Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

Lowell/carter and old o2 debt


Boppy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4821 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

Hi,

 

I've received this letter this morning dated 4th January :!:

 

FINAL NOTICE

 

Dear ****

 

RE Lowell Financial Limited

Account No *******

Outstanding Balance £611,88

 

We have been instructed to act in connection with this outstanding debt which seriously overdue.

 

This matter will be referred for court proceedings to be issued in 10 days if payment is not received at our office by that date.

 

Court costs and interest will be added to your debt if necessary to go to court and therefore the outstanding debt will increase.

 

You must make payment before the 14th January 2011 if you wish to avoid the matter going to court.

 

Then there's some bits about how I won't be able to get debt for 6 years etc and a telephone number to pay.

 

It the states it's at a critical stage and I might wish to seek legal advice :!:

 

I've been reading around all afternoon but I hadn't realised I had until Friday to sort this out hardly 10 days!

 

 

Also who are Lowells?

 

 

I have no idea what this debt is for so was going to send the bemused letter but is it going to be too late?

 

 

The postmark on the letter states 7/1/11 and was posted 2nd class so they never intended to give me 10 days anyway :mad2:

 

What can I do? Will it get taken to court? Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've received this letter this morning dated 4th January :!:

 

FINAL NOTICE

 

Dear ****

 

RE Lowell Financial Limited

Account No *******

Outstanding Balance £611,88

 

We have been instructed to act in connection with this outstanding debt which seriously overdue.

 

This matter will be referred for court proceedings to be issued in 10 days if payment is not received at our office by that date.

 

Court costs and interest will be added to your debt if necessary to go to court and therefore the outstanding debt will increase.

 

You must make payment before the 14th January 2011 if you wish to avoid the matter going to court.

 

Then there's some bits about how I won't be able to get debt for 6 years etc and a telephone number to pay.

 

It the states it's at a critical stage and I might wish to seek legal advice :!:

 

I've been reading around all afternoon but I hadn't realised I had until Friday to sort this out :jaw:hardly 10 days! Also who are Lowells? I have no idea what this debt is for so was going to send the bemused letter but is it going to be too late? The postmark on the letter states 7/1/11 and was posted 2nd class so they never intended to give me 10 days anyway :mad2:

 

What can I do? Will it get taken to court? Please help.

 

Hi Boppy

 

Firstly try not to panic . . not easy I know

 

If you have no knowledge of the alleged debt get a "Prove it" letter in the post tomorrow . .

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?428-General-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt

 

Fill in the relevant details, print your name (NO signature) and send recorded delivery so you can track it . . this at least will delay them

 

There are experienced caggers that know how to deal with BC effectively so I'm sure more advice will follow

 

Good luck

 

R

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I asked them to wait whilst I got my Bank card :violin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Information that may help if a CCA request is refused due to the lack of a signature . . http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?248863-Signature-demands-fight-back-possible-!&highlight=

Link to post
Share on other sites

send prove it letter, Lowells (Lowlife) - give us give more details what is the debt for if you know, give any info you may have or wait and see what they produce, court no panic threatogram stage at present. 6 years well a long way down the line they would need a CCJ from the courts . also when last payment made etc etc.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

First of all request "WHAT DEBT"

next request their authority for collecting it

if you haven't already done it get off a CCA request.

 

This should buy you some time --meanwhile others can add on what to do to fend these ODIOUS (Lowell group etc) **** off your back.

 

Note also everything in WRITING --no phone calls and with this lot GET PROOF OF POSTING --this firm Lie, steal, cheat and do anything else to try and make you pay up.

 

Cheers

jimbo

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

no need for a cca yet, a simple prove it letter will suffice

 

also is this the first contact they have made? if yes report them to the oft

 

Yes this is the first contact they have made, thanks for all advice, it's all very worrying :( I really can't think what the debt is so I'm a bit stumped, don't get me wrong I do owe a few debts but this amount doesn't ring any bells at all, will get the Prove It letter sent tomorrow and then go from there. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

An oft used 'trick' altering the amount allegedly owed. There really is no need to worry at this stage as that is exactly what they hope will push you into paying them some money!!

 

It is for them to prove beyond doubt that you owe money, and that they have the right to collect. Court is a long way down the road yet and can easily be defended at this stage of the process should they be stupid enough to carry out their baseless threats.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

as this is the first contact report them to the OFT, for breaching the guidlines of threatening court with out first giving you a chance to verify this alledged debt

 

Where would I find the details to report them? I have heard they are a horrible company so I'd love to report the scumbags! I've worried all day about this so thank you everyone for reassuring me. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just thought I'd update -

 

I received a response this morning...

 

Dear ****

 

We thank you for your communication regarding this account.

 

We have referred the matter to our client and will revert to you as soon as we are in receipt of instructions.

 

In the mean time, we confirm that we have placed the account on hold

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Bryan Carter

 

What happens next? How long will getting further instructions take?

 

Thanks everyone. xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Carter issues threats with no knowledge of the account. Typical rentasolicitor drivel.

 

They will, hopefully, go away.

 

These Lowell accounts are usually very old mobile phone accounts nearing the SB limit – does that ring any bells?

 

If the account has been sold to Lowell, you should have received a notice of assignment at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Carter issues threats with no knowledge of the account. Typical rentasolicitor drivel.

 

They will, hopefully, go away.

 

These Lowell accounts are usually very old mobile phone accounts nearing the SB limit – does that ring any bells?

 

If the account has been sold to Lowell, you should have received a notice of assignment at some point.

 

Ohhh come to think about it, it could well be a mobile phone account :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I posted before after Bryan Carter wrote to explain I'd be taken to court etc and got some wonderful advice and sent off the relevant letter, I then got a letter back saying they'd referred it to their clients and would be in touch, this morning I have received the following letter -

 

We refer to your recent letter or telephone conversation with the office.

 

Please find enclosed account documents, provided by our client, as requested.

 

We hope that this clarifies matters and look forward to hearing from you with your proposals for the discharge of this account.

 

Now the 'documents' are quite laughable a print screen of some sort of spreadsheet :!: I've taken a photo of it with my phone to show you but what do I do next? I do now think it is an old O2 account taken out in 2008 as an upgrade, not 100% sure though.

 

Please help.

 

debt.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind not worth the paper its printed on, but not worth the screen its printed off rather :lol:

If its for a mobile account then that wont be covered by a CCA - however it still needs to be proved & something like that would be laughed out of court in my view.

Report the old fool to all the relevant authorities if he refuses to stop harassing you.....

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All mobile contracts are not CCA compliant as no credit agreement is completed. However the defaults for non payment of a bill has about the same potency when reported to a CRA. They have passed on a debt to Bryan Carter for collection, but what is that breakdown on the sheet?. . . Are they charges / penalties for non payment?

 

You need a better breakdown of those amounts to be able to answer them, is that an old account of yours or someone else?.. These need answering.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would reply saying that you do not consider this proof as it does not in any way, shape or form refer to you. It has no name, no address,, no telephone number - nothing other than a customer number which could be anyone's as far as you're concerned which identifies you as a debtor.

 

I would also state that as this seems to be the best they can produce you are formally placing this alleged debt, of which you have no knowledge, into dispute so will they please stop trying to enforce any sort of collection on it until such timme as they can provide definite proof that you are the debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All mobile contracts are not CCA compliant as no credit agreement is completed. However the defaults for non payment of a bill has about the same potency when reported to a CRA. They have passed on a debt to Bryan Carter for collection, but what is that breakdown on the sheet?. . . Are they charges / penalties for non payment?

 

You need a better breakdown of those amounts to be able to answer them, is that an old account of yours or someone else?.. These need answering.

 

The breakdowns on the sheet are

 

23/11/2009 Write Off Manual £509.05Credit £0.00Balance

28/5/2008 Termination £449.05Debit £509.05Balance

27/5/2008 Periodic £30.00Debit £509.05Balance

27/4/2008 Periodic £30.00Debit £60.00Balance

27/3/2008 Periodic £30.00Debit £30.00Balance

13/3/2008 Physical Payment £30.97Credit £0.00Balance

28/2/2008 Periodic £30.97Debit £30.97Balance

 

Thats it, there's no charges for none payment or anything :|

 

It could well be an old account of mine but I can't be 100% on the top it says 'Account 100******* - My Name for Customer 100******' the account number and customer are the same number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can make a spreadsheet do that, can you pay me please, This is laughable, even though a phone is not covered by a cca, there is still paperwork to sign expecially if it is a contract phone, write back to carter and state

 

Dear Mr Creator (and no thats not a spelling mistae)

 

I find the information you sent on date xxx to be at best a feeble attempt to prove a debt and at worst a serious case of obtaining monies by deception.

 

Nowhere on that "spreadsheet ScreenShot" does it state what this alledged debt is for, nor what the termination fee is in relation to. I am sorry to say this but for an alledged Professional Legal person I find this quite amaturist.

 

I now consider this alledegd debt in dispute until you or the "fictitious Original creditor" have the decency to treat me with some modicum of common sense and intelligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can make a spreadsheet do that, can you pay me please, This is laughable, even though a phone is not covered by a cca, there is still paperwork to sign expecially if it is a contract phone, write back to carter and state

 

Dear Mr Creator (and no thats not a spelling mistae)

 

I find the information you sent on date xxx to be at best a feeble attempt to prove a debt and at worst a serious case of obtaining monies by deception.

 

Nowhere on that "spreadsheet ScreenShot" does it state what this alledged debt is for, nor what the termination fee is in relation to. I am sorry to say this but for an alledged Professional Legal person I find this quite amaturist.

 

I now consider this alledegd debt in dispute until you or the "fictitious Original creditor" have the decency to treat me with some modicum of common sense and intelligence.

 

That is brilliant, thank you very much, I will adapt it and send it this week and reply back when/if they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...