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

  • Recommended Topics

lowell PAPLOC now Claimform - Old Cap1 Debt notice still applicable?


Badger91
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi
 

I have been following another post on this site and after requesting a cca agreement from the DCA, after 12 days of the DCA receiving the request the account goes into dispute if the agreement isn’t provided. The following letter is then issued:

 

(section 10 template removed - dx)


I am aware there have been changes since GDPR rules were introduced but I don’t know if this letter is still ok to use

 

Is there a newer letter I should be sending ? If so can anyone provide this please.

 

I have read that there is now 21 days to respond to the request, however this letter states 14 days. 

 

 

Kind regards

 

badger

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Good question.

The letter is probably out of date and I don't know if it is still possible to send such a thing. I haven't updated myself either.

When I can tell you is that in the old days quite a few people send this letter and am afraid had zero effect. I'm sure that this was very often unlawful by the data processors – but I'm afraid that sending a letter simply gave a false comfort and probably nothing else.

It would certainly be worthwhile discovering if a section 10 letter is still a possibility and how it can be proceeded upon if it is ignored.

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 OTHERS

 

 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


Thanks for your reply’s, So should I change the title on the letter to 1998 and not 1980 ? Andyorc, The link you shared says it was published in 2012 but it’s says nothing regarding GDPR which I think was introduced in 2018. 
 

 

Edited by Badger91
Error
Link to post
Share on other sites

No it remains the same....

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 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

but pointless letter tennis.

what do you think it will achieve.

 

won't nor can't stop them processing your data regardless to if/not a cca exists.

 

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 would like them to follow the legislation guidelines, whether they do or not is another question, if it is a law that requires them to do so surely legal action can be taken if they should choose to carry on regardless. Otherwise what is the point of the act being in place.

Edited by Badger91
Link to post
Share on other sites

section 10 surely is to do with the processing of your data and if they have a right to do so.

 

a failed cca request, or more importantly the failure to produce the agreement nor the relevant T&C's you signed up to, which gave the OC rights to process your data , and thus the right to sell those right's on .... doesn't remove the fact you did give permission.

 

IMHO a section 10 notice, as has been debated 1000's of time here in our+10yrs existence, in this instance is silly letter tennis.

look at the date of the threads you are referring too and reading.  ..... the thoughts and the forum members have changed, and i also contend they were wrong even back then ...

 

 

 

 

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

The point of a section 10 notice....it allows a court claim if they fail comply...always has been...not intended as letter tennis...you give them warning....21 days if they fail to comply ...you sue....and use the DPA1980 as your prescribed legislation.

 

Andy

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 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

If the credit agreement cannot be found how can they say I gave permission to process data without the agreement, if there is no agreement the debt becomes unenforceable, they cannot continue to damage my credit file and sell it on as its in dispute and unenforceable until the cca is found. That’s is my understanding 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Badger91 said:

If the credit agreement cannot be found how can they say I gave permission to process data without the agreement, if there is no agreement the debt becomes unenforceable, they cannot continue to damage my credit file and sell it on as its in dispute and unenforceable until the cca is found. That’s is my understanding 

 

 

But dont use it for the above reason...you will fail and suffer costs.

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 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

If the cca is found then I will pay the balance as soon as it is provided,  if I am disputing the debt becouse I don’t believe the debt is mine surely they cannot add fees when the cca is found and it is established the debt is owed. Surely I must be given the opportunity to pay, if I ignored after that point i would say it was fair to add fees

Link to post
Share on other sites

A DCA cant add anything to a debt apart from a court claim issuance fee...with or without an valid CCA.....but if they did .....you dont pay it.

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 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

the dca didnt damage your credit file

the oc placed the default upon or before sale...the DCA merely inherited it upon sale.

 

once defaulted, nothing more anyone puts can damage your file any further on that debt.

 

forget the monthly calendar section

no-one bar you and the debt owner can see that.

 

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

So how will I suffer costs if the agreement is found and I pay within the first month, I am confused because you say I will suffer cost if it’s later found. 

 

I appreciate your help with this 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only 'costs' would be those which are of a fixed nature IF IF IF a debt owner raises a county court claim...as andyorch as already explained.

 

p'haps it might help us to help you to outline what this debt is all about.

 

whats the debt type

who was the original creditor

when was it sold to the DCA

how much is the debt

what is the defaulted date from your credit file debt summary section

when was you last payment or use of the credit.

 

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

The debt is for a credit card which was taken out around 2014, it was sold by capital one to Lowell in April this year, it’s for £400, and the last payment was made back in March 2019, not sure when it defaulted as it vanished from credit file checker just before Lowell contacted me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so a 2014 online electronic signup.

and you must have defaulted almost immediately for the 6th birthday of the registered defaulted date to cause it to disappear from your credit files recently.

 

best idea is not to play silly letter tennis with DCA's, they are not BAILIFFS , and have zero legal powers on ANY debt, no matter it's type.

 

being a 2014ish signup lowells will be able produce to the CCA, and it won't matter if that is outside of the 12+2 working day time limit, now if that is enforceable and holds all the prescribed terms is another matter, as lowells typically like to fake a CCA return by cut n paste.

 

as cap1 didn't sell the debt till recent, and you appear to have defaulted very quickly upon sign up, theres a good chance most of the debt will be unlawful £12 penalty charges so that explains the sale reason.

 

you never blindly pay a dca anything even if they do produce an enforceable CCA.

 

get an sar off to cap1 to get all the statements so you can prepare for the only time you ever respond to a dca other than by a CCA request, and that's when their fake/tame paperwork only solicitors, they sit one desk nearer the bog in a different coloured skirt , sends a letter of claim under the pre action protocol ....which you do NOT ignore.

 

title update

thread moved to the cap1 forum

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to lowell and cap1 debt - if they fail my CCA - is a section 10 notice still applicable?

Thanks for the reply, 
 

Why would it be unlawful, I thought if a payment is made towards the debt then the debt stops becoming statute barred and the time resets. 6 years never passed as I had made payments in between. 

 

Why would they get fined 12 pound ? 

 

I need to get a sar and then wait for them

to send the letter of claim to me, can you explain what the letter of claim is for ? Is it the same as letter before action, before they apply for a CCJ ? 
 


Thank you for taking the time to explain to me.  
 


 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

cap1 i would suspect, over the years, have levied you with £12 unlawful penalty charges for things like late or over limit charges.

 

those you can reclaim, or be used to negotiate a better deal with lowells.

SHOULD they issue a letter of action/letter of claim under the 2015 pre action protocol, which they must do, should they wish to raise a court claim via northants bulk court.

 

only your payments reset the SB clock, and as you've paid recently, thats out the window.

 

the defaulted date is nothing to do with any SB date as such.as you've been paying after it..

 

be clear, the sar goes to cap1 one, nothing to do with lowells.

 

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

16 hours ago, Badger91 said:

So how will I suffer costs if the agreement is found and I pay within the first month, I am confused because you say I will suffer cost if it’s later found. 

 

I appreciate your help with this 

 

 

I didnt state you would suffer costs if they comply with a CCA request...you started this thread with regards to section 10 notices and if they are valid.

A section 10 notice is sent as a warning...they most possibly wont comply....nor should they for the reasons that have now unfolded why you wanted to send one. To give the section notice 10  teeth.....you would then follow it up with a letter of claim informing them you intend to issue a claim to enforce their compliance......all well and good if the court agreed and forced it......but if you lost....then you would be liable for the defendants costs....and as this would be a part 8 claim .......serious costs.

 

So the bottom line is never threaten with a section 10 notice.....unless you know you will win it and have good cause.....which you haven't as this is all to do with an assigned debt to a DCA which there are 1000s like others. 

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 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

Ok, I will request sar from Capital and won’t send section 10 to Lowell, I was going to send this follow up letter with regard to the account being in dispute as of today, should I still send it?

 

Lowell Financial Ltd,
Ellington House,
9 Savannah Way,
Leeds


LS10 1AB

Lowell Financial Ltd, 
PO Box 1411 
Northampton
NN2 1QR


1st July 2020


Lowell reference number:
Original Account No: 

 

SENT BY ROYAL MAIL NEXT DAY GUARANTEED DELIVERY SERVICE 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

 

 Thank you for your letters dated 17/06/2020 and 18/06/2020 which my original deedpoll documents were attached to, the contents of which have been noted. each letter were both in response to my change of name by deedpoll and my CCA request which was resent to you on 15/06/2020 under my new legal name.

 

 On 11/06/2010, I made a formal request for a true copy of the Credit Agreement for the alleged account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Sections 77/78. A copy of my request is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account is now in default as of 
01/07/2020.

 

 The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed Credit Agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both the original creditor and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account as proof of ownership of said account.

 

 Please note the following:

 

 I have made you aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a Credit Agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation. This limit has now expired.

 Section 77(6), of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states:

 

  “If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement. Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.”

 

 Under the terms of statute law you have failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said Credit Agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, failed to send a full statement of the account and failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

 

 Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both unlawful and vexatious. Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action that constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

 Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY action against an account whilst it remains in dispute. The lack of a Credit Agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies:

 

 ▪ You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

 ▪ You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

 ▪ You may not pass the account to a third party.

 ▪ You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

 ▪ You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 ▪ You must remove information logged with any agency which you claim you assert the rights to.

 

 You have 14 calander days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I therefore request a copy of your official complaints procedure which you are legally obliged to supply.

 

 I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

 I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Kind regards
 
Badger91

 

I originally sent the CCA request with a signature signed through a solid line and date however I read on hear you don't recommend it.

Edited by Badger91
error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefer you use our template.

 

 

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 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to lowell PAPLOC now Claimform - Old Cap1 Debt notice still applicable?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...