Cap 1- full and final offer?

[goodatresearch]

I certainly didn't mean to be, just trying to help. I find it difficult to believe that someone that isn't a lay person wouldn't query questionable letters.

 

I remember a new bright eyed law grad helping out in my department complaining that a client had complained that the info the defendant was relying upon was wrong, her argument was that the defendant insurance co couldn't possibly lie. She was too inexperienced to know that you have to question everything to protect your clients position.

 

That isn't being rude, its being realistic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly you are rude...

[Hacked_Off]

not realistic you are RUDE and argumentative. I have better things to do, goodbye.

[goodatresearch]

You don't know who owns the account. Ask for clarification, and if the response is ambiguous, complain to FOS and receive compensation. Simple.

[goodatresearch]

Your being very silly. Im only suggesting you write and ask for confirmation of ownership, what can possibly be wrong with that. The problem is that many company's send out template letters without checking they are relevant. You can use this to your advantage.

 

The only other person that has said this is the wrong path is one person who had a problem with my advice, regardless what my advise is,

 

What on earth is wrong with questioning the validity of creditors/DCAs/purchasers letters. I feel like I'm being treated like the anti Christ. Ridiculous.

 

By the way, I received questionable letters re ownership and the company's involved are now £200 short due and counting due to FOS decisions.

 

Clearly you are rude...

 

 

Going down the route you suggest, as has been said by others, is the wrong battle to fight.

[goodatresearch]

Then just pay everyone who claims liability and ownership. Dont question anything and heaven forbid you ask for evidence. If that makes me rude, unrealistic and argumentatative so be it. My clients were always happy with my performance.

 

Clearly you are rude...

 

 

Going down the route you suggest, as has been said by others, is the wrong battle to fight.

[ims21]

Guys could we please keep some civility to all of this.

 

Thanks

[oleg]

You seriously need to review how you interact with other posters before you present yourself as victim. On this thread alone you have, without hesitation, launched unprovoked attacks on three people, myself included. You would have thrown a wobbly and more had I told you to do some "research", especially on a subject in which I would hope I am better versed than you. But I let it pass - in the interests of civility.

 

As someone who has close connections with Gaza and the West Bank, I am not the first on this forum to jump to celebrate Rosh Hashana but nor do I see festive wishes as something to get worked up about. It is an excellent example of how you seize on - and personalise - the tiniest imaginary irritant.

 

And while we're at it, if you think we all submissively take at face value the veracity of every NoA, that is not the case at all. You are not alone in having obtained redress from FoS.

 

However, the letters Hacked has received are routine documents from Lowell's threat mill. Unpleasant to receive but, alas, legitimate.

[oleg]

Hi Hacked

If I were in your shoes now , I would just let Lowell proceed until they reach the end of their threat chain, usually in the form of a final discount, on Hamptons Legal letterhead.

 

Then you can consider your options. Quite frankly, for such a modest sum, I don't see them rushing for a CCJ but you can easily deflect any such threat by way of a CCA. Most older C1 agreements are, as previously noted, either unenforceable or untraceable. However, this is not always the case, so you should delay the CCA request for now if you are trying to bide time to reach S B.

[oleg]

Oh btw don't let yourself get distracted by Lowell's silly name games. In the "they asked us to get in touch" letter, "they" means Lowell Financial and "us" means Lowell Portfolio I - or is it the other way around and does anyone care? But my point is, it's not at all about Capital One.

 

It's a second chain letter which they must spew forth thousands of times a day. Often viewed on threads here as hamster bedding.

[Hacked_Off]

Oh btw don't let yourself get distracted by Lowell's silly name games. In the "they asked us to get in touch" letter, "they" means Lowell Financial and "us" means Lowell Portfolio I - or is it the other way around and does anyone care? But my point is, it's not at all about Capital One.

 

It's a second chain letter which they must spew forth thousands of times a day. Often viewed on threads here as hamster bedding.

 

Yes, my gerbil is happy with all the extra bedding of late

[fkofilee]

Yes, my gerbil is happy with all the extra bedding of late

 

Really?... Thats expensive quality paper you're feeding him... Oh wait... YOU DIDNT PAY FOR IT

 

Lowell Financial consist off Lowell Portfolio 1-5, Red Collection and Hampton Legal, SRJ, Fredericksons, etc... Expect it to be passed round...

[goodatresearch]

I haven't attacked anyone. You really need to read my posts again.

 

I mearly meant that if you you receive contradictory letters then use them to your advantage and question them. If nothing else they may slow down the DCA/debt purchaser machine.

 

I would be a little worried about ignoring Lowell's, or letting them go through their usual motions, you only need one over zealous team leader to suggest escalatation. Don't also forget Lowell's can be quite arrogant, they have been known to start litigation without any paperwork.

 

 

You seriously need to review how you interact with other posters before you present yourself as victim. On this thread alone you have, without hesitation, launched unprovoked attacks on three people, myself included. You would have thrown a wobbly and more had I told you to do some "research", especially on a subject in which I would hope I am better versed than you. But I let it pass - in the interests of civility.

 

As someone who has close connections with Gaza and the West Bank, I am not the first on this forum to jump to celebrate Rosh Hashana but nor do I see festive wishes as something to get worked up about. It is an excellent example of how you seize on - and personalise - the tiniest imaginary irritant.

 

And while we're at it, if you think we all submissively take at face value the veracity of every NoA, that is not the case at all. You are not alone in having obtained redress from FoS.

 

However, the letters Hacked has received are routine documents from Lowell's threat mill. Unpleasant to receive but, alas, legitimate.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I haven't attacked anyone. You really need to read my posts again.

 

I mearly meant that if you you receive contradictory letters then use them to your advantage and question them. If nothing else they may slow down the DCA/debt purchaser machine.

 

I would be a little worried about ignoring Lowell's, or letting them go through their usual motions, you only need one over zealous team leader to suggest escalatation. Don't also

 

 

 

 

forget Lowell's can be quite arrogant, they have been known to start litigation without any paperwork.

 

 

 

 

 

Well said Oleg!!!

 

 

Happy New Year!

[goodatresearch]

I am a proud member of a multi faith multi cultural family so the insunation that I have a problem with the actual festival has made my whole family laugh heartedly so thanks for the amusement.

 

Happy new year to you also.

 

Can we now get back on topic instead of discussing what you think of me.

 

Well said Oleg!!!

Happy New Year!

[citizenB]

Can we now get back on topic instead of discussing what you think of me.

 

 

An excellent plan !!

[Hacked_Off]

Another letter today telling me "we still want to help" and they MAY send this to their "internal debt collectors, red collections" which MAY result in litigation. Quite amusing really.

[Old Cogger]

we all been getting that one saying it has been passed to Red

[citizenB]

Another letter today telling me "we still want to help" and they MAY send this to their "internal debt collectors, red collections" which MAY result in litigation. Quite amusing really.

 

At least they are being less ambiguous and confirming that Red are their internal debt collectors.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

At least they are being less ambiguous and confirming that Red are their internal debt collectors.

 

 

The message that "openness" is required when communicating with alleged debtors does seem to be sinking in at last!

[citizenB]

The message that "openness" is required when communicating with alleged debtors does seem to be sinking in at last!

 

It must be seriously affecting the way in which they work, "being open and honest when communicating" is nowhere as scary as being ambiguous!. Even more reason for people to insist on communication in writing.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It must be seriously affecting the way in which they work, "being open and honest when communicating" is nowhere as scary as being ambiguous!. Even more reason for people to insist on communication in writing.

I could not agree more CB.

 

 

In writing, copies kept, far better and safer than e-mails as one cannot be sure they get to the right person or indeed anyone that can deal properly with the matter in hand.

[Hacked_Off]

we all been getting that one saying it has been passed to Red

 

 

 

Yes, but my point was Lowell have clearly changed tact. Wonder why coughwongacough.

[oleg]

Hi Hacked

 

No change of tact whatsoever. In fact I raised my eyebrows at seeing approbatory words regarding Lowell's supposedly new transparency.

 

Wondering whether my memory was deceiving me, I got hold of a letter nearly 5 years old. Exactly same tosh about "sending" the account to Red Debt Collection Services - "our internal specialist collection agency".

 

The next letter you will receive in the chain warns that the "balance is not going to go away". Well all the ones I've handled [ignored] have gone away - at S B - and they've received not a crumb.

 

Hacked, with respect, you don't need to report every template letter from Lowell. The process and content are familiar and predictable. I gave a summary earlier in this thread.

 

And don't get fixated on their "may" "could" etc. They just mean "won't". You should report if something you deem out of the ordinary arrives. .

 

[Oh and btw I ignored Godatresearch's last ill informed manipulative salvo deliberately. I'm patient. I'll respond, if indeed it's worth it, in my own time and in a way not to detract from your thread.]

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Hacked

 

No change of tact whatsoever. In fact I raised my eyebrows at seeing approbatory words regarding Lowell's supposedly new transparency.

 

Wondering whether my memory was deceiving me, I got hold of a letter nearly 5 years old. Exactly same tosh about "sending" the account to Red Debt Collection Services - "our internal specialist collection agency".

 

The next letter you will receive in the chain warns that the "balance is not going to go away". Well all the ones I've handled [ignored] have gone away - at S B - and they've received not a crumb.

 

Hacked, with respect, you don't need to report every template letter from Lowell. The process and content are familiar and predictable. I gave a summary earlier in this thread.

 

And don't get fixated on their "may" "could" etc. They just mean "won't". You should report if something you deem out of the ordinary arrives. .

 

[Oh and btw I ignored Godatresearch's last ill informed manipulative salvo deliberately. I'm patient. I'll respond, if indeed it's worth it, in my own time and in a way not to detract from your thread.]

 

 

 

The change that instead of just stating that a debt has " been sent to Red" Lowell now states "Red our internal Collections department" rather than the small print "trading style" statement on the foot of the letter.

[beachcomber60]

I've been following this thread with great interest, as I'm in exactly the same position.

 

Any updates?

 

I've ignored all their letters & now on letter two from Red offering me to pay 70% of the outstanding balance (£6500), if I don't contact them then the next letter will be from Hamptons Legal as they have searched my credit file (no they haven't).

 

Six months from SB, CP1 have confirmed in writing many years ago they can't provide anything other then a copy of a signed signature strip & their DN is defective.