Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Lowell has written to me concerning this debt on the 23rd of Jan 2020. letter states: We have noted the contents of your letter and we understand that you have no knowledge of this account. We are able to offer the following information regarding the account. • Agreement start date: 19/06/2014 • Application address: Flat 4, 3 Kempsford Gardens • Tariff Description: Phone BB Hardware • Disconnect Reason: Cessation by BT • Original Creditor: BT Retail Consumer • Mobile Number:02078351401 ( this is a landline ) • Client last payment date: 16/12/2014 • Client last payment value: 86.16 this is not £499.00 • Default date: 27/08/2015, this doesn't square with last pay date. • Airtime Debt Value:257.94 • Early Terminate Fee:241.99, can they charge this? • Billing Date:27/03/15 LOW105_230120 497503_ MACHINE \ 116\247 \ lof2 \ Airtime Debt is for the services used and the Early Termination Fee is calculated to reflect the remaining months of your contract which remain unpaid from the date of your account closure. We have requested from BT PLC a copy of the statements for the account to help clarify this matter for you. We will write to you further once we have received this documentation and in the meantime your account is on hold.   I obtain the SAR. it is attached: this is all they hold. 1. Can you explain the implications of the response  and the SAR as far as Lowell being able to collect the debt?   2. I responded to Lowell with this letter: Lowell Financial Ltd. 4875 Dear Sir: I write to you in response to your letter of 23 January 2020. Insofar that a relationship may have existed between myself and BT I cannot recall this account (Agreement) and request that you supply me with a copy of the Account/Agreement and other documents listed in the bullet points of your response. I  deny any breach  of the purported agreement. You have failed to supply me with a copy of the agreement requested . I have never received any evidence that you are the legal owner of the debt, by assignment, sale and purchase agreement or otherwise. I have never received and am unaware of any legal notice of assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to Law and property Act 1925 Section 136(1). This document is not referenced in your response. I deny that I have failed  to maintain the required payments to BT. It is denied that I have failed to respond to demands for payment sent by you and/or its agents. Lowell is put to strict proof that any such demands have been sent to me by you. a). Lowell appears to  admit it is the assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Lowell has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.  b). It is further denied any funds are due Lowell  because the Lowell appears to have sold this debt to another firm in 2019.  Lowell must therefore show how it has legal right, either under statue or equity to collect this sum from me. I  deny owing any money to Lowell  and you are required to produce evidence to support your claims that this sum is in default, due and owning this includes: a. Show how the I  entered into an Agreement. b. Show how I  have reached the amount claimed for. c. Show that I  failed to maintain the required payments and the service was terminated as claimed. d. Show that the statute of limitations on this alleged debt has not passed. 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4) it is expected that Lowell must  prove the allegations that the money is owed; having been provided with written requests for information under CPR 31.14 and to date have failed to provide any such documentation as detailed in its response letter.  8. Notwithstanding the above should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge that is made up of the entire balance if the remaining contract is unlikely to be fair as it fails to consider the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.  You state that the balance due includes £241.99. You must remove this from any collection efforts, and I dispute that this and all other balances are owed by me. 9. Show that I was residing at Flat 4 3 Kempsford Gardens on the alleged defaulted date of 27/08/2015 or any other date after 16/12/2014.  Alternatively remove any debt you allege is owed  because back billing and billing for unused services is not allowed. 10. Please explain Lowell reporting to the credit bureaus that the debt outstanding to BT is £674. The account number concerning 3 Kempsford Gardens Flat 4 which I hold is another account number which is BT xx7 start date is 15/07.2013. 11. The account number you claim is owed to you is an original account number BT xxx 07. You claim the start date on this account is 19/06/2014. Please explain the discrepancy between these two accounts including ownership of both accounts, and why there are two accounts you allege for the same address with different dates. Alternatively, if you have no explanation: You must cease and desist from collection activity including reporting to the credit bureaus, pre claim letters and any other forms of collection activity with immediate effect. Please write to me confirming that you will take no further action. Failing this I will file a counterclaim and ask the court for costs. Kind Regards      I received the email below last night: "I can see that we also hold the following account details for you:   Account Number Original Client Original Client Reference Current Balance XXX192 Orange xxx321 £285.91 XXX875 BT PLC xxx207 £499.93   I can see that the above BT PLC account is currently on hold, as we are requesting information from BT PLC directly.   1. how long does BT have to respond? the date of Lowell letter was 23rd of Jan. 2. if BT doesn't respond within that time frame, what can I do to get the account removed from the Credit reports? . 3. how can I get Lowell to stop collection if BT doesn't respond? what is also interesting is I have a letter from Lowell for the orange account and also a BT account, but the balance is £199.11 and the account number ends in 192. There are too many account numbers with different balances for the same address. any suggestions how I address this with Lowell?   Lowell writes:   "The period for recovering your Orange account by court action has expired. We will not be issuing court proceedings to enforce payment. However, your debt still exists and legally we are within our rights to continue to ask you for repayment. With this being said, this account does not look to have a payment arrangement set up as of yet. How would you like to proceed with this account going forward? If you can let us know then we can look to assist you further".   If the time has expired to collect a debt from orange, how do they have a right to collect? seems the SOL runs for both. how should I respond?   In the meantime, I have placed your Vodafone and Orange accounts on hold for the next 30 days to give you time to get back to us.   Can you give me some suggestions on how I unravel this and respond? Thank you.  SAR_BT.pdf
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   Could you tell us what your contract says about overtime please? It will help us to advise you.   HB
    • Hi there,   I've been on a on call rota for some years now which as been a 1 in 3 weeks and been paid a weekly allowance for this service and overtime paid extra should I be called out. My employer now wants to change this to a 1 in 4 weeks which now leaves me out of pocket just for the on call payments a year.   Do I have an argument that i am effectively been force to take a pay cut and that i should be compensaited accordingly ?   thanks in advance for any advise.   Fred.      
    • hi again     the original supplier was AO but was out of warranty with them so hotpoint took it up.    the oven was replaced around January time, with us notifying them we was not happy fairly shortly after delivery.  hotpoint said the exact same model, which was delivered HUD61PS - but is only the same on model number. (Which I think is naughty as they changed a major function)       
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 340 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

Companies House today 12/06/18 confirmed that Claire Louise Sandbrook, High Court Enforcement Officer and owner of Shergroup Ltd is officially a resident in the USA, as per her completed form for Persons with Significant Control dated last year on 02/06/2017 (but filed today).

 

12 Jun 2018 - Change of details for Mrs Claire Louise Sandbrook as a person with significant control on 2 June 2017 - New Country /State usually resident: United States

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history

 

Given that aside from Shergroup, Sandbrook sells her authority as an HCEO to the likes of DCBL and many other HCEO "franchises" does she really have control of the writs issued in her name?

 

With the recent DCBL case it would appear not - DCBL Ordered to pay £20k

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is certainly long overdue and an opportunity to weed a lot of the dross out.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the judgement in Rooftops South West Limited, James Slocombe, Paul Howell and Marcus Davis v. Ash Interiors (UK) Limited, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Claire Sandbrook [2018] EWHC 2798 (QB) ?

 

Could it please be made available here?

 

Apparently the judge commented about Claire Sanbrook (the third defendant in this case) purporting to exercise control over Direct Control Bailiffs Ltd (or their agents) from Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone seen the judgement in Rooftops South West Limited, James Slocombe, Paul Howell and Marcus Davis v. Ash Interiors (UK) Limited, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Claire Sandbrook [2018] EWHC 2798 (QB) ?

 

Could it please be made available here?

 

I was provided with a copy of the Judgment in December. There is no doubt about it...it is a damning judgment. It was provided to me in confidence but I am aware that it has been referred to elsewhere in the last 24 hours so I will be asking whether it can be made public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be good if it could BA, Sandbrook needs removing from the HCEO register, she cannot exercise Due Diligence from the USA.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be good if it could BA, Sandbrook needs removing from the HCEO register, she cannot exercise Due Diligence from the USA.

 

It is no secret that I have been a critic of CS precisely because of the reason that you have stated. However, it is lot more complicated than her being a resident of USA. As difficult as it is to believe, membership of the High Court Enforcement Officer Association is open to overseas as well as UK residents. I know of two HCEO's who live in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in theory Dog the Bounty Hunter could apply and be on the Register with them?

 

Should be UK Resident only.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Does anyone know if this judgment is available online anywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full judgement is online as a pdf document. The Judge ordered for DCBL to pay for transcripts of the full Judgement to be provided.

 

The Judgement was also going to be referred to a senior Judge to consider the matters further. Was not happy that HCEO's were being managed from Florida.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for this. I've tried searching for it but can't find anything. Do you have a link? Or, if it's not allowed to post links here could you send me a PM?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link goes to a 404.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

removed

 

just pm'd you, don't know why its 404 the full link works for me but when I put it on the forum the 404 comes up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removed

 

just pm'd you, don't know why its 404 the full link works for me but when I put it on the forum the 404 comes up

 

I think this is either Wordpress or CAG stopping the information being linked to around the internet.

 

while this particular information might be totally OK, if it were a rac*sts blog or something defamatory, then publication beyond the first site would make it potentially very expensive and impossible to contain.

 

I just googled the case mentioned in E Munchs post and it came up in search. So just use google.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removed

 

just pm'd you, don't know why its 404 the full link works for me but when I put it on the forum the 404 comes up

 

Many thanks for that, I've managed to download the PDF.

 

Link goes to a 404.

 

If you google "[2018] EWHC 2798 (QB)" (including the quotation marks"") then the pdf should come up.

 

I think why I wasn't finding it was that I was searching on the names rather than the citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this belief(under), which is still perpetuated among many HCEO, has much to do with their attitude to enforcement and debtors.

 

44. It remains to deal with what I have called DCBL's overarching defence. This found its clearest expression in paragraph 29 of the witness statement of Ms Miah dated 10 October 2017. In that paragraph she said as follows:

"DCBL are commanded by the High Court to enforce the High Court writ. As such, all conduct by DCBL was carried out lawfully."

 

It is of course wrong, as said many times on here. The HCEOs powers are those contained within Schedule 12 of the TCE, the same as any Bailiff who seeks to take control of goods. No more no less.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree DB, but the attitude of DCBL seems to be play to the cameras, they owe the money, we use the "Ways & Means Act" to get it, it makes good TV. Wonder what's next, Sandbrook brings Dog The Bounty Hunter over and lets him loose on camera with DCBL, partnering Bohill?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree DB, but the attitude of DCBL seems to be play to the cameras, they owe the money, we use the "Ways & Means Act" to get it, it makes good TV. Wonder what's next, Sandbrook brings Dog The Bounty Hunter over and lets him loose on camera with DCBL, partnering Bohill?

 

It amazes me that DCBL felt so confident that they could act beyond their powers, they showed it on TV.

 

Even when the issue arrived in court they couldn't be bothered to prepare a proper defence, supreme arrogance.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They deserve all that should be coming to them DB, Sandbrook should be struck off PDQ.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/06/2018 at 10:51, HCEOs said:

Companies House today 12/06/18 confirmed that Claire Louise Sandbrook, High Court Enforcement Officer and owner of Shergroup Ltd is officially a resident in the USA, as per her completed form for Persons with Significant Control dated last year on 02/06/2017 (but filed today).

 

12 Jun 2018 - Change of details for Mrs Claire Louise Sandbrook as a person with significant control on 2 June 2017 - New Country /State usually resident: United States

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history

 

Given that aside from Shergroup, Sandbrook sells her authority as an HCEO to the likes of DCBL and many other HCEO "franchises" does she really have control of the writs issued in her name?

Her Phone number there is +1 321 246 7847   she is a lier and do not deal with her, she owe me over £6000.00 

With the recent DCBL case it would appear not - DCBL Ordered to pay £20k

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to abolish it,a Review will be a whitewash, just like squaddies of yore blancoing the coal for the Genral's inspection.

Edited by brassnecked
  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ian Thomas001 said:

"she owe me over £6000.00 "

Would you like to expand more on the comment you made

 


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will act and remove her from the Register.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Hopefully they will act and remove her from the Register.

 

Unfortunately, that appears to be more difficult than it should be.

 

I would suggest that the Regulations relating to the authorisation of a High Court enforcement officer need urgent review, if that isn't happening already. Like many regulations in other sectors, they are just not fit for purpose for the way the industry has evolved in recent years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...