barclaycard debt sold to Lowell - chasing BC debt

[ims21]

£1.3k

[Hacked_Off]

can you explain the difference between the two please?

[ims21]

Yes, the 1.3k is the total amount of charges they have taken from you and the interest on them right up to date. This is working on the basis of interest in restitution which many others have been successful in getting back from BC.

 

The £700 was simply an exercise we carried out to make sure that the default was made up purely of charges at the time it was issued and that being the case it makes the default invalid. Accordingly we can require the default to be removed as part of the claim.

Edited July 6, 2013 by ims21

[Hacked_Off]

i'm following, thanks for your input!

[Hacked_Off]

Unsurprisingly, sharkleys have completely ignored my lba.

[Hacked_Off]

Pay day in two weeks, so time to file. Barclays have completely ignored my lba and a reminder!

[Hacked_Off]

I've tried chasing up the FOS about the default as it was part of the complaint I lodged about the charges.

 

They're telling me I will need to complain again.

I argued hang one why are you choosing to ignore part of my complaint and telling me to do it again.

 

I've now come to the conclusion the FOS are completely incompetent and not worth the effort of dialling their number!!

 

Barclaycard have also chosen to ignore all communications from me.

 

Could anyone help me with the POC I will be filling (hopefully) tomorrow.

 

Thanks muchly

[citizenB]

I will flag your S.O.S for those on the Site team, HO.. however, I think those that might be able to advise are not online at the moment.

 

[Hacked_Off]

thanks very much as always

[citizenB]

[slick132]

Hi HO,

 

See this post here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?383637-Lowells-Barclaycard&p=4294284&viewfull=1#post4294284

 

I advise that you read through BC *WON* threads here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?97-Barclays-BCard-and-Woolwich-successes

 

Also see TrancyB's BC thread here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?368541-trancyb-vs-Barclaycard

 

It's important that you include mention in your PoC about :-

 

1. Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners if you are claiming Restitutionary compound interest.

 

2. Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council if you are claiming charges older than 6 years using s.32(1)© Limitation Act 1980.

 

[Hacked_Off]

Ta muchly

[Hacked_Off]

I've disputed the default with noddle, here's their response:

 

I hope you’re well. I’m just emailing as I’ve heard back from our Disputes Team.

 

The outcomes of both of your previous disputes were that no changes were permitted by Lowell. They advised us the account has been reviewed by their complaints department and they still believe there is an outstanding balance. Therefore, to resolve this issue, you’ll have to contact Lowell directly.

 

As we’ve disputed this for your previously, we won’t do so again – please don’t re raise this dispute. As mentioned previously, if you do decide to re raise this dispute, your account will be locked.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe

The Noddle Team

 

I have three emails from Lowell confining the account is closed;

 

" As outlined in my original response, I can confirm the account has been closed and that this is the last you will hear of the matter from ourselves or any other organisation.

 

I trust this is satisfactory.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Robert Hardy

Customer Relations Officer

Lowell Group"

 

Surely this account showing under open accounts is incorrect??

 

Also noddle have got shirty and said they will lock my account if I raise anymore disputes, despite them agreeing to all my disputes apart from this one!!

[unclebulgaria67]

I think you should go straight to the ICO to make a complaint. You have given Lowells the opportunity to resolve and they haven't.

[volvo]

A good few years ago there were allegations made that a DCA had ''lifted'' a signature and ''forged;; an agreement using it, not sure if it was ever proved, I can say in many years of dealing with DCAs and debt problems I have never seen any such happening, if you require information from a company DCA/Creditor a signature will be needed to verify the ID of the person making the enquiry (DPA).

 

It's like printing your name on a cheque and expecting it to be honoured.

 

Institutions do just that, with cheques.....

 

 

Volvo

[DonkeyB]

Oh, it didn't need proof... Let's see if I can dig it out...

[DonkeyB]

Here’s some background reading. RBS and NatWest the culprits, not just some back-street DCA. Two of the victims are regulars here on CAG.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jul/25/royal-bank-loan-debt

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1241889/Evidence-grows-banks-lose-loan-contracts-they.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

 

Unfortunately I can’t locate a copy of the famous Jane Fraser RBS internal memo that admitted the skullduggery.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?129418-RBS-becoming-quot-inventive-quot-with-your-documents&p=2072688&viewfull=1#post2072688

 

Paul Walton had posted in the link above - perhaps he will see this thread and let us see a copy.

 

The only item I can find is this..

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46491[/ATTACH]

[DonkeyB]

That’s the beauty! Slam dunk...

[Hacked_Off]

I’m sorry to hear you’ve received conflicting information from Lowell and appreciate it must be a little frustrating.

 

Unfortunately, as my colleague mentioned, we’re unable to dispute this account any further as Lowell did not give us permission to make any changes to the account.

 

With this in mind, it might be worth making a formal complaint about Lowell to the Financial Ombudsman. I’ve had a look into this and found their complaints procedure here: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm.

 

I hope this helps and you’re able to get this resolved soon but do let me know if you need anything else, I’d be happy to help.

 

Thanks,

 

Alice

 

The Noddle Team

[Hacked_Off]

how's this for starters:

 

 

1. The Claimant has an account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on 18/04/2005.


 


2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged
interest

on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.


 


3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.


 


4. The Claimant contends that:




a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.


b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to
levy

such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.


 


 


5. Additionally, the Defendant has entered a default notice against the Claimant’s credit reference files. The Claimant contends that:


 


a) The defendant, as a data controller, is processing inaccurate data and the claimant requests the court makes an order for rectification under s.14 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The defendant has disclosed the claimant's
personal data

to third parties through their data processors of Equifax, Experian ...etc. The processing of data includes disclosing, disseminating and otherwise making available under s.1 of the Data Protection Act. The claimant's obtained from Experian, Equifax etc states that a default marker was placed by the defendant showing that the amount outstanding was £390. Experian, Equifax etc are processing this data on behalf of the defendant by disclosing the data to third parties.

1. 
   

The claimant submits that this data is incorrect as owing to unlawful charges totaling £704.00, a default marker is placed on a credit record where it can be established that the debtor was in serious breach of the credit agreement so that it is shown that the relationship of the creditor and debtor has broken down. This is generally where arrears are accrued and the debtor has failed to meet demands for payment. The breach to which the default refers occurred substantially in respect of unlawful charges levied by the Defendant or was the result of impercuniosities caused directly by the taking by the Defendant of penalty charges which were applied unlawfully to the account. The claimant submits that the application of unlawful charges and interest relating to such charges, to the account amounted to £1,397.86. It is thus submitted that the default marker is an inaccurate reflection of the relationship between the creditor and debtor and does not represent a serious breach of the contract. The Defendant has thus disclosed this inaccurate information , contrary to Schedule 1, Part 1,


1. 
   
6. Accordingly the Claimant claims:


a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £264.00 and interest charged thereon of £1,133.86; b) Court costs;


c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.


d) An order under s.14 to rectify incorrect data


 

[Bazooka Boo]

Unfortunately, as my colleague mentioned, we’re unable to dispute this account any further as Lowell did not give us permission to make any changes to the account.

Alice

The Noddle Team

 

Hmm, that would irritate me!!! Dear Alice, when did I give you my permission to allow Lowlifes to add incorrect data to MY credit files??

[Hacked_Off]

Hmm, that would irritate me!!! Dear Alice, when did I give you my permission to allow Lowlifes to add incorrect data to MY credit files??

 

I said that "Alice, then you are knowingly reporting information you know to be incorrect!"

 

They've ignored me

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

FOR challenges to CRA data a complaint to the ICO is the way forward.

 

'Alice' is correct Noddle (call credit which is where Noddles data is sourced) cannot amend or remove data without permission of the company which placed the entry.

[Hacked_Off]

From the ico:

 

In your case, the matters you have raised that are relevant to the DPA relate to the fourth data protection principle, that says:

 

“Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date”

 

You are concerned that BB are processing details on your credit file which are inaccurate, and you have asked BB to remove these details. But this has yet to be carried out.

 

Our decision

 

We have now written to BB, and received its response. In this case we have decided that it is unlikely that Barclays Bank Plc has complied with the requirements of the DPA.

 

This is because we have not been swayed by the arguments presented by BB that it is not reporting to credit reference agencies (CRA), on your account. We believe that on the balance of probability, the account that is being reported to credit reference agencies, is a BB account.

 

For this reason we believe that BB is likely to be in breach of the fourth principle of the DPA.

 

You produced an extract from your credit report dated 1 December 2012. Although this was of poor quality, we were able to decipher that Barclays Bank Plc has placed an entry for a defaulted account ending in x. It is in the sum of £232.00. With a default date of 16 January 2007.

 

You say that this account was settled in full some years ago and should not show on your credit file as a default.

 

BBs investigations have found that you did have an account with BB, x. BB says that the account was passed to recoveries in February 2007. With a balance of £232.45. But that in October 2007 the account was paid in full by you and closed. BB says that no further reporting on this account was carried out. BB suggested that I contact Barclaycard about your credit card account number ending in x . As it

 

could only presume that it was Barclaycard that was reporting to CRAs. I contacted Barclaycard and it confirmed that you did have a credit card with Barclaycard, but that the balance outstanding was £390.37 when it was sold to Lowells in June 2011. Barclaycard confirmed that it was not reporting to CRAs on your account.

 

However, Barclaycard has agreed for you to submit an up to date credit report to it, and it will carry out further investigations for you. Your upto date credit report should be sent to Barclaycard, FAO Richard Brameld, Senior Privacy & Data Protection Manager, 1234 Pavillion Drive, Northampton, NN4 7SG. Quoting reference x Its fax number is 01604 254150.

 

Your other options are to make a complaint directly to BB with the assistance of this compliance unlikely assessment and ask that it removes the entry for you.

 

Make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Or, finally, make an application to Court to have this inaccurate data removed.

 

Unfortunately, although we have made a compliance unlikely assessment in your case, the ICO does not have the necessary powers to force BB to correct this situation.

 

Having carefully considered all the facts of this case, we have decided that formal regulatory action is not required in this case at this time. However, you should be aware that we keep a record of all assessment decisions and will take these into account if we receive further complaints about BB. The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for regulatory action in the future.

 

When deciding whether regulatory action is appropriate, we take into account the organisation’s general record of compliance with the DPA (including any previous assessments we have made) and any other information that is in our possession (including information given during the course of those assessments).

 

Next steps

 

Most organisations will want to put things right when they have gone wrong and learn from complaints that are raised with them. Although we are not considering further action at this time, we have asked BB to consider the information we have provided during the course of this

 

assessment and take steps to prevent the situation from happening again.

 

We keep a record of all assessment decisions and will take these into account if we receive further complaints about BB. The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for regulatory action in the future.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Karen Rodrigues

Case Officer – Complaints Resolution

Direct dial number 01625 545565

 

Enclosed: ‘Important information for individuals’