Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You're right of course, just jarring when an actual man child is knocking on my door so close to the end. Anyway, I'll keep this thread updated if ever any exciting does actually happen. Thanks again.
    • Yes I think you are right. I have to say I think most people would be honest and you would be unlucky to be with somebody who was going to rip you off
    • Would this be OK to send or is it too much detail already ?   "In response to your letter dated  xxx Intention of Prosecution reference xxxxxx I would like to advise that no collision / accident took place at the given date / time / location. There was however an altercation with the driver of a commercial vehicle who punched and kicked my car, verbally abused me when I stopped and acted in a distinctive threatening and aggressive manner. I advised I would be reporting him to his company for threatening behaviour and vandalism for punching and kicking my car whilst driving past in the road. When I tried to take a photo of his number plate, he came towards me in a further aggressive and threatening manner, so I decided to retreat into my car and lock the doors before he could reach me, as I was frightened he may assault me. I drove off and when I checked my phone later , the photo was regrettably unusable, as the camera couldn’t focus properly when I rushed back to my car. So I decided not to report him for his threatening behaviour and actions, as at the time I believed he would be untraceable anyway. So I am not sure if the accusations against me are in relation to this altercation, but no actual collision took place at this time , date and location as alleged in your letter"  
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • They have been sending messageslike " Do you want a refund or not"  which ive said im at work just try and avoid their childish obstuctive replies as ive had enough of them but i plan on going up tomorrow , so my question is,  they have to give me a refund dont they, they can not bargain or refuse the refund if they havent checked the phone first ? Their previous messages have said they want to check the phone first before a refund is given and i think theyll try this tomorrow as they have argued all through this .... If that happens can i just walk away and then send the letter of Particulars which is due next week ? Edit :   Just for the record the phone hasnt been used since buying its been put in a protective bag and put in a draw , its in the same condition as i bought it
  • 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 
      • 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

DCA Administration Charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4041 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

It is an alleged mobile phone debt, still waiting for Buchanan Clark & Wells produce information to prove my liabilty ... Very stroppy people Buchanan Clark & Wells!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is why i save all my pre-paid envelopes i get off these people.

print off the whole pdf high-light the relavant passage then put in a A 4 envelope and tape there pre-paid envelope to the front and put it in a post box.

PHOTOBUCKET TUTORIAL IS NOW DONE HERE IT IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Muppetcroft and CCSCollect tried that old Badger, told em here is my invoice ( never heard a dicky since ) though I have dispensed with the services of Moorcroft and have SAR O2 I only owe them £70 and I bet you that has a few late charges on it. Will make an offer to them when I get it... bye bye Moorcroft, good budgie and hamster bedding heading Hippies way.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Happyhippy1959

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

On 21/08/2012 by way of assignement Progressive Credit Ltd (Aqua Credit Card) assigned all of it's respectibve rights, title and Interest to Lowell Portfolio Ltd.

 

The total balance sold was £463.41.

 

In the same envelope I also received a letter from Lowell introducing themselves and huffing and puffing about it is their right to collect. I wrote to Lowell asking them to provide a full breakdown and statements to prove my liability to the alleged £463.41.

 

This morning I received the information from Lowell and the outstanding balance includes £199.41 of Overlimit Fees & Late Payment Charges.

 

I recently issued a county court claim against Capitlal One to claim Overlimit Fees & Late Payment Charges. Capital One settled the claim out of court, so I know the charges are challengeable.

 

My question is, even though Aqua have sold the account to Lowell can I still challenge the charges and tell Lowell that I am only prepared to repay £199.41?

 

Thank You in advance

drob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Brigadier

 

Should i do this as a Full & Final to Lowell? or just tell Lowell that I want the charges removed before I pay?

 

You can certainly try, Lowel are not the most cooperative bunch and any F&F offer must be very carefully worded andno payment must be made until you have their unequivical agreement in writting in your hand.

 

If you need help with it pm me and I'll answer on the open forum.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can certainly try, Lowel are not the most cooperative bunch and any F&F offer must be very carefully worded andno payment must be made until you have their unequivical agreement in writting in your hand.

 

If you need help with it pm me and I'll answer on the open forum.

 

 

What I want to achieve is for Lowell to remove all charges and correctly update any information they have recorded with the credit reference agencies. One they have done the aforementioned or their unequivical agreement I then want to enter into a repayment schedule to clear the balance.

 

I just want to set my stall out from the start and avoid letter ping pong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this again I think you will have to challenge the charges with Aqua directly, Lowell will just refer to them I suspect.

 

send the following to The Compliance Manager

at Lowell.

 

Ref: as on their letter.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxx regarding an alleged debt to Aqua which Lowell have aquired, please take not I do not acknowldege any debt in the amount of £ xxxx is owed either to Aqua or Lowell.

 

As the default sum is made up of a considerable amount of unfair penalty charges which are in dispute I cannot deal further with this matter which is now formally in dispute.

 

amend as you see fit.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have been dealing with Lowell in reference to 2 alleged debts that they had purchased from Aqua Credit Csrd & Three Mobile.

 

After months of letter and email ping pong with Lowell

 

they wrote to me advising me that as a gesture of goodwill with no admission of liability they have decided to close both accounts,

therefore I will receive no further contact in relation to both accounts.

 

I then wrote to Lowell and asked them to remove ant information that they have recorded with the three credit reference agencies

and to cease processing or sharing any of my personal data.

 

On 25th April I received the following response from Lowell...

 

Dear drob

 

Upon closure of accounts xxxxxx & xxxxxx I requested that the information showing on your credit file for these accounts is removed.

This can take up to 50 days from the date of the request.

For clarity I can confirm as these accounts have been closed

they will not be returned to the original creditors or sold on.

 

Yours Sincerely

Lowell

 

 

I have received a further letter this morning Lowell regarding this matter...

 

Dear drob

 

Please be advised we are unable to remove details of defaults as we are required to reflect true and accurate information on how your account has been conducted.

 

As we are legally obliged to show information for 6 years from the date of the default, the information will not be removed from your credit file, however we will amend your file to show partially satisfied with a zero balance.

 

Yours Sincerely

Lowell

 

 

* Why have Lowell contradicted themselves in the second letter?

* How can a closed account show partially satisfied with a zero balance?

 

I'm not sure if to right to Lowell again and point out their contradictions or pass this on to the ICO, any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will stay on the CRA file for the 6 years as they state as a true record it seems - correct they can. if they have stopped chasing and closed the accounts, let sleeping dogs lie I would say. Wish our DCAs would do that for us.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...