Harrassed by Lowell - Debt not mine

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

What rubbish, your only commitment was to allow payment to be made via your account without personal liability another but stronger letter needed.

[unclebulgaria67]

Is there any reason why they are not pursuing your daughter ?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I believe they have tried that and Lowell are now abusing the agreement made that the account would be used to ''service'' with the account without any liability on the OP.

[unclebulgaria67]

I believe they have tried that and Lowell are now abusing the agreement made that the account would be used to ''service'' with the account without any liability on the OP.

 

Think I would make a formal complaint to Lowell regarding breaches of the Data Protection Act. If Lowells have files that show that Foggy is the debtor then this is incorrect and a breach of the DPA. If Lowells don't correct their records, then a complaint can be made to the ICO.

 

I wonder whether there is a basis to make a small claims court case against Lowell ?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is at the present little to make a case with certainty, furthermore I think a further attempt at resolution on the basis of why the account was originally opened is the best way. forward.

[foggy123]

Hello,

Just a quick question, Is having the Petition for Bankruptcy Dismissed the same as having it Annulled. If you remember I was made Bankrupt whilst at Jury Service and I applied to have it set aside because I had sought the Courts permission to attend Jury Service before hand.

[joesoap]

If it wasn't so serious this thread would make a good comedy script. Lowell's will become a huge cropper before too long I feel. Keep at it Foggy.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hello,

Just a quick question, Is having the Petition for Bankruptcy Dismissed the same as having it Annulled. If you remember I was made Bankrupt whilst at Jury Service and I applied to have it set aside because I had sought the Courts permission to attend Jury Service before hand.

 

I think there is a difference, but no expert. Dismissal meant no grounds for the petition, as you were not the debtor. Annullment meant that there may have been grounds for it, but for reasons accepted, the petition has been made void. Just my amateur reading and hopefully someone more legally aware will answer.

 

Why did Lowells agree to pay the costs, if everything they did was in order ? I may be wrong, but their strategy appears to be one of damage limitation, following a mistake. If you think about it, if any DCA tried to make a third party bankrupt, they are not likely to admit to making such a mistake. It would be very embarrasing. You could imagine the media coverage with headlines such as " Debt collector makes Dad bankrupt for the debts of his Daughter ". So they would try to find a way of dealing with it, by suggesting that the Dad had opened the account using the Daughters details. As long as they kept to the line of believing this was the case, in some peoples eyes it might seem to justify the actions taken.

 

Why did the payments stop ? Did Lowells stop taking the DD from your account ? Perhaps they stopped, given that the court appeared to accept that the debt was not yours. They would not want to continue processing a debt in your name, with your payments, when a court has accepted it is not your debt.

 

I wonder whether it is now a case of your Daughter offering to continue the payments in writing and if they don't take it up, then they are no longer interested in the debt.

 

Have you and your daughter checking credit records to see if this debt is showing ?

[foggy123]

Hello,

I feel Lowell are accusing me of fraud in a thinly veiled way. Their Barrister did the same thing before we went into one of the hearings and when I told the Judge she backtracked and denied having said it.

I see Stephen Hunter has left so they are stabbing in the dark. Strange but I always got the feeling he would not collect the payments.He knew Lowell had come close to a compensation pay out hence the offer from Lowell of paying all the costs incurred.

I still have his e mails and I always stressed on my replies that the debt was not mine.They are saying that because I acknowledge the debt with the first payment of £50 through my account that makes me responsible. I have in writing from Stephen Hunter the arrangement and that I would be using my account on behalf of my Daughter.

How strong can I make my reply to them I will contact OFT and have this latest debacle added to my original case with them.

Thank you

Foggy123

[foggy123]

I feel you are right because they are quoting annulment in their correspondence and it clearly says dismissed on my Court summing up. I will clarify it with the Court.

Thank you

[foggy123]

Ha you are right. When I tried to contact the OFT by telephone there is a recording saying if your complaint is re Debt Collecting that they are inundated and there will be a delay in their response. What a surprise.

[unclebulgaria67]

Foggy

 

They are just covering their *sses, as they have gone down a road of believing one thing and there is no evidence to support this. Their last email to you was libelous, if you can show that it is untrue, but they know that you would never take action. Plus you have added the email to a public internet forum, so would have a weak case anyway.

 

If Lowells are still chasing this debt, the debt is still owed by your daughter and Lowells already have this admission, then I would think it may be wise for your daughter to make an offer of payment in writing. Then it puts it back in Lowells hands to decide whether they want to collect payments or not. If they were still silly enough to go back to court, then you would have a letter of evidence which offers payment, by the person who had the contract with the original creditor. If your daughter decides to do this, then send by recorded delivery.

[foggy123]

I think they are not pursuing my daughter because if they accepted that the account is hers they would be pursuing a statute barred debt.The account is now eight years old, and had it been mine, well yes they were in there rights to pursue, because they started proceedings before the Debt became statute barred. If they now started to Pursue my daughter they would be pursuing a statute barred debt.We have always been willing to settle this debt amicably but have been blocked by Lowell to make payments in my daughters name.Although I was criticised in Court for my attempt at defending myself the Judge thought me honest and that I was speaking the truth. Which I was. An e mail from Lowells saying we have made a mistake and we have not been collecting your daughters payments I would have responded by sending the Bank information again but no they have started accusing and threatening me again and as a result any good will has been crushed. If I give my permission now for a third party to pay this debt I would be making myself responsible for a debt that is not mine.

[unclebulgaria67]

In that case, if they have no evidence this debt is yours and the debt is statute barred for your daughter, then each time they wrote, I would get your daughter to respond with a statute barred response. Perhaps your daughter should write to Lowells stating what her charges are for responding to letters and that she will issue a small court claim against them to recover such charges if they continue, as well as a formal complaint to the OFT. If you remember there was a recent case, where a chap who kept receiving unsolicitor calls invoiced a company involved and won in court.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think they are not pursuing my daughter because if they accepted that the account is hers they would be pursuing a statute barred debt.The account is now eight years old, and had it been mine, well yes they were in there rights to pursue, because they started proceedings before the Debt became statute barred. If they now started to Pursue my daughter they would be pursuing a statute barred debt.We have always been willing to settle this debt amicably but have been blocked by Lowell to make payments in my daughters name.Although I was criticised in Court for my attempt at defending myself the Judge thought me honest and that I was speaking the truth. Which I was. An e mail from Lowells saying we have made a mistake and we have not been collecting your daughters payments I would have responded by sending the Bank information again but no they have started accusing and threatening me again and as a result any good will has been crushed. If I give my permission now for a third party to pay this debt I would be making myself responsible for a debt that is not mine.

 

Hi Foggy,

 

I been mulling over this thread and perhaps come up with another challenge to Lowell, want to reads it all again then I'll post something here.

[42man]

If you get your bankruptcy annulled then under the slip rule you go back to the original hearing of the petition. Getting the petition dismissed there is no return to another stage as the demand falls away also.

[unclebulgaria67]

If you get your bankruptcy annulled then under the slip rule you go back to the original hearing of the petition. Getting the petition dismissed there is no return to another stage as the demand falls away also.

 

42man, if you get a chance, can you have a read of this thread and possible offer some wisdom on any steps that could be taken. Personally I think that Lowells want to drop this, as they have made a mistake. There is no basis for Foggy to make payments, as he is not the debtor and there is no proof otherwise. According to Foggy, they can't go after his daughter the real debtor, as she has not made any repayments or acknowledgement for more than 6 years. If this is the case, then this debt is dead and nothing that Lowell can do about it.

[foggy123]

Hello,

Thank you all so much, I have replied to Lowells with a very strong letter, which your comments have helped me to do. I am in the process of reopening my case with the OFT. Its nothing short of scandalous Lowells handling of this case and I intend to take it as far as possible now.

I will keep you informed and thank you again.

[foggy123]

Hello,

Just a quick update.

 

I received an e-mail from Lowell on Friday thanking me for my patience and that it was taking them longer to complete the investigation

and as it had exceeded the eight weeks deadline that I was entitled to go to The Financial Ombudsman but they trust that wouldn't be necessary

 

.I forwarded my complaint to the Ombudsman on Saturday and then informed Lowell of my decision.

 

I am awaiting a response from the Ombudsman I believe they can act if you have been treated unfairly.

 

I think I qualify for that so we will see.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Could be very interesting foggy!

[joesoap]

Lowells in deep doo!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Lowells in deep doo!

 

Up to their grubby necks imo:madgrin:

[unclebulgaria67]

If the FOS have not accepted the complaint, I think they might reject dealing with it, because elements of the matter have been in a court. Once a court has been involved, the FOS don't like dealing with complaints. I hope that they don't do this, but recently I have been hearing that the FOS have been rejecting complaints at an early stage. I suppose they are trying to avoid sitting on a complaint for months and then saying they can't deal with them.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I'm finding the FCA far more pro-active than all the other regulatory bodies.

[Alex_DeLarge]

Just read this thread from start to finish, sad to see Lowells have not changed in the 5 1/2 years since I joined the CAG.