Lowell Financial

[oilyrag]

Unfortunately Bookworm you have previously allied yourself on other threads with people whose arrogance and rudeness led me to have some their egotistical and "know-all" approach to every consumer and contract law matter checked out by real professionals. I have told you where I am coming from, please read again and this time comprehend. Yoyu claim to have an open mind.

 

I don't rant about solicitors (only the bad ones) and ours in total cost less than one months payments on the disputed accounts. They even gave us time to get the money together over a period of time whilst they started work straight away. But and it is a big but, if others were to take the trouble to do what we did in the end then they may not end up in the complete mess that some on here have recently found themselves in. Plus it is a sure fire way of dealing very quickly with the lesser DCAs who generally will not mix it so heavily with a professional registered with the SRA anywhere near as much as they will with an LIP. Perhaps a little less dogma, more humility and a broader spread of thinking would not come amiss would it??

 

oilyrag

[angry cat]

All I know is we went from Lowell being allowed to post on CAG to a rant about solicitors versus self-styled experts, and I have absolutely no idea where that came from or the relevance of it. That's all. :-?

 

The relevance is that some members have had to instruct solicitors who specialise in the CCA. Lowell, appear to ride roughshod over the general consumer but will take notice of an admitted member of the Law Society.

 

The rant, as you say, has not changed, it is still about: Lowell being able to post on CAG!

[Bookworm]

Unfortunately Bookworm you have previously allied yourself on other threads with people whose arrogance and rudeness led me to have some their egotistical and "know-all" approach to every consumer and contract law matter checked out by real professionals. I have told you where I am coming from, please read again and this time comprehend. Yoyu claim to have an open mind.

 

I don't rant about solicitors (only the bad ones) and ours in total cost less than one months payments on the disputed accounts. They even gave us time to get the money together over a period of time whilst they started work straight away. But and it is a big but, if others were to take the trouble to do what we did in the end then they may not end up in the complete mess that some on here have recently found themselves in. Plus it is a sure fire way of dealing very quickly with the lesser DCAs who generally will not mix it so heavily with a professional registered with the SRA anywhere near as much as they will with an LIP. Perhaps a little less dogma, more humility and a broader spread of thinking would not come amiss would it??

 

oilyrag

:confused: I still have no idea what you're on about. I don't "ally" myself with anyone, as anyone who reads a fair sample my posts will soon find out. If I agreed with "some", whoever they may be, it's because I like their way of thinking in this issue, and I amy well have disagreed with them on a different one. What has THAT got to do with the general discussion? :-?

 

And where the hell is the aggression coming from? Seems to me you are in your mind settling scores, when I wasn't even aware that there were scores to settles.

 

As for less dogma, more humility and a broader spread of thinking, considering that I am taking the stance that everyone should be allowed a voice even when we disagree with them, maybe you want to rethink that one?

 

I have read, and re-read your post, and I still don't get the relevance of solicitors v CAGgers with the subject of DCAs posting on here (which they will do anyway). As long as you don't make your meaning clear and persist in talking in veiled references, you have me at a disadvantage since I don't understand what you're on about. All I see is hostility and I don't know why. I mean, if it makes you feel better, that's ok by me, like I said before, I don't know you, you don't know me so it matters little to me, it just would be nice to understand... :-|

[Bookworm]

The relevance is that some members have had to instruct solicitors who specialise in the CCA. Lowell, appear to ride roughshod over the general consumer but will take notice of an admitted member of the Law Society.

 

The rant, as you say, has not changed, it is still about: Lowell being able to post on CAG!

Is it? Ok, I'll take your word for it.

 

Seems to me that that thinking takes any fighting power from a site like CAG and re-places it in the hands of law people who were none too keen to fight our corner until they saw the way the wind was blowing, but hey-ho... Like I previously said, if people can afford to take on professional help, good for them. For those who can't, well... there's always CAG.

[Seminole]

Hi Bookie

 

You will probably remember that there was a debate between Admin and the super mods about whether to let the banks visit this site and post here. The conclusion was that we were against it (even though we couldn't stop it) and the terms and conditions of the site reflected this. Dave even wrote a bit of code to flag up the banks ip addresses when they turned up.

 

I completely agree with you that we can't in practice stop employees of DCAs from joining the site and posting. However, that's quite different from giving them the same status as, say, Lee from Vodafone. Can we agree that the latter would be completely undesirable for a DCA like Lowell?

[angry cat]

Is it? Ok, I'll take your word for it.

 

Seems to me that that thinking takes any fighting power from a site like CAG and re-places it in the hands of law people who were none too keen to fight our corner until they saw the way the wind was blowing, but hey-ho... Like I previously said, if people can afford to take on professional help, good for them. For those who can't, well... there's always CAG.

 

Please refer to my post #128:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-3041769.html

 

[Emphasis]:

There are many long term members, who offer up advice and assistance, these members have had the benefit of Counsels Opinion(s). Not wealthy members, I might add!!!

 

Let us not knock the specialist law firms. In certain situations members can go so far but can get out of their depth, it is in these situations that Barristers come into play.

 

Yes, and the thread is still about: Lowell being allowed to post on CAG. Therefore, I apologise for the slight diversion, even though it related to Lowell.

[Bookworm]

Hi Bookie

 

You will probably remember that there was a debate between Admin and the super mods about whether to let the banks visit this site and post here. The conclusion was that we were against it (even though we couldn't stop it) and the terms and conditions of the site reflected this. Dave even wrote a bit of code to flag up the banks ip addresses when they turned up.

 

I completely agree with you that we can't in practice stop employees of DCAs from joining the site and posting. However, that's quite different from giving them the same status as, say, Lee from Vodafone. Can we agree that the latter would be completely undesirable for a DCA like Lowell?

Absolutely. I think I mentioned it in my 1st reply. As long as they don't try to use that permission as a way to try and gain some legitimacy (you know, "oh, admin allows us to post openly, so we must be legit"), I have no problem with them posting, as I have every confidence that CAGgers old and new will knock them back with their usual alacrity. Could even be compared to shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Let's face it, if I were to see Lee from Vodafone give advice which seemed to me to go against the OP's best interest, I would STILL contradict him.

[loring]

On this forum I have received a tremendous insight and help as how to handle my debt problems. Most times I just needed someone to point me to the correct legislation, guideance and to threads where members with similar problems to me shared how they resolved issues effectively. Members who provide and share this type of information generally do so from own experiences. These decent, honest and caring members do so knowing there is no moneatory gain for them. They speak largely from their experiences

My advice to new members would be to trawl through the threads on the forum, particularly the success ones. Always remembing to use common sense such and you will usually come to the decision. The question we need to ask ourselves is akin to a question that any parent could ask " Is it wise for me to ask a pedaeophile to babysit my children" I guess 99.999% would come up with the same question

 

Loring

[Bookworm]

Let us not knock the specialist law firms.

PLEASE stop re-interpreting my posts!!! I do not knock specialist firms, I do not tell people not to consult lawyers if they can, I am the GLC's biggest fan, and I have even been known to tell people to consult NWNF in some specific cases!!! Jeez.

[loring]

last word on previos post should have read "answer"

[Halibutt]

Please don't hate on me for repeating:

 

While CAG members are arguing amongst themselves, especially on a thread about a DCA, surely they're letting the DCA win, regardless of their own opinions. How about just paying more attention to helping other members as so many try to do?

 

Do you all see what's happening here?

[Bookworm]

Please don't hate on me for repeating:

 

While CAG members are arguing amongst themselves, especially on a thread about a DCA, surely they're letting the DCA win, regardless of their own opinions. How about just paying more attention to helping other members as so many try to do?

 

Do you all see what's happening here?

Actually, that's a point: Have Lowells posted again since that 1st little burst of activity? Last I checked, they still only had the 5 posts all saying the same thing from a few days ago. We couldn't have scared the poor lad off already, could we?

[angry cat]

Originally Posted by angry cat

Let us not knock the specialist law firms.

 

PLEASE stop re-interpreting my posts!!! I do not knock specialist firms, I do not tell people not to consult lawyers if they can, I am the GLC's biggest fan, and I have even been known to tell people to consult NWNF in some specific cases!!! Jeez.

 

Let 'US' Booky!

[Halibutt]

I haven't seen anything.

 

From a personal point of view, they've left me well alone since I joined CAG and took the advice of all the helpful and lovely people here.

[angry cat]

The OFT have advised DCA's etc., to treat 'Sensitive' cases fairly and in line with the MALG guidleines:

http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/images/MALG_MHGuidelines_2007.pdf

 

These guidelines do not just apply to people suffering from mental health problems but also health problems and bereavement...health problems often cause psychological problems e.g. depression.

 

The OFT have already imposed 'Requirements' on another firm: 1st Credit for not following same, etc...

 

This is not a position of Lowell being fair and honest, it is what they should do if they wish to retain their Consumer Credit Licence!

 

No doubt, Lowell are aware of this!

 

Reorete, Lowell have not treated other members fairly, as is plain to see on this forum.

 

Not surprised, Halibut

 

Lowell, have been reminded about: the MALG good practice guidelines!

 

Lowell, also monitor other consumer forums...

[oilyrag]

It is interesting to note that as ODC has said CAGBOT has blown a fuse over this thread. However whenever I have been notified of its PM residing in my e-mail inbox there is a statement which tells me not to reply to this e-mail etc BUT there is a link posted on it if I do wish to send a reply. This takes me to my mailbox on here the forum but AFTER taking my time to type out a reply and submitting, I am then told that "CAGBOT" has chosen not to accept PMs. I have attempted to notify the site team via my own e-mail and all is returned. Yet there is instant reaction to complaint from a DCA and people's posts are blown off this forum but is now impossible for a member to raise an issue and complain. Come on site team ---- What gives please????

 

oilyrag.

[sequenci]

It is interesting to note that as ODC has said CAGBOT has blown a fuse over this thread. However whenever I have been notified of its PM residing in my e-mail inbox there is a statement which tells me not to reply to this e-mail etc BUT there is a link posted on it if I do wish to send a reply. This takes me to my mailbox on here the forum but AFTER taking my time to type out a reply and submitting, I am then told that "CAGBOT" has chosen not to accept PMs. I have attempted to notify the site team via my own e-mail and all is returned. Yet there is instant reaction to complaint from a DCA and people's posts are blown off this forum but is now impossible for a member to raise an issue and complain. Come on site team ---- What gives please????

 

oilyrag.

 

I'll alert it for you.

 

Have you tried e-mailing [email protected]?

 

I'll let them know what's happening re: CAGBOT

[Bookworm]

It is interesting to note that as ODC has said CAGBOT has blown a fuse over this thread. However whenever I have been notified of its PM residing in my e-mail inbox there is a statement which tells me not to reply to this e-mail etc BUT there is a link posted on it if I do wish to send a reply. This takes me to my mailbox on here the forum but AFTER taking my time to type out a reply and submitting, I am then told that "CAGBOT" has chosen not to accept PMs. I have attempted to notify the site team via my own e-mail and all is returned. Yet there is instant reaction to complaint from a DCA and people's posts are blown off this forum but is now impossible for a member to raise an issue and complain. Come on site team ---- What gives please????

 

oilyrag.

 

1 - CAGbot is the nickname given to an automated system which notifies of a change on your thread (moderated, edited, moved, etc...), the message is generated automatically by the software (hence the "bot" in its name).

 

2 - The "reply to" part is because what you received is a PM, which has a "reply" thing built into it. If you'd followed the rather big letters instructions that states "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE" on each and every CAGBot PM, you could have saved yourself the trouble of then trying to reply to it.

I'm sure you have had automated e-mails before which are (obviously) sent from an e-mail address, but state "this is not a manned address, pls do not reply to it"??? Same thing.

 

3 - The correct way to report a post is to click on the little triangle beneath the nick of the author of the post you wish to report, which opens a box in which you can type the reason for your reporting the post.

 

4 - The correct way to lodge a complaint is stated in the Forum Rules, and as Sequenci has posted, the way to do it is admin@...

 

So what gives, IMHO, is:

 

1 - You didn't read the forum rules, and are blaming someone else for your failure to know the complaints procedure.

 

2 - You didn't read my "Dummies Guide" and are therefore blaming someone else for your failure to know how to report a post.

 

3 - You didn't read the PM properly, and are therefore blaming someone else for failing to follow the clear "do not reply to this message" instructions.

 

4 - You need to stop creating conspiracies theories: CAGbot works the way it always had, everyone can still complain AND report posts the way they always have.

 

If your previous posts are anything to go by, I'll have a guess that your next post will be one of anger and attack for being what you'll perceive as "shown up", to which it has to be said that that is of your own making solely.

 

Oh, and before you claim another conspiracy, my knowledge of all this is I was a mod on CAG for over 3 years, pretty much from its start, so have dealt with all these things for a long time, and happen to know the procedure fairly thoroughly. That's partly why I wrote the "Dummies guide".

 

Take care.

[freakyleaky]

Bookie me old flower!!! Just letting you know I got to spread rep around a bit more, otherwise.................................

[oilyrag]

Wrong Bookworm,

 

The PM has a clear statement on it and a blue direct lionk to reply to. There is no conspiracy theory at all just a straight question as to why this is so. It is you who is dreaming up all sorts of responses in as complex a manner as possible to fog any real issues that come along that do not quite suit your thinking.

 

The PM is CLEAR, CRYSTAL CLEAR "if you wish to reply use this link:-" I have asked a straight question now answer it properly.

 

You were the one to very quickly quote adages by your forebears, well here is one to be considered:-

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

oilyrag.

[freakyleaky]

Oilyrag do the messages you get from CAGbot not have this message at the end

 

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

 

Regards,

The Forum Management

because everyone should have that message at the end of a PM from CAGbot.

Let me know if you are not seeing that message and I will ask our techy guy to take a look at your settings to see what makes you so speacial!!

[Bookworm]

Wrong Bookworm,

Right actually. ;-)

 

The PM has a clear statement on it and a blue direct lionk to reply to.

Yes that's correct.

just a straight question as to why this is so.

And the straight answer is as above: it is a PM, all PMs will have an automated hyperlink for a reply, but as it is not manned at the other end for replies, your reply won't get sent. I have my PMs disabled to all but people on my friends list. Try to send me a PM and you'll see what I mean, it will look as if you can send me a PM but when you hit the "send" button, you will get the same response as you did with CAGbot. I won't even get a notif that you tried to PM me.

 

It is you who is dreaming up all sorts of responses in as complex a manner as possible to fog any real issues that come along that do not quite suit your thinking.

 

The PM is CLEAR, CRYSTAL CLEAR "if you wish to reply use this link:-" I have asked a straight question now answer it properly.

See above, I can't make it any crystal clearer.

 

You were the one to very quickly quote adages by your forebears, well here is one to be considered:-

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Yes, and the follower to that goes: "and none so deaf as them that won't listen"... 'nuff said. ;-)

[angry cat]

Bookworm, we all know that you were a moderator on CAG and a very good one at that.

 

However, the following comment that you made to Oilrag was inappropriate...not very nice:(

 

"If your previous posts are anything to go by, I'll have a guess that your next post will be one of anger and attack for being what you'll perceive as "shown up", to which it has to be said that that is of your own making solely."

 

Pre-empting was another member is going to post or, say?

 

Surely, every member has the right to complain, no matter what about.

 

Nothing personal, of course.

[Bookworm]

Of course.

 

No, not everyone knows I used to be a mod here in fact I'd venture the vast majority of new or newish users didn't know, precisely because I seldom mention it.

 

Every member has the right to complain... and every member also has the right to reply.

 

If you want me to put it the non pre-emptive way, it's even less nice, but so be it:

 

Instead of: "If your previous posts are anything to go by, I'll have a guess that your next post will be one of anger and attack for being what you'll perceive as "shown up", to which it has to be said that that is of your own making solely.", please read:

 

"Your posts are showing you up. Please don't attack me for pointing out your mistakes. Your previous posts have shown that this is a habit of yours."

 

There you go, no pre-empting whatsoever. Whether Oilyrag will be grateful to you for the alternative version, well, I wouldn't dream of pre-empting his reaction, now would I?

[oilyrag]

Well of course bookworm I would bow to your superior knowledge in every subject on this planet. But if you attack in the way you have then you will get a response. If you are genuine then go away and help someone properly, there are many on here in deperate need of proper reasoned help and advice.

 

I asked a straight question and got total woffle.

 

My mistake was offering any respect to people such as yourself. there are some excellent people on here but those with many many posts in my researches on here which have been long, have in many cases driven arguments around in ever decreasing circles like this one until oblivion beckons. Even to the point of totally contradicting themselves and should anyone have the temerity to question the "great and the good" these "great and good" descend into the behaviour we have seen here and of which you are guilty as well. My interpretation of much of your comment is that you resent anyone checking up on any of your and others advice with proper professional help.

 

Some of the really good guys went away recently, fortunately they are back to help some of those in need, perhaps a leaf out their book springs to mind. I think your recent posts have shown you up for what really are and the trip you are on. Perhaps it isd you who needs something else theoir life other than CAG

 

oilyrag.