Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That sounds pretty good. My only concern is the bit about the cease and desist letter to Excel, please wait for the guys to comment on your letter. HB
    • No mention of Schedule 4 of POFA = Only the driver is liable, not the keeper. Simply don't tell them who the driver is, which means  don't appeal. From a quick search of the site, yours is the first case I can see with Carparksecurities we've seen here so it'd be excellent if you keep up to date and engage with this thread. General advice is to ignore everything until / unless you ever get a letter of claim.
    • So I am now in receipt of a second Letter of Claim this time from DCBL although their letter head now says " DCBLegal"  😱 Now I'm guessing one response to a letter of claim is sufficient and I could ignore this but having been inspired by other snotty letters I wanted to have another bash at one. How does this sound? Dear Lackeys of Company with Unconscionable Morals, Thank you ever so much for gracing me with yet another Letter Before Claim on behalf of Excel Parking Services. How many of these delightful missives do you plan on sending before you muster the courage to follow through on your threats to take me to court? Just so we're clear, here is the response (in italics by that I mean the slanted text below) I previously sent to Excel’s Letter Before Claim, in case your attention to detail is as lacking as I suspect: I am currently 2-0 up in terms of Small Claims Court proceedings and I look forward to the opportunity to claim a hat trick, this case being more straightforward than my previous two. I will be asking the court for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your conduct over this absurd claim. Despite my best efforts, you continue to assert that I have breached your terms. However, I cannot breach terms that I was not present to accept. Have you even read my initial response? I suggest you review it thoroughly and save yourself some money. Additionally, please refer to section 13 of the IPC Code of Practice, 2023 edition. I eagerly await your deafening silence. Remarkably, I haven't heard a peep from Excel since my response; instead, they've passed the baton to you to perform this tiresome routine once more. Consider this my official notice that I am sending a cease and desist letter to Excel Parking Services. Their relentless hounding has crossed the line into clear harassment. Any further demands for payment from you, as Excel's lackeys, will be regarded as nothing more than shameless acts of intimidation and harassment. I now look forward to the deafening sound of your silence. Yours sincerely,
    • Personally I'd go to it and object for the sake of it. They have to attend anyway so I can't see you being liable for any costs or anything (if they try to ask for attendance costs, just say that firstly it is their application, secondly it is from their own making, thirdly that they would have to come anyway so you shouldn't need to bear their costs.   When you turn up you should object on the basis that the witness has been in office since the time of the order, and could have done their witnes statement in advance of their AL. Their poor planning is not your fault, 7 days is too rushed for you as a LIP and there is no good reason that a company can't organise itself to sort WX in time. Also they say finalise so they already have something, its not like thye have nothing. Their amendments cannot be so important if they are being added so late.   see what @AndyOrch says but that's my thoughts  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell demanding payment for a debt purchased from Hoist that was discontinued at court.


uub
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 289 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 there,

I'm looking for some advice, I have spent years trying get myself sorted financially and off the credit doodoo list and now I have 0 defaults and a credit score over 900 and was recently accepted for a mortgage for the first time.

I've received letters recently from Lowell regarding a debt that they have purchased from Hoist for in excess of £5000.

Hoist issued a claim form in the county court and I engaged the services of a solicitor to deal with the case which ended with Hoist discontinuing the claim.

I have communicated with Lowell advising them of the above and that I also consider the matter to be statute barred.

Account opened 2015, defaulted 2016, court action and discontinuance in 2020.

Lowell are claiming that the amount is not statute barred as I communicated by way of a 3rd party writing to Hoist requesting information ie the solicitors and also there was further acknowledgement by way of court fees.

At no point have I ever acknowledged that I owe the amount in writing or otherwise and so obviously I disagree with their assessment of the situation.

The whole thing is very stressful given that I am in the middle of purchasing a house.

What is the best way of dealing with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing they can do ignore them

which is what you should have done in the 1st place.

lowells recently purchased hoist uk and been sending out automated letters on 100'000 of dead debts even those SB'd for 15yrs.

people are mugs sadly and even if one in 1000 cough up its profit free money to go down the pub or on holiday.

 

dx

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowell will say anything to see if someone is daft enough to pay.

So take no action at this point.

What type of debt was this originally e.g. credit card ?  What was the amount of debt at time of default ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was ignoring Hoist that led them to issuing small claims action in the first place.
 

It was a credit card debt just over £5000, they are demanding payment of the original amount from Hoist before court fees/legal costs was added.

There is absolutely no way I will pay it, I would rather instruct solicitors again than give a penny to these vultures, the whole thing has just got me in panic mode right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then requesting of information following a court claim and paying a court fee is very unlikely to be acknowledgement of the debt, but it depends on what was said at the time.  Did any document issued by you or on your behalf admit to owing the debt ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking back at documents that I still have I can see that the solicitors made a GDPR request to Hoist and Barclaycard and a CCA request to Hoist.

Also I can see in both witness statements and defence statements that no admission was ever made to the sums claimed, I have attached these for reference.

In fact the defence explicitly states the following.

Quote

I make no admission to the sum claimed by the Claimant. The Claimant has not
provided any evidence of sums outstanding and the Claimant is put to strict
proof of the sum claimed.

Defence.pdf Witness Statement.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

the claim was discontinued by the issuance of an N279 by the claimant.

the same debt cant be re litigated - end of. doesn't matter even if you wrote saying you owe it at anytime.

as i said IGNORE THEM.

which is what you should have done with lowells etc from day one instead of entering into silly letter tennis.

as for the original hoist claim you got BECAUSE you ignored them...well thats just daft, you dont ever ignore a letter of claim from a solicitor nor a country court claimform from northants bulk court.

 

WISE UP!

##dx# 

  • Like 1

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 didn't know it can't be re-litigated, that makes me feel somewhat better. I'm just fed up of the letters from them.

I will ignore any further correspondence now, thanks for the help everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

only one bite of the cherry for the same debt for the same amount

 

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

Quote
On 20/08/2023 at 07:45, uub said:

I didn't know it can't be re-litigated,

 

It can,  the claimants simply requests permission of the court pursuant to CPR 38.7

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part38#38.7

Although very rare it ever happens.

 

Andy

  • 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 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...