Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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".
    • I see that at the start of your thread you said they hadn't sent a Letter of Claim.  And in fact in all the uploaded material there is no LoC.  This is great news.  Even were you to lose - you won't - the judge would chop off a chunk of the money for their non-respect of PAPLOC. However, I'm a bit confused as you've named the file name as a SAR.  Are you sure about this?  Did you send any other letters apart from the one dx advised which was a CPR request (not a SAR) to DCBL (not Group Nexus).  I'm not being pernickety, this will be important for your Witness Statement further down the line.
    • I didn’t say it wouldn’t. That is not the issue here. To continue driving after the licence has expired (under s88), the driver must have submitted a “qualifying application”.  An application disclosing a relevant medical condition (of which sleep apnoea is one) is not a “qualifying application”, This means the driver cannot take advantage of s88 and must wait for the DVLA to make its decision before resuming driving.   The driver’s belief is irrelevant. The fact that a licence was eventually granted may mitigate the offence, but does it does not provide a defence.   But this driver didn’t meet the conditions. I explained why in my earlier post. He only meets the conditions if his application does not declare a relevant medical condition. His did.   As I explained, after his birthday he did not hold a licence that could be revoked.   In my view it doesn’t matter what it says. The offence is committed because his application declared a medical condition. Meanwhile his licence expired and s88 is not available to him. The GP letter would form part of the material the DVLA would use to complete their investigations. But until those enquiries are completed he could not drive.   The offence does not carry points or a disqualification (because a licence could have been held by your father). It only carries a fine and the guideline is half a week’s net income. If he pleads guilty that fine will be reduced by a third. He will also pay a surcharge of 40% of that fine. But the big difference is prosecution costs: a guilty plea will see costs of about £90 ordered whilst being convicted following a trial will see costs in the region of £600.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 Portfolio and T-mobile


mickrog
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5284 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

Good Afternoon,

 

This is my first post on this forum but in opening can i say what a pleasure it is to see so many people wanting to help.

 

My story is much the same as others on here in terms of receiving a letter from Lowells stating that they had purchased a debt from T-Mobile (formerly One2One) and this amounted to circa £350.00 worth of call charges and £630.00 early contract termination.

 

In short the "debt" apparently was registered to an old address which I left intially in 1999 after the break up of my marriage (although i did actually own the property through to June 2006).....

 

I know however that i have never had a contract with T-mobile and in fact have only ever been with BT Cellnet / O2.

 

Anyway after a few sleepness nights I decidedto do a trawl on the web to check these people out....after visiting this site I have sent them a proove it letter........by special Royal Mail delivery which they received and signed for last Wednesday (2nd December 2009)

 

My one question now is "do Lowell have to respond to this letter and if so within what timeframe"

 

I understand that mobile phone contracts are not subject to CCA's and this being the case, on the assumption that Lowell reply, what am I likely to receive back and how should I treat the response.

 

Any help and or guidance would be greatly appreciated.....

 

Thanks and Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leeds Losers will send you back a printout of your alleged debt purporting to come from TMobile though in all likelyhood its more likely to be a printout of a spreadsheet done by some threatmonkey in Leeds

Link to post
Share on other sites

if i was you (i've dealt with them ALOT in the past) - i would ask them to produce a true copy of the CCA, in which case, if what you say is correct and you have never had a T-Mobile contract, they would have nothing to produce, i'm sure someone will be able to put up the link for the CCA letter (caggers?) :) - no need to send a SAR yet, remember it's up to THEM to prove you owe this money not up to YOU to prove you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time you had any contact or payment towards this?

If it is as long ago as 99, or 03 for that matter it will be Statute Barred and they can go play on the motorway.:D

 

MOBILE PHONES DO NOT COME UNDER THE CCA

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

SAR T Mobile chances are they will have no information on you any longer and the account will come back as closed with a balance of zero. Once you get this in writing photo copy it and send it to the bottom feeders.

 

 

Do not waste £10 on a SAR. You never had any account with TMobile so the Leeds Losers will not be able to prove any debt exists between you and T Mobile

 

if i was you (i've dealt with them ALOT in the past) - i would ask them to produce a true copy of the CCA, in which case, if what you say is correct and you have never had a T-Mobile contract, they would have nothing to produce, i'm sure someone will be able to put up the link for the CCA letter (caggers?) :) - no need to send a SAR yet, remember it's up to THEM to prove you owe this money not up to YOU to prove you don't.

 

A mobile phone debt is NOT covered by CCA 1974 so a CCA request is pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I have never had a contract with T-Mobile and from what I understand I really dont have to do anything until Lowell send me proof of this supoosed debt, which cant exist.

 

If they do send me a copy of the outstanding debt then I suppose this should carry some reference to the T-Mobile account.....otherwise how could I, if required, apply for a Subject Access Request ?

 

REgards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

With a Prove it Letter, there is no timeframe however, if they haven't replied say within 3 weeks you could prod them but to be honest, I would just forget it. As you say, you never had an agreement so they can't prove a thing.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I have never had a contract with T-Mobile and from what I understand I really dont have to do anything until Lowell send me proof of this supoosed debt, which cant exist.

 

If they do send me a copy of the outstanding debt then I suppose this should carry some reference to the T-Mobile account.....otherwise how could I, if required, apply for a Subject Access Request ?

 

REgards,

The Leeds Loser will probably send you a ''Heres one we made earlier'' supposed printout from TMobile showing just a jumble of figures and claim you owe TMobile. Do not even think about wasting a tenner on a SAR as it is not up to you to prove a debt exists but rather it is up to the Leeds Losers to prove

1. A debt actually exists

2. You are the person who owes the debt

3. They have a legal right to be chasing the said debt

3. If they wish to institute Legal proceedings then they will need to produce a written contract between you and T Mobile

 

Sorry.........also meant to ask is there a timeframe in which Lowell have to issue a response to my "proove it" letter ???

 

Thanks........

There is no specific timeline for the Leeds Loser to produce these documents. Lets face it they dont actually exist so how can they produce them. Wait and see what nonsense the come back with and we will advsie you further. In the meantime it is safe to ignore these parasites

Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what crappy letters they may send you with their various threats I have probably already received them before. If not you can rest assured someone on here already has. They are so predictable

Link to post
Share on other sites

the prove it letter i believe does actually request them to provide you with a copy of an agreement (not CCA but agreement of contract in general reagrless of type) in terms of providing you with evidence. A statement of account is not prove that the debt is yours. only a true copy of an original agreement/contract (not CCA in this case) between yourself and T-mobile can be classed as prove but even then it may have been fraudleuntly taken out in your name. i suspect that if your former partner still lives at your old address that they might well be responsible for it. have you confronted them about it yet?

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Teaboy.....

 

No I have'nt contacted my former partner and to be honest dont actually intend to do so..........at the end of the day as far as I am aware there is no legal requirement for me to give Lowell any details about anyone else and to be honest they can get st*ffed if they think i am going to help them give other people sleepless nights like they have given me......faceless bunch of doyles........

 

Thanks for the post and i will take on board your comments in terms of the contract etc etc etc ......

 

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Teaboy.....

 

No I have'nt contacted my former partner and to be honest dont actually intend to do so..........at the end of the day as far as I am aware there is no legal requirement for me to give Lowell any details about anyone else and to be honest they can get st*ffed if they think i am going to help them give other people sleepless nights like they have given me......faceless bunch of doyles........

 

Thanks for the post and i will take on board your comments in terms of the contract etc etc etc ......

 

Regards,

 

I agree. Why should you start any trouble with a former partner just because a parasitic DCA like the Leeds Losers is on your case. You are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to confirm anything to them. They must prove everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning,

 

Just a quick update........

 

I have received a letter from Lowell accepting that the debt is not mine....they seem to be suggesting that they knew this already but the debt was linked to my previous address.

 

From this I can only summise that even though they knew the debt was not mine they still thought that they would chance their hand and suggest that is was..........presumably in the hope that i would panic and pay it anyway......

 

I am going to have a deeper look at the inference in their letter and consider taking them to task about harrassment and time wasting........and hit them with a bill and sell their debt on to a DCA........

 

Thanks in the meantime to everyone who offered their guidance.....

 

Have a great christmas peeps......

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...