Debt purchaser account on hold pending investigation dodgy stat demand, trust or not?

[storm01]

Hi,

If a well known nasty debt purchaser has put in writing account on hold whilst they investigate complaint,

but you have had a dodgy stat demand,

can you trust it's not just a delaying tactic,

if you don't set aside dodgy stat demand?

 

By dodgy SD I mean they had part of the Warning missing, no page number, no form ref ie 6.1. Sorry I can't scan anything at the moment!

 

As well as that the alleged debt was in dispute about three years ago with original creditor, re. CCA as it was just an application form leaflet.

 

I have contacted the debt purchaser and their legal dept, who state they will try to obtain agreement,

they shouldn't have tried to start the bankruptcy process should they?

 

They have stated no collection activity until after they resolve my complaint,

which I bombarded them with all sorts, to several members (at the top).

 

I asked for clarification that they are withdrawing SD, they replied with the same, no collectio activity.

 

I don't really want to have the bother of set aside hearing with court as I am quite ill,

I want them to withdraw and not petition regardless, ie when they get the copy agreement, despite me telling them it is unenforceable,

as the judge may just say i've borrowed, so owe it.

 

I am also aware of no Deed of assignment being served etc,

 

I just wonder if it's a LOW DOWN trick or if persons have been safe in them not petitioning,

when a complaint has been looked into by senior complaints department.

 

If the SD has part of the warning information missing and no numbers on pages, does this mean it is not as prescribed, so can't be used in court?

[dx100uk]

name names.

 

i would not ever assume an SD IS a debt collection trick.

 

ALWAYS get it set aside.

 

tell us the complete story

 

dx

[storm01]

Hiya, it's 'Lowdown' lol.

I was just being careful, as they apparently read, but actually don't think it matters.

 

It was an old Argos card, last payment probably 2009.

Lowdown bought it, so they say,

but I have asked for proof, thrown the fact it remains under dispute with OC due to CCA etc. (Did all that in 2009/2010). This is not a statute barred!

 

The Stat. Demand was put through letterbox, no envelope.

I studied on here but it is a vast site, saw that they do petition.

 

I studied the paperwork as it is just an A4 print-off, but they have part of the warning missing

ie the bit that should say seek help from CAB and the bit about my possessions could be sold (words to effect of).

 

They have not specified when the debt started,

just in general that it was a Home Retail Grp store card and was defaulted on, such a date, that Lowdown bought it etc.

 

I would have thought it wasn't as prescribed with the warning bit cropped, but not sure if a court would worry about that.

 

It named a litigation executive, but after part of my bombardments via email to them,

they finally responded and it said collection executive after the name,

 

I threw a lot of info back at them, with unenforceable, under dispute,

they posted me a letter stating they are putting on hold for 28 days and will seek the copy agreement, along with other documents I asked for...assignment, default etc.

 

I then threw back at them that they were not permitted to have my data, not permitted to send SD on disputed debt

and they had no agreement or documents, as a solicitor they should have investigated before trying to use the Bankruptcy process or chase the alleged debt.

 

Lowdown bosses were also emailed and passed it to complaints dept. who have put on hold,

so I demanded clarification that they have cancelled the SD, to which they have failed to clarify, for obvious reasons,

keeping their options open,

 

they came back again with rest assured no collection activity will take place whilst they look into my complaint.

 

It is a hassle for me to get to the court to set aside, but clearly I don't want a petition either.

 

I think any other DCA would throw back to OC, but have read Lowdown carry on to court.

 

I kind of hoped someone had a similar experience and would say that they did withdraw the SD......ever hopeful.

 

I know I can get the laws for defending, just don't trust my luck with the judge on the day.

[dx100uk]

lowlife are not a solicitor

 

dx

[storm01]

Thanks, forgive me

 

BW Legal litigation executive was named as contact on the SD,

they ignored me for a week,

 

then I had a letter through the post and an email stating they can't respond via email due to Data Protection,

they needed to go through Security questions,

 

except I had some maybe sarcastic answers I sent back.

 

I have been emailing them and also Lowell and switching copying in between both parties' bosses, several times.

 

I think the BW Legal boss has contacted Lowell to get them to reply etc, probably fed up with me.

 

Prior to all this it was Hamptons Legal letter offering a reduction to half price.

I didn't answer them, in august, so there was no further warning before the SD.

 

I have reported to OFT and Leeds Trading Standards for using SD without having the paperwork,

nor investigating whether it was under dispute, like we know they don't do.

 

I am quite poorly but doing a jumbled defence thing at the moment, picking up on every little thing I can think of.

 

We are talking just over £1000 on this particular debt..

but they have taken on a bigger one of mine, for which was after 2006 amendment to CCA.

[dx100uk]

the issue of them offering a discount does often point toward the debt and thus the SD being 'spoof'

 

however dont rely on it being so.

 

dx

[storm01]

Thanks dx,

 

I was just in two minds, if they would agree to withdraw in writing, so I don't have to struggle to make it to court to set aside etc. I raised the question to 'Hamptons' as to no expiry on the offer. (My thinking, as it would then be under the Bankruptcy threshold), however I don't actually have the money, I barely have a food budget. I have mega debt and mortgage, CAB, CCCS etc told me to offer token payments a few years back to several companies, it was refused at first, then I found this site etc.

 

I guess I will have to set aside then, only got couple of days and faulty printer, hope to fix it later today.

 

Thanks

[42man]

You will find a number of other threads on here concerning bwlegal and Lowells, if you have had a dispute then you should certainly set it aside. And if, and only if you have their withdrawal in writing should you then not set aside.

[storm01]

Hi there, thank you.

 

After this post,

I bombarded a bit more via email and copied in to the seniors again (they must have had enough of me by now),

 

I pointed out a few flaws again, such as claiming personal service which did not occur and pointing out I consider it potentially a Police matter.

 

Remember this was an altered SD, with parts of Warning missing etc.

 

I put in big bold letters if I didn't get full clarity on whether they were with drawing the SD there would be even more costs and compensation claims via court.

 

I have had an email back confirming SD withdrawn and cancelled.

 

However I am led to believe they are going to respond to my complaint after they complete the investigation into obtaining info from OC.

 

I also have a bigger alleged debt they have bought, which may be more tricky as falls under newer CCA amendment 2006.

 

So I think I am safe not to do the set aside,

 

I assume the terms withdrawn/cancelled via email suffice.

 

I didn't expect them to bough down and they may try something else.

 

I am still immensely wound up though.

Thanks guys ;-)

[storm01]

And sure enough, here we go with the next alleged debt (bigger sum) and after 2006.....no delay there then! Just updating, but will read thru other posts

[babydoll0141917]

My OH has also Had a SD from BWlegal ..working on behalf of Lowells..He didnt set it aside..they wrote to him and said they will issue a BR petition if he doesnt come to a mutral agreement B..He is paying them £5 per month ..He has nothing in the way of assets so he would be better off BR,,.They want a I & E form done as they want to set the amount he pays ..told them to bog off thats personally,,Will send them an email tomorrow

 

and yes they wont commuicate via Email Coz of Data protection what a load of waffle

[cerberusalert]

and yes they wont commuicate via Email Coz of Data protection what a load of waffle

Odd that really considering lawyers and the courts use emails all the time.

[babydoll0141917]

I think its just another way for DCAs to be Awkward Cerb..I did quote on one of my Emails to BWlegal.. that if OH was to phone them how on earth would they know it was him ..He could just give a mate all the info they would ask,,they didnt even comment ..what a surprise

[cerberusalert]

Any that try that trick are told that they are not worth wasting postage on, but if they are willing to provide SAEs then they'll be used otherwise they can lump it.

[storm01]

Thanks 'guys'...I scrutinised everything, not really knowing if the SD was genuine etc, then picked flaws and threw them back, bombarding....I say, via email!!! Copy in to [email protected] actually my SD was very flawed, as I paid the two pound for statutory credit file and the sum was different to defaulted amount as well as parts of SD warning missing etc, so tell em it's unlawful. When Lowell emailed I replied on that and copied in to BW telling them, as Lowell replied etc...

As that was the lower, I figured if they chased again and I couldn't stop a petition, I had some grounds..maybe get it under £750 before court...not sure if that works and I don't have that money this minute.

My second alleged debt they straight away sent letter giving me 15 days from date of letter, I have emailed back saying OC in default for not supplying agreement and under Data protection Act 1998 they are to stop chasing and pass it back.....not holding breath on that! The 15 days can't be valid as I didn't read the letter on the date they well, dated it, so I wouldn't have had 15 days, it took three to arrive...good argument me thinks????? The bit threatening CCJ or SD, I think the SD bit can't be done a second time in succession???? Although it is a different matter, it's same company and think they needed to add the two together? As the first SD was cancelled (so they say) surely that is ammunition? Vexatious!