Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
    • I would say You should accept it - I HIGHLY doubt you will  be able to claim for letters at trial ans they’re offering you that, which is higher monetary value than interest.   Also they raise a good point, getting interest at anything above 4% is lucky these days, yes judges give it, but rarily above 4%   Also you might find depending on the judge  you don’t get some costs if you take it all the way over £7.40 when court woukdnt award letters costs and thus meaning their award would be less than evris offer which was made    Up to you though but the wait will be 3-4mo for a trial date at least
    • Hi Folks, Been 162 days! Just by way of update. Today I received a text from Opos Ltd so no doubt Capquest are renting the debt out to anybody who fancies a nibble. Safe to say I will not be responding.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lowell Claimform - old 118118 PDL Subject to IRL Complaint Still With FOS ***Claim Discontinued***


eoghan
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 872 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

Hi Folks,

 

Entered into some financial difficulties a while back and the debts are piling up, I have now got Lowell chasing 4 separate debts, so will create thread for each???

 

This one is 118118 a fixed term loan for an outstanding balance of £2485.92

 

I wrote and followed the procedure and requested the CCA and they have responded with the following, I'll type this as my scanner is broken:

 

Dear ********

Thank you for contacting us about this account.

We enclose a copy of your credit agreement with 118 118 money. This is a reconstituted agreement - which includes all prescribed terms as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

We also enclose copy statements.

We have included a Frequently Asked Quesitons sheet which, hopefully, answers any queries you may have regarding these copy documents.

We trust that this now answers your query and look forward to hearing from you to discuss affordable repayment options.

If you do have any further questions, please call us on 03335565733 or email [email protected].

You can also view information about your account(s) on our website at www.lowell.co.uk

Your sincerely

Sarah Sargent

UK Director of Customer Experience

 

 

 

118118CCA.png

Edited by eoghan
Uploaded copy of CCA
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Did you have lots of debt and defaults on your file when you got this...

irresponsible lending complaint time to 118118 if you did

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

well go look

 

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

Clear Score Report:

Creation - 28 November 2016 - £200 still paying

Motonovo - 12 October 2015 - £6100 - still paying

Shop Direct - Now Lowell - 25 May 2016 - £424

Shop Direct - Now Lowell - 9 March 2004 - £727

Marbles - Now Cabot - 6 January 2015 - £207

HSCB CC - 14 November 2016 - £1786

Vanquis - 22 June 2011 - £2739

Barclaycard - 1 September 2015 - £4168

?? - Now Cabot - 9 November 2016 - £1340

118118 - Now Lowell - 11 September 2016 - £2485

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

are all these defaulted 

that's the important bit...

 

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

These have all defaulted and are at different stages of comms from the relevant companies:

 

Shop Direct - Now Lowell - 25 May 2016 - £424

Shop Direct - Now Lowell - 9 March 2004 - £727

Marbles - Now Cabot - 6 January 2015 - £207

HSCB CC - 14 November 2016 - £1786

Vanquis - 22 June 2011 - £2739

Barclaycard - 1 September 2015 - £4168

?? - Now Cabot - 9 November 2016 - £1340

118118 - Now Lowell - 11 September 2016 - £2485

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the PDL forum

great stuff then 

go start an IRL complaint to 118118 it will blow lowells claim out the water

 

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hey folks, sending the following IRL Complaint unless advised otherwise.

 

Cheers.

 

Formal Complaint Regarding Irresponsible Lending

Loan Ref: 

I wish to log a formal complaint in relation to irresponsible lending. To begin with, you should formally be aware, the FCA took over regulation of the credit market from April 2014 and then imposed caps on all high-cost short-term credit (HCSTC) in 2015.

These rules were set up to stop irresponsible lending and they included;

1.    Affordability checks for every credit agreement to ensure that only customers that can afford a loan can get a loan
2.    Rollovers:
a.    Limiting Rollovers to two;
b.    Limiting the number of attempts a payday lender to use CPAs to pay off a loan, to two;
c.    Information on where to get free debt advice will be given to every borrower that rolls over a loan
3.    Treat customers in arrears more fairly
4.    Do not relend to customers who appear to have taken numerous loans in a short period
5.    Report information correctly to the CRAs & limit daily interest to below 0.8% per £100.00 borrowed
6.    Default charges limited to £15.00 or less / Can only be applied once per loan

But also, the FCA stated that lenders should implement their own policy and change how they lend to customers. Well I believe you failed because:

1.    Before you were lending to me as shown in the statements provided by your company
a.    You did not do appropriate checks , should you have used the appropriate due diligence, you would have seen that I was under a tremendous amount of financial pressure with other loans that would have made this loan unaffordable
b.    Should you have done the appropriate affordability checks at the time of the loan, you would have seen I would have had more than one loan on the go and therefore a large proportion of my outgoings servicing already existing accounts
c.    On my credit file, I cannot find any searches that had been completed by at said time of loan being offered. While the searches may have disappeared, I would have expected to see some evidence that your firm did a ‘hard’ search to check my financial commitments
d.    I was using these other loans to pay off other loans to ‘companies’ and this ended up creating a spiral of debt

I am bringing this to your attention because I believe that you as a lender did not treat me with Due Respect or use Due Diligence and have allowed me to get into this position. I would also expect a company to check bank statements as part of their underwriting criteria, again you as a lender failed to request or examine any of my statements at the time the loan was offered.

I am also aware that lenders may not have used Credit Reference Agencies before regulations came in. However, although CallCredit was the main agency that firms did use if they did, I would still expect to see some form of credit check completed.

I await your response on how this complaint can be resolved by your company.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks to be like ours with the right questions

let others comment.

 

as for your other debts ..hope a CCA request etc has been action and you are not blindly paying a DCA without checks.??

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

You also need to see notices of assignment under section 139 of theLOPa 1925, lso default notices under the CCA section 87 for all accounts sold to Lowell's.

 

136Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

Please supply a copy of the default notice issued under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You will be aware that under the Act, a default notice is required before an action can be brought or account terminated.

In addition, a notice under the LOPA is required before an account can be assigned.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

those are for later

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

  • 1 month later...

Question guys -

 

If the alleged loan was applied for online and a "digital signature" was used to complete the application, what then constitutes an original CCA as it won't be like a paper based one that has a 'wet' signature. 

 

As Lowell appear to have a copy of the online application what would they be expected to bring to court and would the document they have be enough for them to win? Or am I missing something in my knowledge on this?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget wet sig thing..that FmToL twaddle

 

did you get that IRL complaint running?

 

 

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

have you told lowells this debt is subject to a serious complaint in writing?

its been more than 8 weeks now?

chase 118118 up about it..

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 I haven't, I'll get on that.

 

Is there a templated letter? ANything specific for example I should be saying beyond the IRL and it's been over 8 weeks?

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ring 118

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

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update:

Still haven't heard from 118118 and now Lowell have apparently handed over the collection of this to a company called Lucas Credit Services.

 

Their letter states:

 

Dear *******

 

Our client Lowell has asked us to deal with 2 accounts that have been outstanding for some time. The total overdue amount due is £2910.67 and our client has instructed us to contact you regarding these debts. Their notice to you regarding this is enclosed. Details of the accounts which make up the total balance outstanding can be found on the back of the letter from Lowell.

 

Please make payment to us to bring this matter to a conclusion. Alternatively, if you are unable to make payment of the full amount outstanding, please contact us to discuss an affordable repayment arrangement to suit your personal circumstances. if there is a reason you're unable to do this, please tell us now.

 

If we do not hear from you to discuss this matter or receive your payment within the next 10 days we are instructed by our clients to refer this matter to their solicitors, Lowell Solicitors Ltd to commence legal action.

 

If you have a valid reason for withholding payment, please contact us with full details in order that we can work with you to resolve any issues. The Court will expect the parties to have attempted to resolve any dispute prior to the issue of proceedings.

 

In order to avoid legal action please contact us without delay on **** or pay £2910.67 by 01 SEPTEMBER 2019.

 

You can pay online ****

 

Sincerely 

Signed as "Lucas Credit Services"

 

Letter from Lowell enclosed with the Lucas letter:

 

Dear ******

 

We note that 2 accounts which you have with Lowell have not been paid. The accounts that are due are listed overleaf.

 

As you have failed to make arrangements to repay your accounts, they have now been sent to Lucas Credit Services, who are one of our approved Debt Collection Agencies.

 

They will contact you regarding payment of the total balance of £2910.67 and all contact should be referred to them with immediate effect.

 

You must call them on ******

 

Address info here for Lucas

 

If you have any questions on this letter, please call Lucas Credit Services.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

CW

UK Chief Operating Officer

 

___________

 

Have they sold the debt to Lucas?????

 

I sent an IRC to 118118 on the 16 April and they haven't responded to that, so I have uploaded a copy of that letter to the FOS and made that complaint. The other account from the Lowell document is the ShopDirect account on another thread. I have now written an IRC and will post that today. 

 

So what do you think my response to Lucas should be?

 

Quick email stating that there is an IRC complaint with 118118 and that is now with the FOS?

 

Thanks guys.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah you mean an irresponsible lending complaint

Lucus are Lowell

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

  • 3 months later...

Hi Folks,

 

118 have finally come back with a response to the Irresponsible Lending Complaint.

 

Here's the transcript:

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. I have now investigated your complaint fully and would like to apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you.

 

I understand that you are unhappy that we approved your loan application; you feel that we were irresponsible in doing so.

 

I can confirm that when you applied for the loan via our website, you were taken through extensive questions to ascertain your circumstances. When submitting the application you are asked a number of different questions around your income and expenditure, the reason for the loan and employment details.

 

Once an application is submitted it is reviewed not only by our system and assessed against our scorecard but also, where required, manually reviewed by our Underwriting team. We use industry standard verification checks to validate the information provided by you on the application.

 

In addition to the above, during the application process all of the loan details such as loan amount, interest charge, monthly repayment, APR and loan terms amongst other things were explained to you. During the application process you were also asked to confirm if you felt the loan was affordable and whether you were aware of any future changes to your circumstances which could affect your ability to afford the loan.  In addition, you are also asked whether you are within or considering entering into a Debt Management plan, IVA or Bankruptcy – if you had told us that you do not feel the loan repayments are affordable, there may changes to your circumstances which could impact your ability to afford the loan or you confirm that you are within or considering entering into any of the above, we will not proceed with the application.  

 

All of the above steps are taken to try to ensure, in line with the FCA rules in CONC, that potential applicants are creditworthy and can afford the loan they have applied for / have been offered by us.  

 

With the above point in mind regarding you being asked if you think the loan is affordable, I am concerned that you now state that you did not think this was the case.  I would like to draw your attention to the declaration that you signed as part of their loan agreement which states:

 

“You declare that at the time of Your application:

 

All the information about You and all other information is true and complete and that You realise that We rely on this information in agreeing to make a loan available to You.”

 

In addition, as part of the application form you completed to apply for the loan with us, there is a statement just above the button you clicked on to submit the application which states “If false or inaccurate information is provided and fraud is identified, details will be passed to fraud prevention agencies…” Similar wording is contained within the loan terms and conditions.

 

118 118 Money is built on offering a fair and transparent service, and as with any reputable lender, we make sure applicants know exactly how much they will pay, when and over how many months. We work with people with a less than perfect credit history because we understand there are times when they may need a helping hand. What’s more, we don’t expect applicants to rush into accepting the loan we offer – we guarantee to hold the offer for 5 days to allow the applicant time to shop around and consider any offer of a loan from us. Put simply, we cater for individuals in various financial situations: we try to help provided we are satisfied that the individual can afford the loan.

 

With the above in mind I am satisfied that we acted correctly in approving your loan application and as such I will not be upholding your complaint. 

 

If you feel that you are struggling to maintain your financial commitments, there are free, third party organisations that can offer additional support/guidance.

 

So what do you think? What happens next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...