Jump to content


Lowell guilty of harassment


camelchops
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3593 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

Those much reviled debt collectors, Lowell t/a Red Debt Collection, just shelled out thousands to an innocent person they harassed who told them they were chasing the wrong debtor. When the harassment continued, their 'victim' sued and won.

 

Read the full judgment here:

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/docs/lowell_judgment.pdf

 

Get the free DIY template so you can sue too:

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/docs/Lowell_Claim.pdf

 

... and get a big fat cheque like this:

[LINK REMOVED - PLEASE BLOCK OUT SIGNATURES WHEN POSTING PICTURES OF CHEQUES]

Edited by alanfromderby
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowells got their grubby fingers burned again.:lol:

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1500 is not thousands unfortunately. The judge did make the points 'up to the third lacehole' however.

 

Is the OFT going to take any notice of this?????? (Wot - no tongue-in-cheek smiley?)

Nationwide - Prelim sent 02/07 - MCOL filed 04/07 CHARGES SETTLED IN FULL!!

Woolwich- Prelim sent 04/07 - Offered 90% - 06/07 accepted

MBNA - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 03/07 - CCA reply (illegible + no T&Cs) - DCA sent packing - Restons now trying - gone quiet

Citicard - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 04/07 - replied 04/07 No contract & not enforcing!- passed to 1st Credit- gone quiet

Egg - Prelim sent 02/08 - 3 letters - full offer 03/08 SETTLED IN FULL!!

(All starry, rep, clicky thingies gratefully received!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1500 is not thousands unfortunately. The judge did make the points 'up to the third lacehole' however.

 

Is the OFT going to take any notice of this?????? (Wot - no tongue-in-cheek smiley?)

 

£2869.93

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1500 was the damages awarded - the balance was costs I guess. However the fact remains that the reptiles got shafted (albeit softly in the overall scheme of things).

Nationwide - Prelim sent 02/07 - MCOL filed 04/07 CHARGES SETTLED IN FULL!!

Woolwich- Prelim sent 04/07 - Offered 90% - 06/07 accepted

MBNA - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 03/07 - CCA reply (illegible + no T&Cs) - DCA sent packing - Restons now trying - gone quiet

Citicard - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 04/07 - replied 04/07 No contract & not enforcing!- passed to 1st Credit- gone quiet

Egg - Prelim sent 02/08 - 3 letters - full offer 03/08 SETTLED IN FULL!!

(All starry, rep, clicky thingies gratefully received!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still more than 10 times the original amount they were chasing. A damn good business model they have. :)

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the docs quickly and through a bad headache, did I read right that the judgment was given in default in the 1st place?

 

 

 

 

 

*no criticism there, just trying to make sense!!! Damn good result either way and good sentences to lift from the judgment too. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes for very very good reading.

Very well done for taking them all the way and coming out on top to their detriment, if only more of us would do the same, it would bring about much needed changes to this corrupt industry, weel done, and bookmarked to spread the mighty fine news!

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

Now he's won on the harassment if they've marked his credit file he should go for the kill with a libel action.

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

SP "IN DEBT" and a site team member of CAG!!!!

Wait till James (CRT) hears of this, I'm sure he will be willing to help you out in this matter.

 

Now he's won on the harassment if they've marked his

credit file
link3.gif
he should go for the kill with a libel action.

Definitely! Another £1000 to be added to your winnings there..

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

It would be useful to know the name of the claimant, so that the case can be quoted in letters to DCAs.

 

As it happens I will be writing to Lowell myself soon, as they keep writing to me about someone else's debt...

 

The name of the payee is shown on the cheque in small print towards the bottom the cheque. I presume this is the claimant.

 

If the OP wants to remain annonymous, they should remove the link for the cheque.

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

The name of the payee is shown on the cheque in small print towards the bottom the cheque. I presume this is the claimant.

 

 

Thanks - I can't see the cheque at the moment due to the system I'm on.

 

The claimant in the case should make a formal complaint to the CSA; whilst we know that their code of practice is worthless it would be interesting to see how they try to wriggle.

 

I think I'll email Credit Today to make sure they have the story...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have an email Lowell gave me by mistake between them and the CSA.

 

The email asks Lowell if it is OK to tell me that an assignment letter which was allegedly from 3G Hutchinson and signed by John Reid of 3G was actually sent by Lowell.

 

The CSA confirmed they knew that Lowell issued the assignment letters by agreement with 3G, but they were unsure if it should be public knowledge.

 

In truth I never received any assignment letter and only got copies of the assignment letters when I queried the lawful assignment.

 

I say letters because I have a copy of an assignment letter dated 26 January 2009 and another copy from the same person on 27 January 2009.

 

I also have an Experian letter stating the letter of assignment 15 Febraury 2009.

 

I queried how Section 136(1) of the Pr

 

operty Act 1925 was met seing as Lowell confirmed the 3G letter was not actually sent by the hand of the assignor.

 

ICO, CSA and Experian not interested.

 

Suggest anyone with concerns about assignment letters should complain to OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...