team a couple of days later, and a replacement part dropped on the mat a week after. She was quite apologetic, however, also reiterated the "90 day warranty" period on customer fitted parts, and did not comment when I mentioned that the CRA also applies as I was a consumer buying from them directly. So I now have a spare door switch if the machine decides to eat another in the future! Cheers all!   Note dx100 that the "Hotpoint CEO" you linked to is not related to the hotpoint appliances, but some kind of marketing app.
    • yep, throw that morality card out the window....9/10 you never owe a DCA ANYTHING!! they are NOT BAILIFFS!!
    • (See the link to DVLA’s INF188/6 document I posted above, page 4 as cited) “I have a new medical condition that I have told the DVLA about on my recent application. Can I drive? As soon as the DVLA receives your correct and complete application for a new licence and as long as you meet all the Section 88 criteria, you may drive. It is important that you are satisfied that the medical condition you have declared on your application does not stop you from driving. If you are unsure, check with your doctor or healthcare professional before you make a decision. You can also look up your condition in the ‘Assessing fitness to drive’ guide, which you can find at www.gov.uk/dvla/fitnesstodrive to see whether you meet the medical standards for driving. As this guide is intended for healthcare professionals, it can be complicated. Your doctor or healthcare professional should be able to help you if necessary." It seems that DVLA think that S.88 does apply for applications disclosing a new medical condition after all. Why might this be so, and what of “qualifying application" and "relevant disability"? S. 92(1) imposes on the driver a requirement to disclose a relevant disability. S.92(3) requires the Secretary of State to refuse such an application disclosing a relevant disability ….. EXCEPT S.92(4) requires the Secretary of State to grant such an application if the relevant disability is “adequately controlled”. Hence my belief S.88 can apply for medical conditions (if the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive) as the application remains a qualifying application IF the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive, until DVLA (on behalf of the Secretary of State) say it doesn’t, provided the driver believes they meet the (medical) standard. Additionally, at (or before) June 2013 (as noted in my previous post) the medical standard for fitness to drive for conditions involving excessive daytime sleepiness was changed from “completely controlled” to "adequately controlled".  
    • CFO Bill Guan allegedly led a team at the news outlet that was behind a global money laundering scheme.View the full article
    • Anyway, I've asked my Booking.com flat-rent-out-bloke what needs to be done on the Booking.com portal to cancel a reservation. I got a late message "I'll let you know tomorrow".
  • 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

Lowell and Barclaycard debt poss SB'd


Azuma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5319 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

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

by the way... i received this letter 6 days after the date on the letter!! lol and they tell me i have to reply within 10 days!! WTF? i'm fed up of these losers, and will take this all the way if i have to... will let you know what they come back with following my CCA request, as: 1. i'm pretty sure it's SB'd and 2. they have not provided any proof the debt is owed by me... losers!! looking forward to seeing what they respond with :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's any comfort I had the threat of an SD in October giving me ten days to offer payment so I CCa'd them.It's now a month on and a few days ago I received a full and final settlement letter - no CCA though.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/226203-lowell-crawls-under-their.html

 

I know the debt is getting close to being statute barred so it seems we are at about the same stage - I'll watch the thread with interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Azuma, personally, I wouldn't worry.

You say the debt is statute barred and they say you attempted payment 5 years ago.

Attempted by definition means that an action has not taken place and the action in this case is a payment. To nullify the Statute Barred period, you either have to acknowledge the debt in writing or make a payment, an attempt is simply not good enough and they know it. They also know that if you do get served a SD and you go to court with it, they will have to prove that it is not statute barred and clearly they cannot.

Put simply, by claiming such they are committing fraud and they certainly wont want to expose that to a Judge.

A CCA request may tell you what the debt is and once received, a SAR to the original creditor should confirm its statute barred status.

 

Worry not my friend, usual bluff, bluster and copious quantities of bovine poo from this bunch.

Edited by Belaflat

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the responses guys, i'm still waiting for a response, but i will post up whatever crud they send me :) - i would enjoy seeing them squirm in court though lol (that is if they even turned up)... thanks again people!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call them back and record the call...get them to verify that you made a payment 5 years ago....then send them a SAR, this should show up a screen shot of the payment made, if it doesn't show a payment being made then give the tape recording and their correspondence to the OFT (they will be very interested in this).......Red are well known for attempting to chase statute barred debts....

Link to post
Share on other sites

42Man, they didnt say that he had made a payment, they said he had attempted a payment. I fail to see how an attempted payment can be recorded in any form. I have now seen several posts where Lowells have claimed this as a get out from the statute barred defence.

Perhaps we need to be looking at a way of taking them to task over this.

I know that some posters have successfully challenged this by quoting the fraud act and asking for proof. Lowells soon slunk back into the drains then.

Also reading back on the post, the date of assignment is some years after this alleged payment attempt. How many debts come with full details such as that.

I have yet to see one post where this is the case.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a laugh...what does 'attempted payment' mean ? He got his debit card out of his wallet, but dropped it at the last moment, then the phone went dead ? or maybe the cheque made it through the letterbox then was lost somewhere between Lowells post room and the paying-in department.....lol...as you say Bela, the OP should challenge....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clownells cannot go anywhere with this so called ''Attempted '' Payment. The debt has to be acknowledged in WRITING or by a payment. An attempted payment does NOT count. Its a figment of their imagination just like their imaginary ''Licensed Field Agents''

 

They arent called the Leeds Losers for nothing. If they are foolish enough to take this any further you can look forward to a huge payout FROM them

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell and Barclaycard debt
  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell and Barclaycard debt poss SB'd
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...