Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

LOWELL Financial and HFC Bank (no knowledge of this and it's not on credit file)


skurvy
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2251 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

Hello everyone,

 

Thanks for all your help in advance!

 

To cut a long story short, my partner is already paying a debt to Bryan Carter to avoid a CCJ as we didn't receive the claim form till the very last day of judgement.

But now they're literally chasing him for two other debts (one in dispute, already submitted SARS to Lloyds) but this 'new' one that he has no knowledge of and it's not even on his credit file.

 

He contacted Lowells 2 months ago to state that he has no knowledge of the debt and they also checked his credit file while he was on the phone and the advisor confirmed that there is no record of the HFC bank debt on his file; so advised they will get a copy of the signed agreement.

 

Last month received a letter confirming that they're still awaiting a copy of the agreement and it make take a while, thanks for your patience etc.

 

 

On Friday received a letter dated 12th May 2015, stating;

 

 

"As requested, we enclose documentation from your original creditor.

 

We trust that this now answers your query and look forward to receiving your affordable repayment proposals."

 

 

However, the document they have attached is literally what looks like a photo copy of a bank statement from HSBC;

 

Confirming his address, about your credit agreement etc and about your transactions. I can attach a copy if you need?

 

 

They're literally stressing me out as clearly this does not answer ANYTHING! :mad2:

 

Just wondering what my next step should be, as I'm worried they will just issue proceedings and after speaking to National debtline the advisor told me that they don't need to provide a copy of the agreement as a Judge may take favour upon a statement!? And that maybe I should consider sending them a letter called 'complaining to debt companies that you do not owe the debt"

 

So yes, any help would be massively appreciated.

 

Thanks

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a CCA request you sent?

 

And what's this about a late claim form?

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowell's stated they're getting a CCA due to the fact it's not on his credit file and confirmed this with a letter. Although maybe I'll submit an 'official CCA request' from my partner (so it's on record too).

 

And the late claim form was for a previous debt that actually was his; it was actually received on the 14th day!

 

I think I'm also going to file a report with the FCA as the letters we receive from Lowell's are always delayed! e.g. last letter was dated 12th May, but was actually only received on 22nd may!

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruddy Lowlifes again!!

 

Send them the prove it letter first and foremost http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387363-You-know-nothing-of-the-Debt-Prove-It-**Updated-21st-April-2014**

 

STOP talking to them on the phone, unless you can record your calls?

 

Keep everything in writing, keep a diary of events, note the dates you receive their begging letters on the envelope and

keep everything they send you, including the envelopes.

 

CCA Request

 

Telephone Harassment

 

Threat of doorstep challenge

 

You can get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter...

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

Why did you not defend that ccj

Now they. Think you are easy pickings to be further fleeced

 

When did he get judgement?

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am keeping absolutely everything...they just constantly contradict themselves though.

 

And yes they definitely think he is easy pickings now and that's the problem!

He actually didn't get a judgement against him as he agreed to pay it; so you can retract judgement for six months...unless we was to break the agreement and only then judgement would be entered against him.

 

But that one is not the issue anymore; it's this one that they're chasing him on now, which is not on his credit file and he has absolutely no knowledge of the debt!

 

So I'll send my own 'prove it' letter via the link you provided (even though this is what they were meant to be sending him a signed copy of the agreement).

 

But hey I should of knew better than to actually believe them....

 

Thanks for all your help and I'll keep you posted! :-D As I have a feeling this is going to drag on for a while! haha :-x

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is no ccj on his credit file?

 

If so send two CCA requests

 

Carter nor any dca

ARE not bailiffs

 

Sri think you been had here

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No he would of got a CCJ, as it was a claim form he received. From working in insurance I know exactly what they done, as we would hold of judgement providing the debt was paid within six months...so he had to pay it to avoid the CCJ.

 

The debt was from a credit card that he ran up when he was 18, so we received the claim form on the last 14th day...he didn't want the hassle of disputing. Although are you saying they may not of had the original agreement? He took the advice from National Debt Line, again quoting the ruling of 2008.

 

But hey onto this one; I'm going to fight this one as it's literally a joke. So DX would send a CCA Request and send the prove it letter? As it's clearly not on his credit record and they sent him a 'statement' that I could of created rather than the CCA

 

Many thanks

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Urm.. If he didn't sign a consent or Tomlin

Then sorry carter has fleeced you

 

2 CCA requests

One for this debt

One for the fake ccj debt

 

When was the last payment. To HFC?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,

 

I think I've slightly confused you DX.

 

This HFC debt is not on his credit file and nor does he have any recollection of it. So of course no payments have been made, as its not his debt.

 

As for the one he's paying...national debtline advised that he has to, as it was his debt and nor statute barred? So we took their advice �� Didn't really have the time or money, which could of possibly been wasted by filing a defence. And certainly can't risk him getting a CCJ, as this would result in him losing his job.

 

Would I not need to submit the prove it aswell? As I've mentioned previously, it's not his debt and the 'statement' they provided is pretty laughable!

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

send a cca request for the one that you were wrongly advised not to defence.

 

 

as for this HFC debacle

if hes never paid anything in the last 6yrs

send the SB letter

or simply ignore the fleecers.

 

 

you problem is you used the phone!

never phone a fleecing DCA!

 

 

can we see the letter please

 

 

follow Upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice DX :]

 

Yes I'll upload it tomorrow when I'm in work, as I don't have access to a scanner at home.

 

But the debt would be six years in August, but as the statement states 'buy now pay later for Curry's'. So it would be six years from the date causation?

 

But more to the point; it's not his debt and so far they have failed to provide the credit agreement. He's not going to pay for a debt that's not his....over my dead body! ha

 

On the plus side, I've told him not to call them anymore and from now on EVERYTHING will be in writing! :razz:

 

I will upload the statement tomorrow, blanking off the relevant details etc. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need to see the letter trying to fleece him on this HFC debt.

 

 

you say its not his...

what do you mean

he never took it out

or because its not on his file..its not his

or because they've no signed CCA its not his..

 

 

you are talking in vailed riddles.

 

 

still think you need to CCA the aborted CCJ

something stinks there to me.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, I thought I made it clear earlier. He's never purchased ANYTHING on credit from Curry's. Hence Lowell's saying they will get a copy of the signed credit agreement.

 

So yes, I'll upload the statement tomorrow.

 

 

The previous debt that he has nearly finished paying for; was from when he was young and irresponsible and HE DID run up the debt with Halifax. So do you still think it would be worth doing a CCA request on this?

 

(Sorry DX if I sound dumb, just that I'm really not used to this)

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowlifes phishing again, does he have a common name/surname?

 

Certainly not worth getting into letter tennis with them. It's for them to prove, not for you

to disprove.

 

They won't be able to get a copy of the CCA as it doesn't exist, can't wait to see what they magic up!

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

He does, he has a very common English surname :lol:

 

Exactly what I thought with them having to prove the debt etc and providing a photocopied statement that anyone could of created doesn't prove a thing to me! However, National debt Helpline told me yesterday that due to a ruling in 2008, Lowell's could possibly win at court with it!?

 

And yes I think that's why Lowlife have sent a statement rather than the CCA. Just wary of the fact that they love to issue proceedings at the drop of a hat, so might be best for me to send CCA/prove it letter, so I have proof of everything I have done.

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he's on a phishing list then, and communicating them makes them believe they have hit their target.

 

So what if they issue court papers, it costs them, and then they will look stupid when it falls flat on it's face when the judge throws it out!

 

Typical blanket bombing of all properties where the resident has the same name as their intended target.

 

Complain and complain loudly, to the FCA.

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

Forgive me, I thought I made it clear earlier. He's never purchased ANYTHING on credit from Curry's. Hence Lowell's saying they will get a copy of the signed credit agreement.

 

So yes, I'll upload the statement tomorrow.

 

 

The previous debt that he has nearly finished paying for; was from when he was young and irresponsible and HE DID run up the debt with Halifax. So do you still think it would be worth doing a CCA request on this?

 

(Sorry DX if I sound dumb, just that I'm really not used to this)

 

 

yes it would be nice to know the background of how he got fleeced into paying them.

 

 

I suppose they told him

it was too late to do anything?

 

 

sorry but unless he signed a tomlin or consent order

rather than just phoning up and paying

I still think he got had.

 

 

a very quick look at this site will show you very few contested Claimforms from cater

ever result in farter winning.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DX,

 

I completely agree with you by the sounds of it...he has been 'had'. He took the advice from National debt helpline who advised him that he needs to pay it, unless he wants a CCJ. I'm quickly learning that they're absolutely useless! :|

 

I have attached a copy of the statement that Lowell's sent to him, apologies for the grainy copy! They sent to us a terrible grainy copy you see!

 

Well least I'm on here now and getting the relevant advice and I really do appreciate everyone's help. They rely on people like us who 'believe' we are getting the correct advice from a government department; but really are getting shafted! (excuse my language).

 

Least I'm prepared this time...I'm ready for the fight and it really is positive seeing so many people win against these bullies!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah ha ha ha! What the hell is that!!!! :pound:

 

 

Make sure you keep a copy of that, my god, they really are desperate aren't they?

 

Well that proves diddly, they are a joke.

 

Ignore them, ignore them, and then ignore them again!

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

Well today I have received two letters;

 

The first one dated 22 May reads;

 

We regret to note that despite previous correspondence regarding your account, we have not received payment or a valid reason for non-payment.

 

Failure to respond to this notice may result in further action been (their error, not mine) taken to recover the monies owed by you.

 

We urge you to call one of our advisors to prevent action being taken.

 

 

 

Then I have another letter dated; 29th May

We have not heard from you

We refer to previous correspondence. We have provided the information that you requested and asked you to contact us to discuss the account. We will work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement so that this matter can be resolved.

 

What happens next?

If you do not contact us within 7 days of the date of this letter to arrange repayment of your account or to discuss the matter, then your account will be passed to our collections department. Your account may, then, be assessed to decide the best course of action to recover the debt or, alternatively, one of our approved debt collection agencies will be instructed to contact you to arrange recovery of the outstanding balance.

 

 

 

I can't but feel slightly intimidated by these letters....What does this all even mean? :|

Edited by skurvy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing

As usual just silly threat o trams

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but computer generated threatogrammes.

 

Someone has forgot to tell the computer to stop it's deforestation!

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

  • 1 month later...

Well just to give an update;

 

he received a letter offering 30% discount last month, so he would have to pay 70%...again we ignored them

 

Then received a further letter dated 6th July stating;

'We have not received an offer of repayment from you, so we are now reviewing your account for further action'

 

Now we have received another letter yesterday called the Pre-Legal Assessment;

'We refer to our previous letters. Unfortunately we've still not agreed with you how you'll repay your debt with us and therefore it has been escalated for legal assessment.'

 

I'm now assuming this is where Bryan Carter come into the equation and they will issue proceedings, should I be looking at getting his defense sorted now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...