Cap 1- full and final offer?

[goodatresearch]

Could you please start your own thread? This one is about Lowell acquiring Capital One accounts.

 

Thx

 

No need to start my own thread. My comments are very relevant as they relate to the legitimacy of NOAs generally. Sorry you can't see that. You argue that NOA are legitimate and pointless to challenge, but they have successfully been challenged I.e. right to sue. Do some research.

[goodatresearch]

An O C has no right to pursue a debt they have already sold.

 

If by DCA you mean debt purchaser and if you are still being pursued by the original creditor , you need to start a new thread, flesh out some detail and name names - essential because ppl on here are familiar with most of the antics of most of the brigands.

 

DCAs can be debt purchasers. My post is quite clear what I mean.

[oleg]

Many ppl who appear on this forum confuse DCAs and debt purchasers. What exactly you meant was not clear since you had not identified at that stage. And I was not attempting to be combative but merely to clarify.

 

I did not say that all notices of assignment are necessarily genuine or valid . I was talking about those produced by Lowell under a rolling agreement with Capital 1 and other major debt sellers.

[goodatresearch]

Many ppl who appear on this forum confuse DCAs and debt purchasers. What exactly you meant was not clear since you had not identified at that stage. And I was not attempting to be combative but merely to clarify.

 

I did not say that all notices of assignment are necessarily genuine or valid . I was talking about those produced by Lowell under a rolling agreement with Capital 1 and other major debt sellers.

My posting was quite clear - received NOA from DCA and OC confirm they've sold to same, what's unclear.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

My posting was quite clear - received NOA from DCA and OC confirm they've sold to same, what's unclear.

This one "incident" in now mean/indicate that all NOAs are suspect/fake or otherwise improper.

To believe show more that you have issues personally not that you have "researched" this properly.

[goodatresearch]

If people want to blindly pay an alleged debt purchaser because of a NOA purporting to be from the last owner without 1st checking with the last owner, more fool them (and yes I know its standard practice for the new purchaser to send the NOA in this way).

 

I personally think you should always check and iv been proved right. I could now be paying both the OC and the new owners as both claim ownership.

 

But then I'm only relying on my many years of crossing my t,s and dotting my i's

Edited August 11, 2014 by ims21

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If people want to blindly pay an alleged debt purchaser because of a NOA purporting to be from the last owner without 1st checking with the last owner, more fool them (and yes I know its standard practice for the new purchaser to send the NOA in this way).

 

I personally think you should always check and iv been proved right. I could now be paying both the OC and the new owners as both claim ownership.

 

But then I'm only relying on my many years of crossing my t,s and dotting my i's .

 

 

Nothing you have said indicates that All NOAs are faulty/forge/fake just that challenging every one would be Futile as one such incident is not significant.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ims21

[goodatresearch]

Nothing you have said indicates that All NOAs are faulty/forge/fake just that challenging every one would be Futile

 

 

 

I at no time said all NOA are fake and i havent at any time said you should challenge every one. I just sent the OC a simple letter asking them to confirm ownership. Asking for confirmation is quite reasonable and sensible and I'm at a loss why you have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Any way this isn't the 1st time you've had a problem with my observations so probably won't post again. Can't be bothered with the aggravation and the ego's.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ims21

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I at no time said all NOA are fake and i havent at any time said you should challenge every one. I just sent the OC a simple letter asking them to confirm ownership. Asking for confirmation is quite reasonable and sensible and I'm at a loss why you have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Any way this isn't the 1st time you've had a problem with my observations so probably won't post again. Can't be bothered with the aggravation and the ego's.

No problems, just posting opinions and observations!

 

N

Edited August 11, 2014 by ims21

[Hacked_Off]

Lowell have taken over the default and have been kind enough to change the default date by one year

[Hacked_Off]

Correction, they've changed the default by two years from 2008 to 2010. I screen grabbed the original.

[unclebulgaria67]

Without reading every post, going by what you said which is that you made a last payment towards this debt in March 2009. Allow a couple of months for the default to be entered, meaning that the default date would be around say May 2009 and the debt would not be statute barred until May 2015.

 

So where are you with this debt ? Have you requested the CCA yet ? What theats are Lowells currently making ? If the debt is less than £300, I can't see Lowells passing to Solicitors to issue a court claim, as they might struggle to gain payment.

[Hacked_Off]

It's for 237. I've not acknowledged lowlifes yet.no threats yet just oh so polite "we want to help you" letters. I did get a letter last week saying "capital one have noted you have not yet responded and have asked us to write to you again". Which I thought was odd seeing as Lowell have bought it.

[unclebulgaria67]

It's for 237. I've not acknowledged lowlifes yet.no threats yet just oh so polite "we want to help you" letters. I did get a letter last week saying "capital one have noted you have not yet responded and have asked us to write to you again". Which I thought was odd seeing as Lowell have bought it.

 

Don't think you need to do anything at the moment.

 

If Lowells or anyone acting for them do start threatening saying that they will issue a court claim, send them a CCA request, asking them for a copy statement from CapOne showing the last payment made by you.

 

I would think that Lowells have amended the default date, as they have received different information from CapOne. I don't think they would just alter the default date, without there being information received to support this.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Correction, they've changed the default by two years from 2008 to 2010. I screen grabbed the original.

Have you checked all CRA files, there's been some mistakes on the free agencies recently.

 

 

If this is the case and Lowell have changed/manipulated the data on the CRA files raise notice of dispute with the CRAs.

 

 

Make a formal complaint to Ms Sara de Tute the Director of Legal & Compliance at the Lowell Group, give Lowell 7 working days to rectify and inform that the "mistake" is being referred to the ICO and the FCA.

[Hacked_Off]

Have you checked all CRA files, there's been some mistakes on the free agencies recently.

 

 

If this is the case and Lowell have changed/manipulated the data on the CRA files raise notice of dispute with the CRAs.

 

 

Make a formal complaint to Ms Sara de Tute the Director of Legal & Compliance at the Lowell Group, give Lowell 7 working days to rectify and inform that the "mistake" is being referred to the ICO and the FCA.

 

Actually looking at it properly I was looking at the wrong default, the crap1 default has entirely disappeared.

[Hacked_Off]

Don't think you need to do anything at the moment.

 

If Lowells or anyone acting for them do start threatening saying that they will issue a court claim, send them a CCA request, asking them for a copy statement from CapOne showing the last payment made by you.

 

I would think that Lowells have amended the default date, as they have received different information from CapOne. I don't think they would just alter the default date, without there being information received to support this.

 

That's the thing though I've had a noa from lowells so if they've bought the debt why would cap1 be instructing them?! Makes no sense to me.

 

And yeah that's the plan ignore then cca once the threats start.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Actually looking at it properly I was looking at the wrong default, the crap1 default has entirely disappeared.

Ok.

[Hacked_Off]

Nice letter today from Lowell begging me to pay because they "want to help" and offering a 15% discount.

[goodatresearch]

So, going from this entry, Lowell's are claiming ownership via NOA but cap1 say theyve instructed them? Is that correct?

 

And one poster on here questions why I would make further enquiries re ownership and the poster insults my research skills (constantly). Don't you just love it when your right.

 

 

That's the thing though I've had a noa from lowells so if they've bought the debt why would cap1 be instructing them?! Makes no sense to me.

 

And yeah that's the plan ignore then cca once the threats start.

[Hacked_Off]

So, going from this entry, Lowell's are claiming ownership via NOA but cap1 say theyve instructed them? Is that correct?

 

And one poster on here questions why I would make further enquiries re ownership and the poster insults my research skills (constantly). Don't you just love it when your right.

 

The letter says

 

" Lowell portfolio wrote to you recently to let you know they have bought the outstanding balance you had with capital one. You have not yet cleared the outstanding balance, so they have asked us to get in touch"

[goodatresearch]

OK, that's clearer. What they mean is that they're acting on Lowell's behalf. That's not what you actually said is it, you indicated that cap 1 said they'd instructed Lowell's.

 

Never mind I understand, these letters can be difficult to understand for the lay person.

 

I however stand by what I have previously said, if in doubt question everything and check with the OC or previous owner. Especially if you don't understand their communications, which it would appear you didn't.

 

To be clear, this isnt a critisism, I really understand your confusion. DCAs/debt purchasers letters are frequently badly worded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The letter says

 

" Lowell portfolio wrote to you recently to let you know they have bought the outstanding balance you had with capital one. You have not yet cleared the outstanding balance, so they have asked us to get in touch"

[Hacked_Off]

OK, that's clearer. What they mean is that they're acting on Lowell's behalf. That's not what you actually said is it, you indicated that cap 1 said they'd instructed Lowell's.

 

Never mind I understand, these letters can be difficult to understand for the lay person.

 

I however stand by what I have previously said, if in doubt question everything and check with the OC or previous owner.

 

I'm not a lay person babe, I think your the one whose confused. "They have asked us to get in touch" implies cap 1 are instructing Lowell does is not?

[goodatresearch]

Your fighting the wrong battle, I'm on your side. I to have received contradictory letters which puts in to question ownership and that's why I always suggest a paper trail to all parties asking for the written response to relevant questions.

 

Don't like to be rude, but if your not a lay person you would know how to respond to questionable communications,

 

 

 

I'm not a lay person babe, I think your the one whose confused. "They have asked us to get in touch" implies cap 1 are instructing Lowell does is not?

[Hacked_Off]

Your fighting the wrong battle, I'm on your side. I to have received contradictory letters which puts in to question ownership and that's why I always suggest a paper trail to all parties asking for the written response to relevant questions.

 

Don't like to be rude, but if your not a lay person you would know how to respond to questionable communications,

 

 

Clearly you are rude...

 

 

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