Harrassed by Lowell - Debt not mine

[ScarletPimpernel]

There seems to have been a considerable increase in the number of cases of Lowell acting in a manner that at the very least is questionable.

 

The new Director of Compliance at Lowell is none other than Sarah de Tute; she didn't appear to be any good at compliance when it was her job at the DCA's silly mutual masturbation club, the CSA, and nothing, it seems, has improved since. She currently seems to be quite active in bleating about how badly done to the DCAs are when it comes to regulation.

 

One can only wonder why this is - do DCAs think that compliance means acting at all times within the law and the requirements of their consumer credit licence? Or does it mean pushing the boundaries as far as you can, and getting away with as much as you can until the OFT say stop?

 

What all these creatures seem to forget about is that their unsavoury pursuit of profit for their offshore masters has serious and lasting effects on people, most of whom are in debt through no fault of their own.

 

Foggy, I hope Meacher takes the issue seriously, and asks the relevant minister to look at regulation of DCAs.

[foggy123]

Hello,

When I read my replies to your helpful questions,

once I had been made Bankrupt I can see I had gone off track,

lost the plot if you like and I am really sorry I was just so devastated that this could be happening .

 

Although I thought yesterday would be pretty straightforward I still had to hope the Judge recognised about the costs situation because of the two different e-mails.

He did thank goodness.

 

Now that the Bankruptcy has been dismissed I am more able to deal with things.

 

Surely the OFT cannot think its is right for everyone to be treated as dishonest so that these people are given free rein to drive people to suicide in some cases

 

The Small Claims Court should be used and the Bankruptcy option taken away from them.

 

Thank you for your support once again and I will keep you informed of any replies I receive.

[unclebulgaria67]

Reading the thread sometimes had me feeling, does this guy work for Lowells and are they trying to frighten people by how silly they can be.

 

On last nights BBC One show there was a chap who had been pursued by DCA's for years for debts that he did not owe . He just shared the same name and date of birth to someone who did have debts. He contacted DCA's to tell them of the mistaken identity, but they just carried on. Anne Widdecombe who looked into it for him, visited the CSA and they gave the impression that they were not interested.

[rc14]

I recently asked the CSA to comment on some of their emails to Lowell when the CSA was allegedly looking at my complaint.

 

The emails were inadvertently disclosed by Lowell in a bundle of court evidence much to the embarrassment of the CSA.

 

The emails are from two separate CSA investigators and blatently suggest to Lowell that the CSA knew that Lowell send letters on behalf of original creditors in my case Hutchinson 3G.

 

The emails ask Lowells permision to disclose to me that they sent me both parts of the assignment letter because they were unsure if it was or should be public knowledge.

This was before the EU Directive and this actually meant the assignment even if Lowell truthfully sent the letters, did not comply with section 136(1) of the Property Act.

 

The CSA have refused to explain the emails or comment because the matter is now in the court of appeal.

 

Well what explanation could their be.

 

The CSA suggested I should not alledge that while Lowell have an agreement with Hutchinson 3G to send letters on their behalf they dont actually send them at all.

 

There I have said it sue me cos I have the emails and they prove beyond doubt the CSA are not impartial. Does anyone else think Lowell dont sent their assignment letters?

 

Lets turn to West Yorkshire Trading Stadards.

 

They sent an email to Lowell asking Lowell if they were sure they should be pursuing me for the disputed debt with Hutchinson 3G,

because when it was outsourced to Mackenzie Hall

 

Hamilton Trading Standards got MH to back off on the basis they agreed with me that the alleged debt was not recoverable.

 

Six months later Lowell started harrassing again.

 

In my oppinion its not worth complaining to the CSA or West Yorkshire Trading Standards.

 

Do complain to the media they are more independent, do complain to your MP and maybe Ann Widecombe she wont suffer the fools.

 

Do complain to the OFT and ICO.

 

If I was starting out I would never communicate with Lowell in any way shape or form because they dont have the capacity to do anything but beg for money.

[foggy123]

I recently asked the CSA to comment on some of their emails to Lowell when the CSA was allegedly looking at my complaint. The emails were inadvertently disclosed by Lowell in a bundle of court evidence much to the embarrassment of the CSA. The emails are from two separate CSA investigators and blatently suggest to Lowell that the CSA knew that Lowell send letters on behalf of original creditors in my case Hutchinson 3G. The emails ask Lowells permision to disclose to me that they sent me both parts of the assignment letter because they were unsure if it was or should be public knowledge. This was before the EU Directive and this actually meant the assignment even if Lowell truthfully sent the letters, did not comply with section 136(1) of the Property Act. The CSA have refused to explain the emails or comment because the matter is now in the court of appeal. Well what explanation could their be. The CSA suggested I should not alledge that while Lowell have an agreement with Hutchinson 3G to send letters on their behalf they dont actually send them at all. There I have said it sue me cos I have the emails and they prove beyond doubt the CSA are not impartial. Does anyone else think Lowell dont sent their assignment letters?

 

Lets turn to West Yorkshire Trading Stadards. They sent an email to Lowell asking Lowell if they were sure they should be pursuing me for the disputed debt with Hutchinson 3G, because when it was outsourced to Mackenzie Hall Hamilton Trading Standards got MH to back off on the basis they agreed with me that the alleged debt was not recoverable. Six months later Lowell started harrassing again. In my oppinion its not worth complaining to the CSA or West Yorkshire Trading Standards. Do complain to the media they are more independent, do complain to your MP and maybe Ann Widecombe she wont suffer the fools. Do complain to the OFT and ICO. If I was starting out I would never communicate with Lowell in any way shape or form because they dont have the capacity to do anything but beg for money.

 

So it sounds like every outlet which the ordinary person turns to is a waste of time.

I didnt communicate with Lowell, thinking because it was not my debt I was well within my rights to ignore them and legally I was.

That did not mean jack to Lowell and as you know the next thing is they were trying to get a Bankruptcy petition heard without my knowledge,

which I see from reading the cries for help on here this is something they do on a regular basis.

 

I also think once you are in Court that they, the Courts ,also view you as a serial debtor (unless you are lucky with the judge on the day)

and not as someone who has fell on hard times or the multitude of other reasons beyond your control to find yourself in this situation.

 

Its a scary situation especially in today financial climate.

[foggy123]

Hello,

I have not been in touch for a while although I have kept my eye on Lowell complaints just in case my dealings with them could help someone.

 

If you remember my Bankruptcy was annulled and all costs were met by Lowell in advance of £3000 pounds.

 

The debt was to be repaid at £50 per month by my daughter through my account (that was what Lowell requested)

so we complied but it was made clear that the debt was not mine and in the final hearing the Judge ruled that they could not come after me at a later date for costs.

 

After the hearing I provided Lowell with our bank details( I still have the e-mail)

but after the first payment they stopped collecting the money.

 

We assumed they had heard from the OFT after my complaint to them and other various people MP ect

and decided or had been told not to pursue the debt any further.

 

Last week I received a letter from them saying I owed this money in the form of the usual debt collecting letter.

I e-mailed and they replied with the Bankcruptcy was only annulled because I had made an arrangement to pay,

that the debt was mine and I still owed them,

 

the debt had been sent from their legal dept back to the debt collection customer service.

 

I have replied to say I provided my bank details and I cannot be held responsible for them not bothering to collecting the money.

I await their response.

Can I really have to go through this again?

Aaaaaaargh.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi foggy, was this to be paid by standing order or direct debit?

 

The original debt was not yours but your daughters correct?

 

Lowell ceased to collect any further payments but did you check with your bank or Lowell on what was happening, you will have had a duty of care to ensure the payments were made as ordered by the court so there may well be a problem there.

 

It would be best to find out how and why the payments were stopped so enquiries to your bank asap.

 

You MUST find out why the payments stopped as a matter of urgency.

[foggy123]

Hello,

 

As far as I can remember the payment wasn't discussed in the hearing,

it was something arranged between myself and the Head of Legal Compliance Stephen Hunter before the hearing was to take place.

 

That was when they offered to cover the costs,( that was discussed at the hearing).

I will check this on the Judges summing up.

 

I find it hard to take that I have a duty of care to them especially because it was not my debt.

 

You are right it was my daughter and I had letters from capital one to my daughter and her replies when she first got into difficulty's.

 

Although I could not use this evidence I think Lowell were keen to reach an agreement,

once they knew these letters existed.

 

Do you know if Stephen Hunter is still the Head of Legal Compliance ?

because I feel if these payments were not being collected he would have let me know.

 

The hearing dealt more with the Bankruptcy being annulled rather than the agreement of paying the debt, that was done via e- mail.

 

I will check with the bank but no I didnt contact Lowell, but neither have they contacted me for over twelve months,

surely they have a duty of care to me as well if only to say I was not adhering to the agreement and the consequences of that.

I will keep you posted.

Thank you

Foggy123

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is hard but the arrangement was to use your account , no I don't know if Hunter is still there.

There does seem to be a mystery here and it makes me suspicious!! Check the bank before

anything and come back I'll do my best to help you.

[rc14]

It is hard but the arrangement was to use your account , no I don't know if Hunter is still there.

There does seem to be a mystery here and it makes me suspicious!! Check the bank before

anything and come back I'll do my best to help you.

Stephen Hunter was still there in December 12 left court red faced with barrister in tow when O whooped them in the Appeal Court. They don't play by the rules so this was probably part of their game plan to discredit you. Report to OFT

[foggy123]

Hello,

Checked with my bank and only one payment ( that was made by myself over the phone by debit card) they wanted a £50 payment up front.

I had a real job getting someone to take the payment I remember because they wouldn't supply me with an account number

.No other payments have been taken.

 

I wasn't ordered by the Court to make the payments, it was never discussed.

 

The Judges summing up at the last hearing was;

This Petition be dismissed

There be no order to costs

The previous order for costs to be discharged

And Permission to discharge the entry at HM Land Charges Registry.

I gave all the relevant Bank Details to Stephen Hunter.to be collected by direct debit.

 

On my last e mail from Lowell they state that I still owe the money.

I had evidence in writing that the debt was not mine but it couldn't be used because I had not sent Lowell a copy before the hearing,

by this time though it was obvious to the Court that the debt was not mine and I think that will be the reason I wasn't ordered by the Court to make payments.

 

What do you think has happened here This has already cost double the debt for Lowell.

 

There is no Court Order re the payments so were do I stand there?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, You have there all the information you need to send Lowell packing if you just add a statement that,

 

Mr. Stephen Hunter of Lowell Present at the hearing on xx xx xxxx was made fully aware that I foggy 123 do not have any liability for the debt, and that I was a facilitator only is allowing usage of my account to process payments to Lowell without liability for ensuring that Lowell claimed the required payments.

 

The debt is not nor ever has been in my name.

 

Therefore Lowells claim is totally refuted, this is my final response.

 

Recorded/signed for delivery check when they receive it.

[oleg]

According to his linkedin profile Hunter left Lowell in Dec.

Sara da Tute, Legal and Compliance Manager, is probably the most appropriate person at Lowell to write to.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The statement was that Hunter was fully aware of the situation at the time, and de Tute is indeed the person to write to now.

[Old Cogger]

Mr Andrew Paul Bartle, is a Director Lowells I use.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Mr Andrew Paul Bartle, is a Director Lowells I use.

 

The thought has been made that Mr Bartle (head of Collections) and Samantha Barnard (customer services) are mere bots churning out various threatograms and nonsense on the status of accounts:madgrin:

[Old Cogger]

Directors: -

 

Appointed Current Historical Total

Mr Adrian Richard Hill 27-02-2012 1 0 1

Mr Andrew Paul Bartle 04-04-2008 17 0 17

Mr Colin Storrar 11-02-2013 12 0 12

Mr Gary James Edwards 15-01-2013 10 0 10

Mr James John Cornell 04-04-2008 27 5 32

Mr Jonathan Barlow Rosen 21-02-2012 1 0 1

Mr Richard Llewellyn Davies 20-10-2010 9 2 11

Mrs Sara Louise Leckenby 19-05-2012 8 0 8

Current Secretary Name Appointed Current Historical Total

Mrs Sara Louise Leckenby 19-05-2012 1 0 1

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sarah de Tute is Director of Legal & Compliance.

[cerberusalert]

Sarah de Tute is Director of Legal & Compliance.

 

Since 14 May 2012 http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/13748/online-news/sara-de-tute-to-join-lowell-group

[Old Cogger]

Since 14 May 2012 http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/13748/online-news/sara-de-tute-to-join-lowell-group

 

Legal & Compliane officer - hence I tend to tell peeps to send to CEO with copy (enclosed|) to Legal & Compliance Officers where possible:

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The ''Compliance officers'' are headed by the COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR so cut out the minions!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Since 14 May 2012 http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/13748/online-news/sara-de-tute-to-join-lowell-group

 

Thanks Cerberus!!!

[foggy123]

Thank you I have followed your advice. I received an e mail from them today saying the Bankruptcy was annulled because an arrangement had been met, totally not true, They dont get that the costs were met by themselves for no other reason than that the debt was not mine. They are now asking for proof of this They are obviously stabbing in the dark and trying to intimidate me again.. Luckily I have kept all Court letters and my dealings with Stephen Hunter. I have worded the letter as you advised and will keep you informed.

 

Thank you so much again

Foggy123

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Well done foggy let us know if you need any help.

[foggy123]

Hello, Well I have had a reply today from Lowell.

 

They say after reviewing my account they are of the understanding that I opened this account for a family member and that makes me liable for the repayment of the balance. and it is my responsibility that the account is paid. My daughter opened the account in her name, date of birth , job details ect and as she was 25 at the time I was not involved at all.They then go on to say if I wish a third party to make payment on my account that this can be arranged and they would need my permission to do so. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what I did in the first place.

They then go on to say that it is my responsibility to make sure that the third party makes payments towards the account otherwise collections activity will still proceed against myself.

What do you think should I reply? Any advice gratefully received I feel this goes well beyond harassment and still has the ability to send me to pieces.

 

Thank you again

Foggy 123