Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is the home in joint names but this is solely your debt? need far more history to be able to comment if it's paid off and was not just written of by one partly on their books and sold to anther, thus the cra file says £0. dx
    • So, Sunak has managed to get someone to 'volunteer to go to Rwanda hasn't he? .. for just £3000 payment to the person plus 5 years free board and lodging isnt it? - cost to UK taxpayer over £300M+ (300 million quid+) isnt it? - Bargain says Rwanda, especially with all the profit we made privately selling those luxury chalets Bravermann advertised for us   I wonder how many brits would jump at that offer? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Lets see, up to 5 years free board and lodging and £3k in my pocket .. I'd go - and like that person - just come back if/when I get bored. First job - off to Botswana for a week to see the elephants.   Of course the paid volunteers going to Botswana are meaningless - Rwanda have REPEATEDLY said they wont take any forcibly trafficked people in breach of international law eh? Have the poops actually got any civil servants to agree to go yet - probably end up as more massive payments to VIPal contractors to go and sit there doing nowt shortly eh?    
    • Hi Wondered if I could get a little advise please. I entered into a commercial lease (3 years) and within a few months I had to leave as the business I was trading with collapsed. I returned the keys to the landlord and explained the situation and no money, also likely to go on benefits but the landlord stuck to their guns. They have now instructed solicitors to send letter before action claiming just over £4000. The lease was mine and so the debt. I know this. I have emailed the solicitors twice to explain I am out of work and that with help from family I could offer a full and final settlement figure of £1500 or £10pw. This was countered by them with an offer to reduce the debt by £400, or pay off the amount over 12 months. I went back with an improved full and final offer of £2500 or £20pw. This has been rejected with the comment 'papers ready to go to court'. I have no hope of paying the £4000 and so it will have to go to court. Pity as I have no debts otherwise but not working is a killer. I wondered if they take me to court, could I ask for mediation? I also think that taking me to court will result in a pretty much nothing per week payment from my benefits. Are companies just pushing ahead with action even if a better offer is on the table? Thanks for your help.
    • Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
  • 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 5287 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

maybe they attempted to un-bar it for you by making an attempted payment in your name but the attempted attempt failed cause they did not attempt it in the right way, so I would be tempted to attempt to make them prove that the atempted attempt actually achieved what they attempted:D

 

somethig along the lines of

 

Dear Cretins

 

Thank you for pointing out that an ATTEMPT to pay was ATTEMPTED on date - I would be curious to know how this ATTEMPTED ATTEMP was ATTEMPTED and who actually ATTEMPTED to ATTEMPT to make this ATTEMPTED payment.

 

It certainly was not me I would be very foolish to acutally make an ATTEMPTED payment for a debt that is alledgedly mine, so the question remains, who did try to ATTEMPT this ATTEMPTED ATTEMP at making an ATTEMPTED Payment.

 

When you discover the the identity of the ATTEMPTED payee pleaseinform me as I would like to report them to the police for identity theft for making the ATTEMPTED ATTEMPT at the ATTEMPTED ATTEMP to ATTEMPT the payment.

 

I hope that this ATTEMPT to set the record straight reference the ATTEMPTED ATTEMPT to ATTEMPT to make an ATTEMPTED payment is understood.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have received a very interesting reply from Lowells recently I will try and scan it before sending it to OFT who are already investigating a complaint of mine against them along with companies house.

 

Basically lowells contacted about an old O2 debt - know they have no proof of ownership of this so sent the prove it letter - Lowells responded with we are looking in to this but cannot provide proof at this time......

 

5 months letter Red send a letter saying they are the new 'owners' and include a screen shot showing an outstanding balance....no customer details, no signatures, no contract, nothing.

 

So I respond with not proof letter and that claiming they are the new 'owners' of the debt when they are infact the same company as lowell is a breach of OFT guidelines in not being honest who they are etc

 

Lowells have since responded saying they are the 'owners' and that red was contracted to work on their behalf and they ARE NOT the same company but mearly work together to pursue debts legally owed to them.

 

Hmmmmm am I really that stupid Lowells? Are the OFT really that stupid? Is companies house that are already investigating you for pretending to be O2 that stupid

 

You picked the wrong lady to mess with - IDIOTS!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a very interesting reply from Lowells recently I will try and scan it before sending it to OFT who are already investigating a complaint of mine against them along with companies house.

 

Basically lowells contacted about an old O2 debt - know they have no proof of ownership of this so sent the prove it letter - Lowells responded with we are looking in to this but cannot provide proof at this time......

 

5 months letter Red send a letter saying they are the new 'owners' and include a screen shot showing an outstanding balance....no customer details, no signatures, no contract, nothing.

 

So I respond with not proof letter and that claiming they are the new 'owners' of the debt when they are infact the same company as lowell is a breach of OFT guidelines in not being honest who they are etc

 

Lowells have since responded saying they are the 'owners' and that red was contracted to work on their behalf and they ARE NOT the same company but mearly work together to pursue debts legally owed to them.

 

Hmmmmm am I really that stupid Lowells? Are the OFT really that stupid? Is companies house that are already investigating you for pretending to be O2 that stupid

 

You picked the wrong lady to mess with - IDIOTS!!

 

they are still in breach as they have sub-contracted another firm (yeah right!) to collect on a debt which they were asked to prove and yet unable to. Clear breach of OFT guidelines whichever way they go :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi andie

ill now have a dig

 

helping brother out ref mbna

he got a nice letter from lowell saying the debt was now belonged to them.

in the same envelope was a letter from sainsburys saying they had sold the debt to lowells, thats righ, same envelope.

 

i have 100%proof both letters came off the same printer at lowells.

 

digging into how lowells can use company letterheads, realy bad cut and paste, and signatures from the oc.

 

by the way

 

i delievered 10 of the exact same letters to people that morning so it seems lowells have got a load of hbos accounts

Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf is a attempted payment.

 

have they seen you in the post office B4 you changed your mind about paying.

cretins.

 

SAM

 

What on earth is an 'ATTEMPTED' payment? How can you make an 'ATTEMPTED' payment?

 

You either make the payment or you don't. I think they are up to their tricks again. Report the fools to the OFT.

:cool::cool: Blondmusic :cool::cool:
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi andie

ill now have a dig

 

helping brother out ref mbna

he got a nice letter from lowell saying the debt was now belonged to them.

in the same envelope was a letter from sainsburys saying they had sold the debt to lowells, thats righ, same envelope.

 

i have 100%proof both letters came off the same printer at lowells.

 

digging into how lowells can use company letterheads, realy bad cut and paste, and signatures from the oc.

 

by the way

 

i delievered 10 of the exact same letters to people that morning so it seems lowells have got a load of hbos accounts

 

 

They did the same thing with O2 - i will PM you the email of the bloke at companies house investigating it if you like -especially if the sainsbury's letter had sainsburies company registration number on it along with Lowells data matrix - a big no no!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further proof (as if it were needed) that the leeds loosers are totally incompetent.

 

Less than an hour ago postie delivers me a letter from Red Debt Collection Svcs advising they have been appointed by "their client" (yawn) Lowell Portfolio "to recover an outstanding balance owed to them after they purchased your original debt from Capital One on 01/06/2009"

 

Now considering I have been corresponding with them since March over this issue & put the account in dispute on 24/04/2009 after a failure to respond to a CCA request am I being psychic or is it that one of us can't even get the date they bought the debt right......;)

 

Morph

 

:Dthey were on my credit file as trace 18 months before contact they then tried to make up a payment 3 years after my last payment to stop it being statute barred,proved wrong as the date they chose i was in fact thousands of miles away,as passport showed.

 

they also bombarded with letters and calls for at least 4 months,before the date they claimed to have brought,maybe they were confused as this was actually a sunday:lol:

and 25months after oc claimed to sold it to them:eek:

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, this thread has definitely envoked alot of funny comments, with regards to an ATTEMPTED payment, i have no bloody idea what the hell that means. if this ever went to court i would point out that they have acknowledged no payment, but they have said i attempted to pay and how on earth do they know that? haha, i've been laughing the whole way through this thread!!! You guys are so on the ball it's unreal, so glad to have people like you lot around.

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

:Dthey were on my credit file as trace 18 months before contact they then tried to make up a payment 3 years after my last payment to stop it being statute barred,proved wrong as the date they chose i was in fact thousands of miles away,as passport showed.

 

they also bombarded with letters and calls for at least 4 months,before the date they claimed to have brought,maybe they were confused as this was actually a sunday:lol:

and 25months after oc claimed to sold it to them:eek:

 

SAM

 

This is par for the course for the Leeds Losers. The imaginary date they used for me I was also thousands of miles away. Another sign of their incredible stupidity showed that the so called payment was made on a Sunday:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

no they brought the debt on a sunday:D

 

the fictitious payment was actually a saturday,when i was sunning in cyprus.

but in 2003 the bank did not open on a saturday anyway:rolleyes:

 

complete fools

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowells bring stupidity to a whole new level.. They climbed the Stupid Tree and fell down hitting every branch on the way down. They really are a bunch of CRETINS who find telling porkie pies just second nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha,

 

just wanted to continue this thread on by letting you know they have sent me not one, but two of the same letters, dated the same day but sent 3 days apart. they have done this twice now. talk about repeating yourself? has anyone else noticed that these idiots seem to have really bad memories, i keep getting the image of Samantha Swallows / Barnard (whatever her name is) sitting there scratching her head thinking "did i post that letter? i'm sure i did, oh well i'll send it again in case" haha. idiots!! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowells dictionary definition - left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing!!

 

Tell me about it, i'd sort of understand if they were the same letter but sent from different people, but they're not, they're letters dated on the same day, by the same person, but posted days apart :( - it really gives me a boost to see how dis-jointed this company is. i'd look forward to taking them to court should the opportunity arise :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did the same thing with O2 - i will PM you the email of the bloke at companies house investigating it if you like -especially if the sainsbury's letter had sainsburies company registration number on it along with Lowells data matrix - a big no no!!

 

What is the Lowells data matrix ? is it a graphic ? How do you identify if it's off the same printer (both Sainsbury and Lowell headed paper) ?

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys,

 

i've been to-ing and fro-ing with Lowell now for a while, they originally sent me a letter stating i owed 3k from 2002,

i sent them the Stat Barred letter,

to which they replied the account is not Stat Barred

, because and i quote "a payment was 'attempted' in Feb 2005".

however, i have just realised they have put a default on my credit report.

my question is,

how can they do this,

when no proof the debt is still enforceable?

i know that this seems to be normal practice for these clowns,

but is there any way in getting this taken off at all?

Will i need to send them a CCA request?

As i have literally given up the letter 'tag' game with them until they send me proof the debt is not SB

. (just them stating that it isn't SB in a letter is not proof)

Any ideas Caggers? :D much appreciated in advance.

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would contact the CRA and advise them that as the debt has not been verified, and is not legally enforceable as it is SB, they should remove the incorrect data from your file, and whilst you are waiting for them to do this, they should send you a copy of their complaints procedure, and a complaint will also be filed with the ICO also.

  • Haha 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice Bazooka Boo

, i'm going to do just that.

it's crazy how they can pretty much mess up your whole life (re. mortgage and any future credit) on a whim. getting sick of them dictating my future,

someone has to stop this now, before it goes too far and they keep pushing the boundaries to see how much they CAN get away with.

never ending cycle of bull from DCA's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know man, i think it's classic,

they make me wonder who had the company brain cell the day someone typed up that pre fab response. :D

*Bump* anyone else had something along the lines of "an attempted payment" ? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Bump* anyone else had something along the lines of "an attempted payment" ? lol

 

Ooohh, it makes me want to ring them and ask them what exactly is an "attempted" payment!

Do they mean they saw me open my wallet and take out my credit card? Or do they mean they saw you go into a Post office and enquire about a postal order??

Or is simply 'thinking' about it enough to warrant "attempting" to pay their sorry a55e5:evil:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...