Lowell Group after me for debt from back in 2007 !!

[Undercover-Elsa]

No problem, give me a minute to do the edit...

[jimbo45]

i am sending the attached letter

 

Hi there

Fine but don't mention Loan from Friend as these SCUMBAGS might say get another loan to pay off the rest.

 

With DCA's give them AS LITTLE INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY -- the more information they have the more this can come back and bite you.

 

Just say I'm offerring XXXX -- and that's it.

 

Only a COURT can require your Income and expenditure details -- and anybody will seriously advise that it's NEVER a good idea to get ANOTHER LOAN to pay off a debt --no matter how well intentioned the person making the Loan is.

 

Almost every debt counselling service on Earth will say NEVER EVER get ANOTHER LOAN to pay off debts. You'll find in general the people who take out "Further Loans" to consoldate debts they already have generally get into worse problems later on.

 

Just pay what you can afford -- if it's only 1 GBP a month so be it -- don't borrow MORE money -- especially to pay off a DCA and LOWELL'S are ONE OF THE WORST OF THE LOT.

 

If you actually offer what YOU CAN PAY to Lowells and say to them --if you don't like it --tough let a COURT decide you'll get a better deal anyway. No Court will make you pay what you don't have and also it puts YOU back in control -YOU decide what and when to pay you don't have to jump at Lowells behest and dread a visit from the Postman or go into hiding every time the phone rings.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[unclebulgaria67]

Babybear

 

I think Mady might want to know the arguments about not adding without prejudice to the letter.

 

My understanding is that if this later went to court, you could then use the letter to show that you had made an offer. This would carry some favour with the judge, as long as the reason for not making full payment was accurate at the time of making the offer.

 

However, if the reason for making a reduced offer as an F&F is that you don't see why you should pay the full amount and not for reasons of finance, then you might want to add without prejudice. If Lowell rejected the F&F and this later ended up in court, you would not want a letter that was not totally accurate to be looked at by the court.

 

That is my basic understanding. There are probably threads that cover this topic.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Mady,

There you go:

 

The Data Controller,

T Mobile

　

Re: Account Number:

Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Please supply me with all data that you hold on me. This includes in particular, but is not limited to, the following:-

 

1. The original contract and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time the contract commenced and any subsequent variation for the duration of the account until termination.

 

2. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention.

 

3. Copies of any notice of assignment, default notices or enforcement notices that were sent, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

 

4. Details of any collection charges added to the account; specifically, the date they were levied, the amount of the charges, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charges were calculated, and what the charges cover.

 

5. Specific details of any fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

 

6. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

 

7. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data

and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

8.Copies of statements for the entire duration of the contract.

 

9.Termination notices.

10. All computer records pertaining to this account.

 

You are reminded that you are obliged to supply all the above documents in line with the Information Commissioners Technical Guidance update (Dated August 2007)

 

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10 and look forward to a response within the required 40 days from service of this request..

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return.

However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Send with a PO for £10, by Recorded Delivery direct to T Mobile. They have 40 days from receipt to respond.

 

Elsa x

[Undercover-Elsa]

At the same time, I'd write to Lowell telling them to put the account on hold, as mentioned in my earlier post.

 

Elsa x

 

PS..Lots of opinions flying round on here

[babybear39]

If this ended up in court the letter (containing without prejudice) could only be shown to the court with BOTH parties' permission.

 

I know idiots inc. are allegedly thick as, but they certainly would be very foolish to allow such a letter to be seen by a judge so would, therefore, decline permission...Simples

[Bazooka Boo]

Without Prejudice means that the letter/correspondence is not admissible in court as evidence without the permission of both parties, hence the reason caution needs be used how that line is used.

[babybear39]

That's the reason I have it in my signature

[Mady]

thank you guys i will be sending out today the following letters...

 

should sign them or just leave them as they are unsigned?

2011.01.07 Lowell letter.pdf

SAR TO T-MOBILE.pdf

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Mady,

We usually advise against signing, in case of photocopying sigs onto contracts. Although there's no signed contract involved here, I'd err on the side of caution and just hand write your name, not your usual signature.

 

Elsa x

[buzby]

If you don't sign, they'll refuse to provide the information and justifdiably so. I've no idea which 'we' Elsa is referring to - but her reasoning is flawed. A firm attempting to photocopy a signature would be guilty of a criminal act (fraud/forgery) and it would be so easy to prove as to be a welcome development in any dispute.

[Revenant]

There's no legal requirement to provide a "Signature" the fact that you're name is at the end of the letter is enough and if DCA's etc choose to be picky it's up to them

 

I had a dig around last year and started a thread based on the information I found . .

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?248863-Signature-demands-fight-back-possible-!

 

Besides how many letters do we get from DCA's etc that have either a persons or the company name just printed as part of the letter on the bottom

 

If it's good enough for them it's good enough for us

 

R

 

[buzby]

If it's good enough for them it's good enough for us

 

R

 

 

Wrong, I'm afraid.

 

Your signature is your exclusive identifier. Your are dsealing with a body corporate and not an individual. Their letterhead will prove who they are, and the fact they are corresponding with you. On the other hand, anyone can assert they are you, not sign - and you expect them to disclose data about you? That's just asking for an ICO fine for not taking all reasonable stepsa to ensure the writer was indeedd the data subject. Even if they never knew what the signature was like in the first place, it protects both parties, because lets say a false signature was provided, you have the added protection of providing your own to prove that it is not your 'normal' signature.

 

So much nonsense is talked of not providing a signature, yet it is a common courtesy - and even if this is irrelevant in the eyes of a complainant - no Data Controller will happily ignore their DPA responsibilities because the letter writer hasn;t the common sense to see why they should confirm who they are.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Thanks for your input, Buzby,

If you have a differing opinion and disagree with me that's fine, but whether my "reasoning is flawed" is a matter of your opinion, not fact, and unnecessarily rude.

 

As well you know, "we" refers to the general consensus on CAG, hence the sale by CAG of the the digital signature anti tamper strip here and the wording of the CAG

CCA Request "PRINT YOUR NAME" and CAG SAR template: "sign your name but put crosses through it so it can't be 'lifted".

 

If you disagree with the principle I suggest you take it up with the Site Team.

 

kind regards,

Elsa

[Bazooka Boo]

Since when has DCA's and courtesy been in fashion? The reason why it is advisable not to sign letters isn't because of them committing any fraudulent act as Buzby suggests, if that were so, heads will roll and businesses be up against the wall for fabricating documents!

 

The real reason is that there is NO legal requirement to sign any document, in fact if you sign it with a cross, then that is legally good enough.

 

You have to ask yourself Buzby, that if they have been more than happy to send personal and private information to an individual without having first checked as to the recipients identity, then you have to seriously question as to why it is only now they are asking for you to prove your identity? Either way, they are admitting that they are in breach of the DPA, firstly by assuming you are the alleged debtor in question and sending all and sundry threat letters and private info, then when you begin to fight back, they ask you to prove you are who you say you are?

They can't have it both ways, they are either confident they know who you are or they don't, if it is the latter and they are asking you for a signature for a SAR, then case closed, as they cannot be sure that I am the person they have been pursuing i am not going to do their work for them.

If needs be collect the documents from the bank on provision of your passport or DL.

 

A classic stalling tactic especially where Lowlifes are concerned.

[buzby]

The reasoning is flawed, and all you need do is refer to the requirements of the DPA to see why. I'm afraid I don't faff around the subject when I have seen consumers being seriously disadvantaged in court actions BECAUSE of the advice given that no signature should ever be provided. It was your qualification that 'we don't...' certain individuals may not, and that is their decision - however to turn this into the equivalent of a 'gold standard' that no signature could be provided without any explanation or qualification'. To be fair, you did qualify it, using the weakest of arguments (that 'it might be copied') perpetuating an urban myth that simply will not go away whilst people (like yourself?) continue with this stance. I have to ask, how many cases are you personally aware of that signatures have been misused in this way? I'm only aware of one, in 1985 - there may be more, but would you not think that the issue of rampant fraud would be centre stage, rather than the urban myth so often trotted out here (no doubt by well-meaning individuals).

 

As to CAG advice, so we have an inconsistency - one says don't sign, print - and the other says sign but 'put crosses through it'? Hardly a ringing endorsement for your position of do not sign!

 

By all means, digital signatures, or modified signatures (with Xs) all fine, when they are accepted by the recipient as proving that the writer has provided enough identification to permit the release of information. A blanket No Signature suggestion - as advice - is laughable, as the DPA requires adequate checks and without a signature, you will not get far. So suggesting that a 'no signature' is even considered I'd suggest is negligent in the extreme, expecially if the person accepting the advice isn't provided with the full picture (as to the reasons why).

 

The 'Site Team' supposedly monitor these boards, and it would be up to them to amend their advice based on feedback and comment. My stance is well known, should they differ, it is up to them to justify it, not me to get them to change.

 

As for the comment 'being rude' - I'm afraid if the truth hurts, there is little point in sugar-coating it. The DPA is not an opinion, but legislation that places an obligation on data controllers. I'd suggest that if your position was valid, then no consumer would have any difficulty in getting their required info by not signing, yet I've lost count of the threads where people have not and the data has been refused. Wouldn't you agree that the aim is to make it easier for CAGgers, rather than put needless hurdles in their path, simply because someone has not thought it through?

[victoria_siempre]

Hi guys

 

We are in danger of elevating a tactic into into a principle.

 

Our meaningful purpose is that:

 

1. They do not lift our signature.

 

2. To respond to silly b*ggers with same.

 

1. Can be dealt with in numerous ways: I sign in red ink, overlap yours etc and my signature is not normal.

 

2. Refusing to sign can delay matters, which can be a tactic.

 

In the end what you do depends on what you want to achieve.

 

x

 

v

[buzby]

Since when has DCA's and courtesy been in fashion? The reason why it is advisable not to sign letters isn't because of them committing any fraudulent act as Buzby suggests, if that were so, heads will roll and businesses be up against the wall for fabricating documents!.

 

Whilst I agree DCAs are along there with the bottom feeders, the 'legal requirement' argument is a bit nonsensical. There's no 'legal requirement' to stamp the letter you plan to send either - it's not advised, but many do it. A letter without a signature it not qualified as originating from the sender. DCAs send out unsigned circulars, I usually respond in a similar manner, however for those requesting information (like a SAR) and the release of information that is personal to them, too right a signature is required to prove who THEY say they are. (Especially when, if the application is fraudulent there may be a requirement to investigate).

 

Look at DCAs calling by phone wanting the answerer to confirm their name and DoB. If you don;t they're not permitted to continue with the call. If they did, that's a DPA breach of the first order - so they need reporting!

 

As to Victoria's points - agreed, it can be a useful tactic to add some delay to the process, but only if it is you that requires it. From what I;ve see the writer is actually requireing the data, so in cases like these it would not be sensible to create problems where none would previously exist.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi buzby

 

I think we agree.

 

If you want information give a guarded signature; if you don't then don't. The blanket dictat of 'don't sign' may be unhelpful to new caggers.

 

Similarly, if providing an I&E helps you, then provide one (ref: Tingy) if you doesn't then don't. The blanket dictat of 'don't provide an I&E' may be unhelpful to new caggers.

 

There are no principles in this great game, merely tactics to fight back against financial terrorists.

 

x

 

v

Edited January 7, 2011 by victoria_siempre
typo

[Bazooka Boo]

Agree it is some what of a misnomer to be advising one thing and then contradicting it.

I don't condone signing any requests to DCA's, but there are ways and means, and I don't want them to think they are in any way holding the reigns and kicking the spurs, which they aren't. A little stubbornness doesn't hurt, but where info regarding SAR are concerned then yes Buzby is quite right, that if they did allow this information out without the necessary checks, then that would raise a whole other avenue to go down!

But it does make me wonder why they are quite happy to be sending you all their threat letters in the first place without having carried out the correct checks as to your identity, which is why I think that people, caggers, alleged debtors, get the hump when it is only now when a request for such information is met with, Give us your signature.

If this is the reply, then as a SAR will go to the OC, normally a bank, then if you still wish not to sign, then request that the info asked for is given to your local branch whereby you will gladly produce photo ID, pass port or similar, to prove your identity.

 

It is DCA's requesting signatures that isn't condoned, or recommended, again as Buzby says, it is up to you how important and how needy you are of requiring the information that will dictate how you go about this, the same as I&E forms, which we all know is none of any DCA's business, BUT if you complete YOUR OWN version of an I&E form and send them that, then in the eyes of any DJ you are clearly making an attempt to prove your circumstances and he is more likely to find in your favour, subject to the DJ lottery!

 

Again. we all have our own differing opinions, but it is ultimately up to the OP to decide what will be in their own interest as how best to go forward and resolve their dispute.

[buzby]

On that, BB, there's no argument!

[Bazooka Boo]

Agreed! Who started it.....

[Mady]

Hi guys,

 

I sent a SAR request regarding the debt that lowell is claiming (£1300) and Lowell agreed to put the account on hold for 40 days...up till today i still havnt received the SAR and my 40 days are runing out on Friday what should my next step be??

 

please help.

 

Many thanks

[harrassed senior]

I assume that you sent the SAR by Recorde Delivery and have printed off a receipt of delivery. If so, then you can claim the Account is in dispute, but you must report this to the ICO: Forward the Sars date and notice of receipt to [email protected]. uk along with a letter of complaint

[dadofholly]

Have a look through the info and letter templates on the link below. Write to the OC concerning their non compliance.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?593-Data-Protection-Act-Non-Compliance-Template-Letters

 

If Lowells try to contact you just tell them you are still waiting for a response.