Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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 Ltd (Littlewoods)


jas1304
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4816 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

I know that this issue has now been dealt with, but I have had another letter from Lowell this morning saying they have passed it back to Littlewoods. I am a little confused though as Littlewoods have sent me the agreement as posted earlier, so maybe the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And so it will begin again :)

 

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa373/jas1304/Lowell14-01-2011.jpg

 

As they have passed it back to Littlewoods should I tell Lowell to remove the Default on my Credit File, or maybe it would be better to leave it there as if they remove it and somebody else puts it back the 6 years will start again

 

So I guess Littlewoods will either chase me for the debt again, adding even further charges or they will take it to court, or pass it to another collector. Guess I will wait to see. Only thing that kind of confuses me is they say they have passed it back to Littlewoods yet they have also told me they have "Purchased" the debt. It seems a little like the game Pass the Parcel except this is Pass the Debt, oh well whatever takes their fancy I guess.

 

Regards

 

Jas

Edited by jas1304
Added further info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The 'new' owners of the alleged debt will auto update the credit file, they cannot change the date to suit, the date of default stays the same, however you will need to keep an eye on your CRF as neither the DCA's or CRA's care less about accurate info being recorded on your file.

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

you need to be clear on a few things here:

 

you are obv on a phishing list

 

it will be passed around

 

it matters NOT about the default as such, no-one [should] put any new markers on the file.

 

the 6yrs start from YOUR last financial transaction IN/OUT.

 

so they can pussy foot about if they want

it wont change that!

 

now...DID lowlife put a new marker on your CRA? or was it [as should happen]

just THEIR name being put against an existong one they inherited?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to be clear on a few things here:

 

you are obv on a phishing list

 

it will be passed around

 

it matters NOT about the default as such, no-one [should] put any new markers on the file.

 

the 6yrs start from YOUR last financial transaction IN/OUT.

 

so they can pussy foot about if they want

it wont change that!

 

now...DID lowlife put a new marker on your CRA? or was it [as should happen]

just THEIR name being put against an existong one they inherited?

 

dx

 

Hi, and thanks for your input.

 

I have just did another search on my Credit File and I may have been wrong about when Lowell put the Default on my file.

 

After checking (and this time printing it off!) my Credit File I see that the dates my two debts with Lowell were defaulted seem to be fine. As Lowell wasn't on the scene when the defaults were recorded they have obviously just updated the file with their own name. After reading the letter I had from Lowell they say they have definitely "Purchased" the debt. So have Littlewoods now "Purchased" the debt back? I don't know how it works here but are Lowell owned by Shop Direct (Littlewoods) or maybe they have a team effort going on here.

 

I have read somewhere that at the moment there is nothing stopping prospective buyers (unless Littlewoods takes this to Court themselves) from defaulting a debt again and again as its sold from one Debt collector to another. Whether this is true or not I am not sure, but it seems it is happening. Obviously I will need to keep an eye on this. At this rate if each debt collector who apparently "Purchases" this debt keeps sending it back to Littlewoods after a CCA request I'll be long buried before it's sorted lol.

 

Anyway as always I appreciate your input and realise it can't always go my way. I will just wait and see what happens. I didn't really have a problem with repaying this debt over time what I did have a problem with was how Littlewoods suddenly, after a fair while, refused to acknowledge my several communications and slam on charge after charge and then telling me the charges were for ignoring them! Effing cheek. So in a way they started me off lol, so I don't have any sympathy for them when I'm refusing to pay them.

 

Regards

 

Jas

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as it is only the NAMe against the default that is changing and not the date i'd ignore things

 

in otherwords all that happens is the debt is passed around on a phishing list, as it get passed around the NAME against the existing default changes.

 

if they are putting additional defaults on then that unlawful.

 

just as a matter of int.

 

when were YOUR last payments on each of the debts.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

The last payments were: The beginning of this month, and for the main debt which this thread was originally created for was 29/08/2009. I stopped paying that debt because of the constant stream of charges. The only thing is now I have requested a CCA for the debt I payed this month that will probably switch back to Additions lol. I suppose it will keep me from getting bored lol :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello, I'm back! lol...

 

Sorry to be a pain guys. I had this letter from Lowell about my other account with them:-

 

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa373/jas1304/LowellAdditionsClosed.jpg

 

"At this time we have REQUESTED closure of our account". Don't really understand why they have to "Request" closure when they apparently own this account? Also from the letter, as I understand it, I would assume that this will be passed back to Shop Direct or another debt collector - would that be a fair understanding?

 

One More thing please, If one sends a CCA request to a creditor via signed for recorded delivery and it doesn't get signed for, is it best to send another copy in an effort to get a signature? Or would it be assumed on the balance of probabilities the letter arrived?

 

Thank you very much and I look forward to some more advice if possible.

 

Regards

 

Jas

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter from Lowlifes is simply telling you that you have won, and they won't take any further action against you for this measly amount.

 

As regards to not signing your RD letters, these are usually signed for in bulk, as long as on the epod on RM's website it says it is delivered then that is all you need.

 

In actual fact the only requirememnt you need to prove delivery of your letters is to obtain proof of posting from the post office, this costs nothing.

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

Ok, once again thank you very much for your help guys.

 

The letter I posted was meant to be signed for but Royal Mail failed, but I do have proof of sending so I will keep this safe.

 

So I guess I can relax with the latest letter from Lowell's (Lowlifes - you should trademark this lol)and wait to see if the debt pops up anywhere else, well not wait exactly - I'll just forget about it and relax lol.

 

Thanks once again

 

Regards

 

jas

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm.

 

me smells a charges reclaim in the wind.........

 

and p'haps a ppi one tooo...............

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...