Why have Lowell backed down?

[firstclassx]

About a year ago,

 

Ms First Class received a letter from Lowell about an telephone contract "debt" for about £500.

 

She remembers taking out the contract about 3 years ago,

and admitted that she probably defaulted on payment and just forgot about it until that letter arrived at her new address.

 

Lowell produced a vague statement of charges for the mobile phone account,

i.e. "January 2008 - £67", "February 2008 - £71" etc, with the final payment saying "Termination Fee £xxx".

No breakdown of what the amounts related to.

 

in November just gone,

I discover these letters she has and decided to try and sort the issue out.

I wrote to them asking them to prove the debt existed and to provide sufficient evidence to support their demands.

Statements turn up with more detail, as well as information that the CCA doesn't apply to such accounts, which is correct.

 

Before Christmas I write a very simple and short letter,

again on her behalf,

effectively saying I was still not satisfied with the "evidence" produced

and that should they proceed to court, their claim would be fully contested, with costs,

as well as detailing my own legal qualifications,

stated I would be advising my partner accordingly.

 

just read their reply, which states:

 

"In respect of account XXXXXXXXX, whilst we believe this to be due and valid,

I have taken the decision to close this with immediate effect.

 

This is done in the interests of arriving at a swift and amicable conclusion

and is not done as an admission of any wrongdoing on our part.

 

You will hear no further from us or any organisation connected with this matter as the account will not be sold or passed on".

 

Anyone who knows the DCA field a bit better care to take a punt at why they've backed down

without even trying to push it a little bit further?

 

Lack of evidence on their part/problem with the "account" or were they concerned I might well give them a headache in court?

[reallymadwoman]

I would guess that the account cost them pennies to buy and since you were obviously not a soft touch it's just not worth the hassle of trying to collect.

[dx100uk]

when pushed VERY few mobile debts are actually enforceable or even owed

once you contest them in court.

 

normally fictitious fees and termination charges.

 

those companies that get a judgement on a mobile debt

are normally not contested.

 

dx

[fkofilee]

Im surprised here... Im going through Hell with Lowell at the moment...

Well done... Honestly.

[Desperate Daniella]

Well done, firstclassx!

 

I got them to back off too!

 

I think you have to make them appreciate that you are going to be a total nightmare to deal with.

 

DDx

[firstclassx]

Im surprised here... Im going through Hell with Lowell at the moment...

Well done... Honestly.

 

Just make them jump through the hoops instead of you. Ask for copies of documents, refuse to talk on the phone, use e-mail/post for everything. Take your time, the longer it goes on, the more likely they will be to settle or drop the "account"! Be firm, but polite when dealing with them.

 

I get the feeling that Lowell really don't want to take things to court for relatively small amounts, (i.e. £1000 and under). As another member has said, the majority of their civil claims are probably won simply by default, usually because of no defendant turning up or replying to paperwork.

[Desperate Daniella]

Unfortunately Lowell do take people to Court for under £1,000. See wendyboats' cautionary tale:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?401203-lowell-joined-3-debts-2-mobile-1-credit-card-made-me-BK-now-want-my-house!!

 

But I agree with you. The best way is to keep arguing the toss and demanding the correct documents, not accepting the old rubbish they like to produce.

 

DD

[42man]

"as well as detailing my own legal qualifications" - you aren't QC by any chance, that may have scared them off ?

[intend]

Law of diminishing returns applies - relatively small debt coupled with a firm response by OC means lets go after someone else. Power to CAG

[Desperate Daniella]

Law of diminishing returns applies - relatively small debt coupled with a firm response by OC means lets go after someone else. Power to CAG

 

Bloomin' large debt coupled with a firm response can also mean let's go after someone else!

[intend]

Well said DD:whoo:

[Desperate Daniella]

[ericsbrother]

Simple economics. It will cost them staff time to prefare casework that includes chasing up original creditor for correct paperwork when they may have bought a lemon anyway, court fees, lawyers fees etc and if they lose thay will ahve to pay your expenses as well. By writing off in this manner you cannot question them further and they get a tax and VAT break on the write-off so their loss is only 75% of the sum so if they paid less than 25% of the original debt they break even. Ok they have to write down a bit of their supposed assets but that wont matter. Swings and roundabouts.