Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • But the booking platform warns it is still too early to predict how many travellers will return in 2021. View the full article
    • I purchased a bathroom tap for £125 from online company, 'QS SUPPLIES', in May 2020. It was duly fitted and all was fine until December 2020 when the top lever came away from the base of the tap rendering it useless. I immediately contacted QS SUPPLIES using their online complaints procedure and submitted a photo, as required. When after a few days I had heard nothing from them I called their CUSTOMER SERVICES team and was told that they were waiting for a response from the manufacturer, a company called 'SANEUX', I pointed out that my contract was not with the manufacturer and that I expected QS SUPPLIES to deal with my complaint. I was then advised to email them again, which I did...twice.... when they finally responded to my second email they asked me to send another photo of the faulty tap. This time, their response was that their,  TECHNICAL TEAM had looked at the photo and decided that the tap, "APPEARED TO BE FORCED", and therefore they would be, "UNABLE TO OFFER A REFUND ON THIS OCCASION".  So after  7 months of use and at a cost of £125, this company, on the strength of one slightly grainy photo have decided I am entitled to nothing. I have applied to be reimbursed by my credit card company under Section 75 but I am still determined to attempt to get QS SUPPLIES to take responsibility and would really appreciate any advice about the best way to go about this.  
    • Good news for me is that the Bounce Back Loan came through so I can pay the full car payment!  Thanks for reply.
    • Welcome. please follow the advice given above as to reading around the various stories and then monitor this thread for a full reply tomorrow  
    • Hi Everyone,  I am the seller in this case and want to thank the buyer for their support.  The bike was delivered to the local Hermes Parcel Shop really well packaged and sealed on the 3rd Feb with a receipt obtained.  Sadly the parcel was emptied on route to the buyer.   I had listed the bike for collection only however the buyer messaged and asked if we could arrange a courier to which I agreed and they organised that.  When the bike went missing I contacted the local police as the Hermes parcel shop said they would not release CCTV to me.  We got all this from the Police.  since then the buyer has tried his very best which I am grateful with Hermes and parcel2go but is struggling.  Any help is appreciated. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Lowell assumed I didnt know different...Loan with Provident

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1352 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I took out a £300 Loan with Provident a while back and, due to non repayment, My debt has been sold on to Lowell.



Lowell contacted Me by phone to inform Me they were a collection agency and my Debt with Provident had been passed to them and stated over the phone that I owed them over £500.



I immediately asked how this was considering My original loan was £300 and the agent said that it was 'fees'



when I asked what fee's He claimed an agent had called at My Home (Never happened) and this extra debt was call out fee's for the bailiff.



I asked the rep. for a full and complete itemized breakdown showing what every penny over and above the original £300 was added for and how the debt had grown.



He responded by telling Me

"We do not send out information like that I'm afraid, Sir" and I said "Well I am afraid I am not paying it then."


He then tried to use the 'Data Protection Act' as His reason why they could not do this and I stopped Him mid sentence to let Him know that as an employee of SKY TV selling products (Boxes, package upgrades, Broadband and Sky Talk etc) I myself am extremely familiar with the Data Protection Act as I have to work within it's guidelines and rules on a daily basis.



He put Me on Hold to speak with His Manager and came back to say

"Sir, MY Manager tells me You are correct in that it isn't Data Protection that bars this being done, it's simply not company policy to send itemized bills on request."



I then said

"Well I could ring anyone and claim they owe me 4 Million pounds and tell them when they natural ask how and why, 'I'm sorry, I'm not obligated to tell you that. Now are We paying by Visa or Mastercard?"



Put on Hold a second time and came back to say

"Sir, We will post the itemized bill showing what the extra charges are for and when then incurred. Have a nice day."


One week later I received My 'Itemized' Debt.


"Dear Mr _____


Account Balance Outstanding: £300"


They tried it on because they simply assume if they tell You

'We are not obliged to send you itemized bill showing how and where extra charges incurred' that I, the debtor, won't know any better.



I just wonder how many people have simply complied and paid who may not have known any better.

Edited by WelshChappie
Link to post
Share on other sites

And Lowell will very rarely be able to provide these details anyway. They tried the same with me, and could only ever provide their own customer details screen which simply gave a balance, and addition for 'charges' and with no detail as to individual transactions and how or when the charges were incurred. They may not be 'obliged' to provide such details, but equally you are entitled to challenge how the balance claimed was arrived at - especially if they issued a court claim!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.






If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!


Link to post
Share on other sites

10'000 of people blindly pay DCA's every day



if these people that were blindly paying them stoped tomorrow

the WHOLE industry would totally collapse.



would be really good if you had the 'bailiff' fees bit recorded?




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 know many will say "You had the loan, You owe the money so pay it" and Yes there won't be an argument from me in regards to that.


I just wasn't in a financial position to pay it back at the time it was due and subsequently sent/bought by Lowell.


My point here is about the unethical practises and tactics 3rd party debt agencies employ.


Debt Collecting Companies will never tell You how much they purchased your debt for because there's no legal obligation to do so which, for Me, is simply wrong.


I've read that it can be anywhere between 4 and 20% of the original debt's total value.

But, the [removed] states that debts where no payment has been made at all can and often do get sold for a fraction of the original face value and says, quote:


'One or Two pence of every Pound' so a £300 debt such as mine would have been bought, potentially, for £3.00. It is no mystery how and why Lowell have offered a 50% reduction settlement offer of a one off payment in full of £150!


Absolute Con!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are right,

people will say repay what you lawfully owe but I cannot see anyone saying that you should be paying the hyperinflated claim for costs of a company that did not incur any costs at all.


If you look at the books of these companies they claim that the £300 you owe is an asset worth that, not the £6 they paid for the debt.



They then borrow money from the banks based upon their book value so if the company did a runner they would be doing so with millions of someone elses' cash, the book debt sold on and the next buch would do the same thing.


Reason the banks lend them money against the value of the loan portfolio? they are greedy and stupid. Enough evidence of that over the last 10 years.


want to make the political parties play nicely?

Call in their loans and overdrafts (as if that would happen!)

That is why nothing is done about this in parliament

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...