Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • 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/Red & 2 debts - OD + loan


Azuma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4485 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

If it was in any way 'urgent' they would have had you sign for it, either way it is best left ignored, and your response to them if ever it is required is 'Letter what letter? I didn't receive any letter?'

Whats good for the goose...:D

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

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hey guys,

 

i posted this about a week ago:

 

We have recently had mail that was sent to you returned and as such we have taken steps to confirm your residence.

 

We have chosen to use the services of a credit reference agency and through various checks it appears likely that you are still resident at this address. As such we believe that you may be trying to avoid contact with us as your creditor.

 

We now intend to take further action against you in order to recover the outstanding balance, this action could include either, an agent visiting your address to discuss your account at a date to be advised. We also may consider commencing legal action against you.

 

This outstanding balance is not going to go away and trying to avoid your responsibilities will only make the situation worse.

 

You can resolve this matter by entering into a repayment plan or settling your account by paying a sum of money as full and final settlement.

 

Unless we hear from you within 5 working days from the date of this letter (27/07/2009) we will instruct our agents Red Debt Collection Services to take the appropriate action.

 

Please call telephone number xxxxxxx where one of our agents will be ready to help.

 

________________________________________________________

 

i pretty much ignored this letter, as they were phishing for info i think, i have already had letters from Lowell and they basically couldn't put two and two together in order to realise that i was the same person...

 

after a week, they (lowell) have "passed" my details to "red debt collection services" - i know these are the same monkeys but they have sent me an interesting letter (considering i have not responded to the letter(s) in question here.

 

They have sent me the following letter (RED now not Lowell):

 

"We would inform you that we have been appointed duly authorised collection agent for Lowell Portfolio I Ltd and instructed to recover the outstanding monies due to our client.

 

As you have failed to settle your outstanding balance or enter into a repayment plan our client has now instructed us to consider either:-

 

1. Using the services of a licensed 'Home Visit Agent' to attend your home during a period to be notified to you to discuss your account.

 

2. Start legal proceedings with a view to gaining a county court judgement, which if awarded by the court we would apply to the court to enforce this by either way of an application for a charging order against your property or the use of bailiffs who may remove goods from your premises should the debt remain unpaid.

 

Before a decision is made as to the most suitable form of action regarding your outstanding debt, we would like to give you the opportunity of contacting us and agreeing payment.

 

If we do not hear from you by 10/08/2009 and you persist with non payment our client will have no alternative than to use either recovery methods as described above, both could see your balance increase as any costs incurred may be added to your account by the court.

 

This debt is not going to go away and ignoring this problem could potentially make your situation worse and we therefore strongly recommend you contact us now.

 

To pay this account in full or to set up a repayment plan call ........."

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Kevin Allmark

Collections Manager.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

I've got a few questions, the first and most obvious, is what is the likelyhood of any of the above actually happening? i'm pretty sure it's just their usual threat tactics, although would like to have your opinions.

 

Also, is this a common letter to recieve from these losers? any advice on my next course of action would be much appreciated :)

 

thanks as always guys,

 

Az

Edited by Azuma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice,

i was thinking the same thing,

i have not responded to any letters relating to this so called debt,

but i have responded to another letter they sent me about 5 weeks ago relating to a different SB debt.

it's funny how they are phishing even though they have had a letter from me confirming my address with a different SB debt.

any other advice fellow Caggers?

Thanks ODC, it's mental how they use such pathetic "scare" tactics to make people fret and worry,

the only thing i was slightly concerned about was the threat of CCJ,

although i'm pretty sure this is HIGHLY unlikely, any thoughts on this?

Hey David,

yeah this alleged debt is a response for two different debts, one being an overdraft and the other is for a personal loan.

any reason why this could cause a problem knowing that?

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

I CCJ for a Statute Barred debt. How deep do the Leeds Losers want to dig the hole they are in

 

ODC,

 

i'm not sure if this debt is SB, BUT this debt is totally seperate, and i have no contact with them about this alleged debt (the one that was passed to RED)

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David, i'm just going to ignore this i think, unless anyone can give me a reason not to at this juncture?

*Bump* - just to find out if anyone else has any other advise on this matter? any stories of similar detail?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for all the amazing advice here

, i'm sure glad to have fellow Caggers like Sam (thanks hun) to hate these Losers as much as i do! (if not more)

i found it rather amusing when they said they would get a "licensed field agent" to visit me,

oh god how much i want someone to turn up at my door,

i'd invite them in and waste as much of their time as possible,

at the end saying "oh, i think you've got the wrong addy,

i've never heard of that person before,

i have been getting mail for them,

but just ignoring as i have no re-direct address" waste their time as much as they waste ours.

I just wish they would rot in the sewers where they belong.

thanks as always, you're all beautiful people :D

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCAs tell so many porkies that they confuse even themselves. Most of them wouldnt know the thruth even if it were to hit them up the face. Telling 'customers' the truth is no good for business. It doesnt pay to tell folk that the debt they are chasing in unenforceable and STATUTE BARRED

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed ODC, it's a sorry state of affairs that this country can't educate it's people well enough so as to prevent beligerent behaviour such as used by the DCA's on the general public and as i've seen in most cases rather vulnerable people.

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats how this **** prosper. By preying on other peoples misery. Slowly slowly more and more folk are being educated to the fact that DCAs are impotent and rely on peoples ignorance for the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've summed DCA's up quite well ODC "preying on others misery" - their like vultures.

With a little more exposure, perhaps one day, something will be done to prevent this blatant miscarriage of justice going on all over the country on a daily basis, effecting more and more people... like a cancer (that's how i see these DCA's)

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife got same letter at weekend AZUMA word for word, it is now filed under T*****s, threat threat YAAAAWWWN

 

haha, nice to see they are still using template threat-o-grammes huh? when will they get the message and give up? :rolleyes:

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep a bit slow the losers.

same threats since 2006.at least.

get some new material.

would suggest a chat with your legal experts...HAMPTONS:D

see if they have a better idea that the latest farcical BID TO BUY BACK.

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hey guys,

 

I posted a little while back with regards to Lowell phishing for me to contact them over an alleged debt they appeared to have taken over, essentially i decided not to respond to any of the letters until they can give me some solid info PROVING it was mine. After some time (approx 2 weeks) follwing letters threatening me with "a licensed field agent" turning up at my door. They have now put a calling card which is below. The question is, have these been hand delivered or is it just a case of them trying ANYTHING they can to get me to contact them? Is this something that has happened on a regular occation at all? Any advice on my next course of action would be much appreciated.

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/3853378154_5a7cfcb628.jpg

 

Thanks,

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...