Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
  • 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 
      • 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 3631 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...