Lowell and Barclaycard debt poss SB'd

[PGH7447]

no reason just thought they were trying it on again:)

[skegleg]

lol, reminds me of a response PGH gave me previously, he / she said i should send a letter of the following:

 

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 pleasein form 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.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Although i was very tempted, i decided not to get involved with this game of cat and mouse they so obviously enjoy playing with people

 

Az

 

love that letter :lol:

[Azuma]

haha you think they could have been inventive and picked a different month/year from the other letters weve seen on this site

 

 

[edit] Oh and it this is lowells new tactic at attempting to side step the OFT guidelines on SB debts then we need to collate all the cases this happens and inform the OFT as obviously the few we see on here will be the tip of the iceberg

 

S.

 

i know man, i was thinking the same thing, there have been other letters by Caggers on here saying an "attempted" payment made in Feb 2005.

 

We def need to collate all the instances as you say, i can scan up my letter (removing all data if need be) perhaps make another thread for people to put up their versions of this "attempted payment" letter?

 

Az

[Alphageek]

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

 

I hope you put a CAG fact sheet through the letterbox as well postggj?

[pmhcfc]

i know man, i was thinking the same thing, there have been other letters by Caggers on here saying an "attempted" payment made in Feb 2005.

 

We def need to collate all the instances as you say, i can scan up my letter (removing all data if need be) perhaps make another thread for people to put up their versions of this "attempted payment" letter?

 

Az

 

Why not just send them a letter that says... "Ok, if you think your view on this matter will stand up in court then invite you to take me to said court and we'll see wht the judge makes of it"... "By the way, I do not acknowledge any debt to your company."

[ODC]

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) ?

 

The dot matrix is a little square at the top of the letter. It allows the letter to be identified. Its just an updated barcode but the Leeds Losers are so thick they put the same dot matrix of the letter that is allegedly from Sainsburys as they do on the threatomatic they send introducing themselves to you.

[Azuma]

Why not just send them a letter that says... "Ok, if you think your view on this matter will stand up in court then invite you to take me to said court and we'll see wht the judge makes of it"... "By the way, I do not acknowledge any debt to your company."

 

If i thought it would do ANY good at all i would.

 

However I don’t really wish to give them the time of day by responding. If they had anything that would stand up in court, that’d be their first course of action. They have already proven themselves to have no morals or problem with using any and every tactic they can to screw people out of their money, as such if they thought they would win in court I think it’d be the first place they would go.

Az

[ODC]

The Feb 2005 date and the so called ATTEMPTED PAYMENT probably refers to when the OC sold the alleged debts on to the parasitic DCAs. Its not unknown for a token payment to be shown in order to increase the shelf life of a debt.

 

Obviously if the Leeds Losers had a good case then they would take you to Court. People can now see through them and other DCAs and are not as easily fooled by thei untruths and empty threats.

 

Sufficient to know that this site and others are hitting the **** where it hurts, in their pockets. As the threat monkeys see their monthly blood money bonuses slowly shrink thjen they will resort to more outlandish threats in order that they may earn enough for their weeky alcopops.

[Azuma]

The Feb 2005 date and the so called ATTEMPTED PAYMENT probably refers to when the OC sold the alleged debts on to the parasitic DCAs. Its not unknown for a token payment to be shown in order to increase the shelf life of a debt.

 

Obviously if the Leeds Losers had a good case then they would take you to Court. People can now see through them and other DCAs and are not as easily fooled by thei untruths and empty threats.

 

Sufficient to know that this site and others are hitting the **** where it hurts, in their pockets. As the threat monkeys see their monthly blood money bonuses slowly shrink thjen they will resort to more outlandish threats in order that they may earn enough for their weeky alcopops.

 

It does give me a warm feeling inside to know that they are feeling the effects.

 

On the subject of the "attempted payment" - this isn't when they OC sold the debt onto the DCA, as the first letter i got from them stated that the date Lowell bought that debt was November 2008, but once i SB lettered them, they came back with the "attempted payment was made 17th Feb 2005" statement.

 

Cretins

 

Az

[ODC]

Lowell may well have bought the debt from some other pondlife ****** Debt Collector

[Undercover-Elsa]

A subject access request to whoever owned the debt at the time of "attempted payment" should sort this once and for all...another Cagger I'm helping did this and proved them wrong.

Goes against the grain though as it's up to these muppets to prove it so why should anyone have to cough up £10

Elsa x

[cerberusalert]

Another of their favourites is 'it's not statute barred because the default was registered on.....' They can't seem to grasp the fact that the clock starts usually a month after the last payment became due.

[Azuma]

Lowell may well have bought the debt from some other pondlife ****** Debt Collector

 

Good point ODC, good point my friend

 

Az

[Azuma]

A subject access request to whoever owned the debt at the time of "attempted payment" should sort this once and for all...another Cagger I'm helping did this and proved them wrong.

Goes against the grain though as it's up to these muppets to prove it so why should anyone have to cough up £10

Elsa x

 

Yeah, i'm not going to prove my case, "innocent until proven guilty"

 

Az

[Azuma]

Another of their favourites is 'it's not statute barred because the default was registered on.....' They can't seem to grasp the fact that the clock starts usually a month after the last payment became due.

 

Exactly what i thought, not "when the last 'attempted payment' was made" haha, idiots!

 

Az

[ODC]

Yeah, i'm not going to prove my case, "innocent until proven guilty"

 

Az

The burden of proof that a debt is NOT Statute Barred rests with the DCA in this case the Leeds Losers

 

A subject access request to whoever owned the debt at the time of "attempted payment" should sort this once and for all...another Cagger I'm helping did this and proved them wrong.

Goes against the grain though as it's up to these muppets to prove it so why should anyone have to cough up £10

Elsa x

The burden of proof rests with the DCA. There is no way I would pay them £10

 

Another of their favourites is 'it's not statute barred because the default was registered on.....' They can't seem to grasp the fact that the clock starts usually a month after the last payment became due.

This is a favourite ploy of Crapbots. Again there is no legal basis for it. Just a blatant attempt at deceit.

 

 

Call the Leeds Losers bluff

[Azuma]

The burden of proof that a debt is NOT Statute Barred rests with the DCA in this case the Leeds Losers

 

The burden of proof rests with the DCA. There is no way I would pay them £10

 

This is a favourite ploy of Crapbots. Again there is no legal basis for it. Just a blatant attempt at deceit.

 

 

Call the Leeds Losers bluff

 

What do you mean by call their bluff? do you mean ignore and see if they take any further action?

 

I can GUARANTEE that i will get more letters from these losers in the coming weeks/months/years lol, whatever i get i'll post up and will look forward to seeing your responses on the blatant C**P they will spout next.

 

Az

[ODC]

I would positively invite them to take legal action against you. They tried this ploy on with me. They said I had made not one but two payments on a CAPONE account. Unfortunately for them it was a Sunday and I was in Miami. They were that stupid that they did not even check the calendar.

[sam614]

Sam614 has a great situation with an attempted payment, that according to the DCA was attempted by his/her sister, even though she was in hospital after giving birth the day before, and the attempt was on a sunday! If they do come back to you with a specific date, i would suggest checking what day of the week it was, you never know it could also be a sunday. Maybe they have evidence of you standing outside your bank on a sunday shaking your head wondering why you can't pay this DCA.

 

this was westcot,with my sis

they claimed this date twice and claimed that they had the paying in slip:eek:

then it was lost but OC confirmed it,as stated by westcot

so we went back to OC as all details had been received in SAR.

they had a copy of the letter send to them and wrote back 2 weeks ago saying that they were contacting westcot.

letter back from westcot accepting statute barred.and it was a admin error.account closed.

it was been lying bar stools.

end of they think.

till they get her bill for postage costs/time and stress.

 

 

SAM(LADY)

[Azuma]

it's crazy that these DCA's try and get away with mis-leading and totally untrue stories to get people to pay something - i wish there was something more we could all do. unfortunately i have another letter from them, but i'm at work right now, but will be sure to post up when i get home tonight.

 

Who knows what cock and bull story they have invented this time huh?

 

Az

[ODC]

it's crazy that these DCA's try and get away with mis-leading and totally untrue stories to get people to pay something - i wish there was something more we could all do. unfortunately i have another letter from them, but i'm at work right now, but will be sure to post up when i get home tonight.

 

Who knows what cock and bull story they have invented this time huh?

 

Az

 

That will probably be one of their ridiculous once in a lifetime discount offers. In other words they are stuffed

[Azuma]

That will probably be one of their ridiculous once in a lifetime discount offers. In other words they are stuffed

 

We shall soon find out ODC i'll let you know as soon as i get home.

 

Az

[ODC]

It will go along the lines of................ We are waiting a response from out client and when we receive this you will be expected to pay in FULL. However in order to bring this matter to a conclusion wer are prepared to accept £ xxx (usually 60% discount) if you pay by XXXXX (usuall two days earlier).

 

Blah blah blah ring our threat monkeys on XXXXXXX to avail of this onve in a liftime CON TRICK as this may be the only chance we have to get some money from you.

 

Andy B or Samantha Swallow/Barnard

[Azuma]

It will go along the lines of................ We are waiting a response from out client and when we receive this you will be expected to pay in FULL. However in order to bring this matter to a conclusion wer are prepared to accept £ xxx (usually 60% discount) if you pay by XXXXX (usuall two days earlier).

 

Blah blah blah ring our threat monkeys on XXXXXXX to avail of this onve in a liftime CON TRICK as this may be the only chance we have to get some money from you.

 

Andy B or Samantha Swallow/Barnard

 

Hahaha, sounds likely man, although i have not CCA'd them, as such i think the response won't be "we are getting files from archive" but more along the lines of "how could you do this to us? how can you ignore your responsibilities like this? you're a bad bad person Mr Azuma... pity you"

 

haha

 

Az

[sam614]

:Dignoring the monies that you have already had the benefit of

 

is one of my favourites.

 

SAM