Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Other case law relied upon " On other record of reasons "
    • Page 2 – document 10 and 11 – you should include the fact that it is a Law reform commission report. Best to give it its full name if you can I suggest that you move paragraph 10 up to the first position – paragraph 5 and move everything down. I think other than that – it is good to go. I suggest you don't bother to do any more drafts. Simply rearrange the paragraphs as I suggested above then the title of the documents that you are relying on in the index page. Send it off and post your final version here so that everybody can see. I'm sorry about the delay. Thanks for reminding me
    • I have recently found myself in financial difficulties and with the help of forum members in another thread regarding this, I think I can get myself sorted. My query here is how to deal with a Cifas marker that has been logged against me by one of my creditors for "evasion of payment". Admittedly yes I did get a £5000 loan with them and have not paid any payment but at the start of the year, which is when the loan landed, I realised I was going to be struggling to repay that and other debts and I contacted MCB to ask if there was any way I could extend the loan from 24 months to 36 months. I explained my situation and that I was going with a DMP and asked them if they could help me with this. They did not reply. I then emailed them again a month later explaining that my DMP was going ahead and could they confirm that the direct debit was indeed cancelled. Again, they did not reply. The DMP fell apart and so did everything else thereafter. My bank withdrew my overdraft and said I could not stay with them (I thought initially that it was because of the DMP) so I opened another account (Starling) and set up all my direct debits etc with the new bank. A month into being with the new bank, they contacted me and said they were closing my account in three months. So I started applying for other basic accounts and every single one of them either refused or revoked.  Through the help in the other thread, I requested a SAR from Cifas and discovered that I have this marker against my name for "evasion of payment". I have logged a complaint with MCB on the advice of other forum members, but my query really is do you think the marker is fair given that I did ask them for help and I did explain that I was going to be struggling financially to repay the loan over the original two years, and is there any way that I can get it removed? I fully admit that I have yet to make a payment to them and I suppose in my naivety and panic I thought if I emailed them early on they could extend the loan and help me out, but they didn't even reply  I did manage to open an account with Monzo before the marker was in place, but I am very concerned that if Monzo do what Starling did, I will have no bank account to pay my bills or get my wages paid into.  Realistically based on the information I have given here, what do you think my chances are of getting this marker removed? Any help/advice on this would be greatly appreciated x
    • Thank you dx, that is what I intend to do now. I have gone through all the SAR documents, a lot of which I am seeing for the first time! As per my previous post #116 letters and statements alleged to have been sent to me, as recorded on their system notes I have not received. Letters I have sent requesting information and account statements have not been recorded as being received by them, all were sent either by Recorded or Special Delivery. I have all the proof you menrtioned from my files for payments and from their SAR info for fees added. Thanks t
    • In my experience (not with car payments) but with many other things, my partner has been ill and signed off in the past and we have been unable to meet various commitments.  Naturally if you ring the call centre they are going to fob you off and tell you you must pay, that's why that never ever works. I would obtain a note from her GP listing all her health issues plus medications plus side effects, then write to the finance company with a copy of it, explaining the situation, as you have here, asking for a payment holiday. Perhaps mention that the car is very much needed for hospital appointments etc. It's likely the finance company would rather you pay till term end than, chase you for money they will never see, and sell the car at auction for a loss,  You can search some of my threads going back years, advising people to do this for Council Tax, Tax Credits, HMRC, Even a solicitors company and it always works, because contrary to popular belief people are reasonable.
  • 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

Letter from Lowell Financial


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5043 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

My view is that this is a very positive step by Lowell. Perhaps as a company they have decided they need to be more accountable to people that have genuine issues of concern. Do you want them to retreat back into their ivory towers and just ignore any gripes people post on forums?

 

My suggestion is that if you have had a problem with Lowell, is to use this help and see where it goes. Perhaps Lowells will accept sometimes that they do make mistakes and show willingness to learn from these.

 

Maybe you should re-read some of the posts regarding the misery and suffering that this vermin have caused!

 

How on earth can you be so naive?

 

A single post appears from a renowned despicable organisation and you are fooled by it?

 

Have you ever actually dealt with Lowell's?

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I doubt it very much and if CAG is going to host DCAS, the very people whose bullying, aggression and threats to terrify - it was a DCA which drove Beryl Bainbridge to suicide - have led people here looking for help, then I am off. It leaves vulnerable posters open to underhanded tactics to get money from them - the very people they came here to escape - and defeats the whole purpose of CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree more Pinky.

 

Sadly i had the misfortune of dealing with Lowells before i found CAG over an alleged T-Mobile bill.

T-Mobile was not interested so had to deal with Lowell direct, the threat letters, the numerous phone calls and the eventual payment of £110 to them which was borrowed from a relative due to threats of home visits etc etc.

 

I can still remember sitting on the stairs after taking the children to school with head in hands wondering what to do next.

 

CAG (In my opinion) is for people who need help and guidance with debt issues, not for DCA's to come on and pretend they are all hearing and understanding individual companies trying to resolve issues peacefully and perhaps lawfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should re-read some of the posts regarding the misery and suffering that this vermin have caused!

 

Yes I know about these posts. I have been following issues about Lowell, since I had issues with them a few years back.

 

But, I believe in giving them a chance to redeem themselves. How will these companies learn from their mistakes, if people are not willing to challenge them, when they have been given the opportunity. Up to now Lowell have sat behind their desks in Leeds and have just continued in a bl**dyminded way, to harass people to try to gain settlement of accounts. The debt collection industry is in a real mess and they have obviously realised, that they need to adopt a different approach. To a certain extent this has been forced on them by the Courts, regulators and the Government.

 

If you want a wider discussion regarding the debt industry. My belief is that there needs to be much stronger regulation and a very strict code of conduct that the DCA's have to comply with. If they fail to meet the code of conduct, they should not be able to hide behind the OFT's wall of silence, but should be subject to sanctions, including significant fines. For too long now DCA's have been able to operate within a very weak regulatory framework.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

A single solitary posting on a thread from an obviously vunerable, desperate and suggestible lady ready to give birth is NOT 'redeeming themselves'.

 

It is a blatent attempt to get moomoo64 to telephone them, THAT IS ALL!

 

It is a blatent attempt to get a 'foot in the door' of a place that is damaging their profits because it is informing people, like moomoo64, that it is unlawful to get treated like filth from companys like Lowells - THAT IS ALL!

 

For goodness sakes, please try and see it for what it is!

 

The debt collection industry isn't my concern, my concern is that these scumbags have lied, cheated and harrassed me into paying debts that they were knowingly NOT entitled to!

 

Why do you imagine that Lowells purchase Statute Barred debt when they know full well that they would never be able to collect IF they were to follow regulations?

 

Are we going to see Mackenzie Hall appearing next with a freephone helpline?

 

I'm actually gobsmacked at your attitude, really!

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, they have just realised it now that they are going down the tubes? Why didn't they realise it before? Where did this new-found concern for humanity come from? From dropping profits, that's where. If they were doing well they wouldn't be anywhere near here slithering in to speak to the people whom last week they bullied and abused and for exactly the same end - to wring money they are not entitled to out of people they have already terrified. Wake up and smell the coffee and see this for what it is. I cannot be a hypocrite and watch this happening to people I have tried to protect from these cretins. This is not Lee Vodafone trying to help with a phone bill or the useless Colin at Scottish Power trying to help and doing nothing - this is DCAs coming in to manipulate posters and it is is happening before our very eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against DCA's posting on consumer forums like this one.

But when they are asking people to ring them up then i think that should not be allowed on here.

Everyone knows what DCA's are like on the phone & how they will simply try to bully or intimidate a payment out of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should this discussion be moved to a separate thread? After all, this was a request from Moomoo42 for help and her original concerns have been rather shunted aside by discussion about one post from Lowell - I'm as guilty as everyone else.

 

Shall we get back to helping the OP? :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our apologies Moomoo. Send the Leeds Losers this:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading debt collectionlink3.giflink3.gif Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

and this:

 

 

CC. Office of Fair Trading. (by email)

Dear Sirs.

I refer to your letter dated May 2010 . The contents of which are noted.

 

You have contacted me regarding the ###### with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

 

I would point out that I have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to yourselves.

 

I am familiar with the Office of Fair Trading debt collectionlink3.gif Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my liability for the debt in question.

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

In the event that you intend arrange a Doorstep call by your Employees or your Agents, please be advised that under OFT Rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have absolutely no wish to make an appointment with you. There is no need, as written communication is quite acceptable in Law.

 

Please note, there is only an implied license under Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore, take note that I revoke license under Common Law for your Employees, or your Agents or your Representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, then you will be liable to Damages for a Tort of Trespass and Civil Action will be taken. The Police will also be called."

 

and send them to their Complaints Department or they will just ignore them. If anyone does come to the door, tell them they have 30 seconds to get off your property or you will call the police. Don't speak to them on the phone - ever - and ignore anyone who comes on this site representing the company. They are bad news.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above.

 

However i shall have my two'penath.

 

If lowells were so concerned then they wouldnt send out letters in the first place when they have no right to collect on the debt (SB etc) or they make threatening phone calls intimidating people, sending out frivilous Stat demands.

 

If Lowells really do want to help they should explain why they have treated people so badly, and how they will go about rectifying thier mistakes and how they wont do it again.

 

If they dont then we can assume that the post by "james" is nothing more then a PR excercise and people shouldnt be so silly as to believe them.

 

However i would like to be proved wrong(but leopards dont change thier spots do they!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that from my point of view,if policy here has changed to allow these leeches to post their crap on the forums,I will be offski

 

Instead of engaging in a joint PR initiiative designed to help their image and bottom line,I am of the firm belief that every last DCA should be put to the sword

 

What are you guys on,even thinking for more than a nanosecond that this was a good idea

 

You've opened the door to the DCA Trojan horse,and it will divide this place and render it useless

 

Which of course is the idea from the get go

Link to post
Share on other sites

People should not let their dislike for DCA's cloud things.

I hate them as much as the everyone else, but so long as they are not just saying "ring us on this number and we'll look into the matter" (which is all they seem to do so far) then i've nothing against them posting on here personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dislike them - I hate them for all their evil. And my hatred for them doesn't cloud things. I am perfectly clear that I want each and every one of them to come to a very sticky end.:D Have you been threatened to have your children taken away from you because you couldn't pay a debt Mrs Debts? Thought not - and there are thousands and thousands of examples of pure evil just like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, DCAs don't act on complaints unless forced to do so, or unless the complainant has a set in stone argument with enough evidence to sink a battleship.

 

These people have not suddenly changed into Customer Care, they are not Customer Assistance, they are and have always been debt collectors, people who lie, threaten and harrass for a living. They deserve all of the contempt they are given and believe all of the cr@p that their employers spout about helping the economy by threatening the vulnerable and weak.

 

One post on this or any other forum is not going to change any of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

People should not let their dislike for DCA's cloud things.

I hate them as much as the everyone else, but so long as they are not just saying "ring us on this number and we'll look into the matter" (which is all they seem to do so far) then i've nothing against them posting on here personally.

 

What DCA do you work for then?

 

I think it's VERY important chaps to remain focused and not to become divided by Lowell's attempt to infiltrate the forum.

 

I personally have no doubts that it has just been a pathetic transparent attempt to cause a 'rift' between members.

 

The member of the site team mentioned that he had been contacted by the Lowell's poster regarding our previous comments.

 

The site administration has been contacted by the poster concerned, and I can confirm that the post by Lowell CRT is generated by Lowell's Claims Resolution department.

 

 

If the post from Lowell's had of been a sincere offer to help then I very much doubt that it would have been 'pasted' into a thread for all to see, more likely a PM to moomoo64 would have been appropriate.

 

It was placed there to cause a reaction, nothing more.

 

We all know what Lowell's are!

 

No pathetic 'copy 'n paste' offer to help is going to convince us otherwise.

 

If some are 'taken in' by it then more fool them.

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites

@mrdebts

 

you're not here long enough to have the experience to comment,to be honest....

 

Ive been on many forums like this over the years & im more than experienced to comment thank you very much.

If you read what i said - i said that i hate them as much as everyone else does, but so long as they are not trying to get people to phone them up (which is what they have been doing so far) then im all in favour of reading their posts quite frankly.

I do not work for a DCA or have any connection with the industry whatsoever.

Just giving my opinion if thats allowed? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been on many forums like this over the years & im more than experienced to comment thank you very much.

If you read what i said - i said that i hate them as much as everyone else does, but so long as they are not trying to get people to phone them up (which is what they have been doing so far) then im all in favour of reading their posts quite frankly.

I do not work for a DCA or have any connection with the industry whatsoever.

Just giving my opinion if thats allowed? :rolleyes:

 

Did you actually read their post?

 

Hi moomoo42

I have just seen your post and am sorry you are you are feeling stressed by our letters. Please give our Complaints Resolution Team a call today, we will be able to look into this for you and get to the bottom of the issue. You can reach us on: 0800 542 0058 or drop us an email at ComplaintsResolution@Lowe llGroup.co.uk

 

I hope to hear from you shortly.

 

James.

 

How's life in Leeds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually read their post?

 

There was a post made by LowellsCRT?? - cant recall if it was on this thread or on another one?, were they made a post in response to someone & then stated at the end to contact them on the number stated so the matter can be sorted out.

People should be encouraged NOT to phone DCA's.

So like i said - so long as they are not wanting people to ring them up then im all in favour of reading their posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

 

I just noticed -

 

Hi moomoo42

I have just seen your post and am sorry you are you are feeling stressed by our letters.

 

Are these the same letters that are deliberately designed to cause stress and anxiety otherwise known by us as 'threatograms'?

 

Sorry?

Yeah, right!

It's pathetic and total nonsense!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...