Disabled Veteran Harrassed for 4yrs by DCA for debt of unknown person

[stu007]

The Salary is a complete joke

 

But why bonuses is that for the more poeple complaining you FOB OFF you get a bonus maybe its in LOWELL LITTLE BLACK BOOK SSSSSHHHHHH its a secret

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Stu,

Do you still want me to do the letter

to Lowell.

 

Brig.

[stu007]

Double post Sorry

[stu007]

Hi Brig

 

Thanks my worry has been who the Original Creditor was but after speaking to Trading Standards this in a way was cleared up by them and since Lowells have purchased the debt they now hold full legal rights & responsibilities for that debt but as you prob noticed from there response letter they passed the buck and blamed the Client. When in fact they are now the Client.

 

I did mention the other dcas to TS and they said about Lowells purchasing the debt and there legal rights & responsibilities and why have the hassle when Lowells are the Client.

 

So IMO Lowells is the target for a better way to put it and since they were the only one also that abused the veteran over the phone.

 

Your help as always Brig is most apprecited as is everyone elses.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Any thing I can do please let me know I will do all I can.

I can format a complaint to Lowell if it will help over th abuse

the only problem I can see is if the call is unrecorded there

is a problem.

 

Brig.

[kurvaface]

Someone needs to give Lowell a sorting out......disgusting vile examples of biomatter.....

[theghost]

Thing is whilst Lowell may well have bought the debt they don't buy the liability for any illegal acts or dodgy behaviour by any other companies.

 

Therefore you need to work out who has done what and when.

 

From what you have said so far Lowell have called you once and are claming the data issue lies with the credior (probably) providing the phone number to it to the original creditor.

 

Do you have records of who the other DCAs were?

 

I think the problem you will have is proving that the DCAs all phoned you regarding this one debt. For all you know there could be multiple debts out there all in the name of one person who has given the same number out. From what it sounds like - 4 companies (OC, 2 DCAS and Lowell) have contacted you in rgeards to this debt but that doesnt explain where the other 4 DCAs come in.

[stu007]

Hi theghost

 

I totally understand where you are coming from and your advice is appreciated.

 

and to be honest the worst offender during this was actually Lowells

[stu007]

Hi Brig

 

Thanks well i dont really need to have a recording of the call i know it would have been great to have.

 

I know i say abuse but thats what the veteran classed it as being laughed at on the phone and they have actually IMO have admitted this by saying in there letter that they concur that the handlers conduct is not in line with high customer service standards if i am wrong please do say.

 

your help in formatting a letter would be much appreciated as always.

[give them FA]

Their letter refers to listening to the recording of the call and they do admit their operative's behaviour was wrong. So that isn't a problem. I still express my reservations about Lowell being generally wrong in only two contacts, the first of which, at least, they will say was done in good faith. I have to agree with Ghost that whilst we all like beating DCAs, yours isn't the stick to do it with.

[Bazooka Boo]

I for one strongly disagree with yours and Ghosts posts on this matter, this isn't just a one off incident, DCA's including Lowell step over the mark on a daily basis, be it on the phone acting like some authoritative figure belittling the debtor on the other end of the line, or sending out misleading psychologically threatening letters.

 

The fact is, that Lowell are the ones who have custody of this debt under the law of property act. Yes it is true that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of previous DCA's but they sure as hell can be held accountable for their miserable unethical work practices.

Not only that but the OC is also liable by way of vicarious liability.

 

If you hammer Lowell and make them responsible for their actions I guarantee they will bring others down with them so as to share the blame and any subsequent compo claim.

 

Don't be swayed stu get this into the press and exhaust this complaint with all those who are meant to police this rotten to the core industry.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am going to draft a formal complaint to

Lowell over the weekend.

 

Brig.

[give them FA]

We can all have our opinions Bazooka and I would start by agreeing with you that this is a case which might go down well with the Press.

 

However, as regards complaint against Lowell, unfortunately the facts don't back up the rhetoric. And you need facts to succeed in a complaint. No matter how vehemently you express the rhetoric.

 

There is a clue as to the reason why these phone calls have been received; in one of Stu's early posts he stated that when the phone number was allocated to Stu's friend, it had not been in prior use for at least 20 months. So it is possible, indeed likely, that before he was given it, it WAS the number of this Zoe McCue who is the debtor, and it was being passed on in good faith, therefore, by the OC. Usually by the time people like Lowell's get a debt it is well ripe, but they will say, and will be believed, that they had no reason to suppose the number wasn't genuine.

 

They made contact -as I understand Stu's evidence- on just two occasions; the initial call on 10th October, and another contact (text message?) later which they say was a system error. Whether it was or wasn't, that cannot be an offence under the Harassment Act. All further contact between the parties has been at the complainant's instigation.

 

If it is right they bought the debt, then the OC, far from having any "vicarious liability", has no further involvement in the matter. Their involvement ended when they sold the debt. Though my guess is Lowell's got it from another DCA rather than the OC in view of the time lapse.

 

So my reading of the facts as supplied, is that Lowells telephoned a number they were told was the debtors; they were told it wasn't; and have then backed off.

 

Much as I would like to do these miserable parasites down, IT WON'T HAPPEN on those facts. People who adjudicate these complaints are usually legally trained with sharp minds, and rely on facts not on unsupported allegations.

 

The REAL cause of complaint is that there seems to be no requirement for DCAs to eradicate wrong contact details from the file before they sell it on- hence Stu's reference to 8 previous agencies which has to be a major pain.

 

But that amounts to a complaint against the SYSTEM- not against any individual DCA. I'm not saying don't run it- the worst that can happen is that Lowell's will be beaming like Cheshire cats if (when) they are cleared. I just don't think it has any prospect of success. But I will be happy to be proved wrong!!

Edited November 19, 2011 by give them FA

[Bazooka Boo]

I'm bored....and my head hurts....

 

No vicarious liability??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484772/Grandmother-terrorised-death-bank-wrongly-hounded-16-000.html

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Boo,

Counted the poppy cash yet???

[Bazooka Boo]

God no! It'll be another week at least yet, banked about 30k so far so should beat last years total.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The Oldest Town has reached £54,000 so far

it has certainly been a record year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stu007]

Hi all

 

Well writing this while its still fresh im my mind lol.

 

Well just off the phone to a good frien thats look over all the documents on this and what he has advised is to respond to Lowells letter in this way:

 

Dear Sir

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/xx but this does not resolve the issue of your Client giving your company the incorrect data. Therefore i require you to either:

 

1. Provide the Name and Address of your Client Data Compliance Officer so that i may have written confirmation from the Client that this Data has been removed.

 

or

 

2. You contact your Client and request they forward to myself a letter confirming that this Data has been removed.

 

If these request are denied i will therefore assume that you Lowells have had all the Legal Rights & Responsibilities said Reference since your first contact.

 

The main reason he said this is because you only have lowells word in a letter this has been done after 3yrs, an as they mention the client you are entitled to request confirmation from lowells that the clients has actually done this.

 

Ok please please Caggers your advice or comments on this ( i think its a bit strong but after what veterans been through dont know).

[give them FA]

Problem is Lowell does not have a "client" if they purchased the debt. But what you want is for the incorrect phone details to be removed, so hopefully this will be achieved.

[stu007]

Hi give them fa

 

Can see exactley what your saying as the have all legal rights & responsibilities for said debt since they purchased the debt.

 

Thats the point my friend was going on about but he kept refering to the letter and that its Lowell that has brought in the Client by refering to them in the letter so you are entitled to confirmation from the Client.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I will admit that I am very unsure on the

ownership of the alleged debt.

It's a good letter Stu.

 

Brig.

[Bazooka Boo]

Local MP needs to be informed.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

And the financial press.

[theghost]

First of all

 

Lowell own the debt - therefore, they do in theory have all the paperwork for the account, therefore if any number is to be removed from any files it will be Lowell doing it - because they are the ones with the file - even though they were not the original creditor.

 

So if you do fidn out compan yX is the origina lcreditor, you will prob find they wil ltel lyou to go back to Lowell as they now have the paperwork

 

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

 

Even if you do find out who company X are, very little will happen with regards to the incorrect number - they will just say the ywere given it by the creditor or something like that.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is a ''theme'' of false information starting with the OC

and ending with Lowell that has to be brought to notice

because of the treatment metered out to an innocent man.