Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They didn't turn up because they knew they would lose so they saved the cost of sending a brief saving them a couple of hundred pounds at least. But still a big relief for you now that it's all over . So congratulations plus you can enjoy your trip that much more. 
    • I will try again...................... Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos.  But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute. The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA. It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled. But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar  with all  the relevant dates. 
    • Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card   An HM Armed Forces Veteran Card is a way to prove that you served in the UK armed forces. The card can make it quicker and easier to apply for support as a veteran. It’s free to apply. You can currently only apply for a Veteran Card if you have a UK address. Veterans who do not have a UK address will be able to apply later this year. READ MORE HERE: Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Apply for an armed forces veteran card to prove that you served in the UK armed forces.
    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 
        • 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
  • Recommended Topics

barclaycard debt sold to Lowell - chasing BC debt


Hacked_Off
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3632 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

good news:

I have investigated the matter and this letter sets out the result of those investigations.

 

Summary of your complaint ·

 

You have previously made a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to Barclaycard which is yet to be complied with·

You believe this debt to be statute barred· We have been misleading in informing you that we have supplied full statements in response to a DSAR you made to us and we have advised that you would be able to acquire statements from Barclaycard· We are reporting a default from a date that precedes the point of our purchase My findings I apologise if you feel we have been misleading in our responses.

 

I can assure you that we were not implying that we provided statements in response to your DSAR and it appears that there has been a degree of misunderstanding surrounding our correspondence of 7th January 2013. For clarity, statements were supplied to you on 4th January 2013 in addition to the DSAR information we supplied in April 2012. As we do not hold original documentation on file we acquired this from Barclaycard on request. Statements would be provided as part of a DSAR to Barclaycard, not from us.

 

As these have been provided regardless I do not believe that your request in this respect has been left unattended. I have contacted Barclaycard who advise that they responded to the DSAR submitted in order to obtain information on their files on 7th February 2013 which you should now be in receipt of. Included in this should be evidence that the last payment made towards the outstanding balance was for £5.00 on 3rd April 2009 and that this was done electronically. As such I can advise this debt is not statute barred.

 

Please find attached a copy of our notice of assignment which, under the Law of Property Act 1925 is sufficient evidence that we are the legal owners of this debt and that we are permitted to pursue the full balance. This was originally sent to you on 5th July 2011. In respect of your comments surrounding the reporting of the default I can advise that we do not add defaults to an individuals’ credit file but amend existing ones into our name upon our purchase. This explains why the original default date precedes the date of our purchase.

 

Due to the above I believe this balance and our subsequent pursuance to be valid. I can confirm, however, in the interests of bringing this matter to a swift conclusion and without prejudice, that I have arranged for the immediate closure of the account. You will hear no further from us in relation to this matter. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you and I hope that this response concludes the matter to your satisfaction.

 

The Lowell Group of companies is committed to resolving complaints in a fair and consistent manner and I hope you have found this to be the case. I believe I have fully answered your complaint, however if you would like to discuss things further please do not hesitate to contact me on 0800 542 0058 or write to me at the address above.

 

If I do not hear from you in the next couple of weeks, I will consider the matter closed, but this does not prevent you from coming back to us after this time.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 367
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Grrrrr , about updating/removing the credit marker

 

 

I must respectfully disagree with your comments. The account has not been satisfied nor settled as we have received no payments towards it or found any grounds for it to be invalid. The default will therefore remain as such.

 

Should you wish to settle the matter in order to update your credit file I would be happy to reopen the account in order for you to do so.

 

Alternatively, and as previously advised, if you have any additional information or evidence that would make me consider my position I would be willing to review it.

 

Should you respond without any additional information I must decline to comment further but will, of course, note the content of any correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the default they have marked says 2009 but they didn't buy it until 2010. They say the reason for this is when they took over the account, they updated the default to their name. Surely they can't do that? Hardly a "true representation" of the account

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be construed as ''vexatious'' I suppose, perhaps a call to the ICO to clarify the fairness of continued reporting as the account file has been closed.

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

Also the default they have marked says 2009 but they didn't buy it until 2010. They say the reason for this is when they took over the account, they updated the default to their name. Surely they can't do that? Hardly a "true representation" of the account

 

Yes that's exactly what they must do replace the creditors name with theirs, a proper representation of the status of the account defaulte in 2009 is right, unless of course you would prefer them to place the default from the date Lowell aquired the debt, which of course would be totally wrong!!

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

Also there's something on the last page I don't understand:

 

CHRGOFF PURCH FEES 114.26

CHRGOFF CADV UNPD FIN CH 4.84

CHRGOFF PRCH UNPD FIN CH 30.27

CHRGOFF CADV PRIN BAL M 50.00

CHEGOFF PRCH PRIN BALM 191.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they out of time? (40 days?) If so it won't hurt to give them a little reminder before reporting them to the ICO.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens

 

I cashed that cheque in a pawn brokers. They have just called me and said they have been unable to cash it. The pawn brokers cash with Barclays. Barclays blame Barclaycard, Barclaycard blame Barclays. And in the mean time I have the manager of the pawn brokers on my case and she has been threatened with the money being taken from her own wages!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, been on the phone to Barclaycard and their saying oh well just have to issue another cheque...and in the mean time I get stalked by the brokers and the poor woman has her wages raided!!! Unbelievable!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, what reason was given for being unable to''cash'' the cq.?

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

I can only think there is some kind of ''security'' built in to stop 3rd party cheque cashing facilites from banking them.

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

:madgrin:

I can only think there is some kind of ''security'' built in to stop 3rd party cheque cashing facilites from banking them.

 

Caution HO people have been banged up for saying bless than that

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

I can only think there is some kind of ''security'' built in to stop 3rd party cheque cashing facilites from banking them.

 

That's the thing though, I cashed my ppi cheque early and there was no problem whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead professional isn't he:

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I honestly have no idea. I can confirm that we have not yet sent you a cheque in relation to your complaint that I dealt with.

 

Which dept sent you the cheque...whats it for ?

Is the cheque in your correct name ?

Does it say "payee only" (this means you have to pay it into your bank account...you can't cash it)

Is it properly signed (1 or 2 signatures ?)

What is h and t white chapel - is that a pawnbroker ?

Do you not have a bank account the cheque can be paid into?

 

Let me know and I will see what I can do to help...but please note..any cheque issued by us will say "payee only" across it.

 

Thanks

 

 

Senior Case Manager

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...