Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The plot thickens ... China may be producing the counterfeit stamps. Seems there's a lot of them about Royal Mail urged to investigate claims of Chinese-made fake stamps | Postal service | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Minister says he will work with business to investigate, while China dismisses suggestion of state role as ‘absurd’   Although that wouldn't have explained what happened to citizenB's friend who apparently received the stamp from the Royal Mail.  The fake stamps are (allegedly) only distributed through non-Post Office shops and the ones from the Post Office are legit and made under strict controls in the UK. Post Offices aren't permitted to go out and buy their stamps from other sources. (For clarity it was Royal Mail who provided the stamps to citizenB's friend, not the Post Office, which is a separate company. But I assume Royal Mail got its stamps for the 'swaps' from the legit UK manufacturer and didn't buy them on Amazon!). Still, I will make sure I buy stamps from a Post Office in future, not from my corner shop. Did you friend ever get anywhere with his complaints @citizenB ?  
    • Just the phone call and fear of the kids being involved and it upsetting them.  Sadly I have remembered I went over my miles as this latest car took ages to get here (we get them brand new) so I kept my pld one a yr longer so it was mileage over my what I had been allocated that they were deducting. I need to Get exactly what the payments were for I haven't answered the bailiffs through paper means it was purely done through returning a phone call and a quick google.  I have no recollection of a pcn on the car, if there had of been It would of been a reminder to pay it but this was the last week of my mums life. Things were stressful so as iv said, I don't remember getting one. I appreciate everything you lot do and have a fantastic union guy so will get him on board 🏴‍☠️
    • Can I ask why is it when I go to set up payment that the bank refuses to credit that person unless the name matches the account but in this case they didn’t take that into account? How is it that the traders bank will not disclose the name even to my bank when there is a court order against him? And finally, I can’t locate a form that is for requesting a variation. Besides I thought the name change would mean it couldn’t be served? In company’s house there’s never been one where the car dealership name matched the address.
  • 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 & Overdales - Letter of claim - old 118118 PDL + 3 mobile debt received


Heropanda
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 151 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

Would appreciate some advice here and I'll apologise in advance that I won't be able to provide a great deal of information until a few weeks time as I received this letter just before going on holiday and I'm not back til next week now but I think I need to find a way to act in the meantime.

I've eventually received a letter of claim from Overdales representing Lowell (it was sent to an old address but luckily had Royal Mail redirection) and it relates to an alleged debt with 118 Money and also a mobile contract with Three. Both of these are from 2015/6 with last payments in 2017/8 so I've been keen to let them move towards their stature barred dates. 

I have had prior communication with Overdales before on these about this time last year and nothing came of it but they are trying again. Specifically for the three contract I asked them for a copy of the agreement and statements detailing this balance and they wrote back with the following in Dec 22

'This debt does not arise under an agreement for credit and therefore it is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This means that the original creditor is not required to retain a copy of the agreement, if it was in writing, and therefore we are unable to obtain a copy. However, we have requested a statement from the original creditor, this should be provided to you in due course. Please find attached the Notice of Assignment provided by our Client.'

Then in February 23 they followed up regarding the statement that:-

'With regards to the former Three Mobile account, we have been unable to obtain a copy of the Statement due to the age of the account.'

I understand there is a process to follow now with the pre action checklist but does the lack of ability to produce an agreement or statement upon request make this alleged debt impossible for them to proceed with? Also if this isn't an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act should they be allowed to record it as a default on my credit file?

Annoyingly I arrive home on the day of day 30 from the date of their letter, is there a way to acknowledge the letter of claim, change the address they are using for me and reply properly with CAG guidance a few days after the 30 days are up?

Very much appreciate any advice and trying not to let it ruin my holidays!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell & Overdales - Letter of claim - old 118118 PDL + 3 mobile debt received

bit annoyed that after all the help you've had here, you haven't picked up you must inform your creditors in writing of your correct and current address when you move.

you do realise court letters are not redirected by royal mail should any of your old creditors/dca's go for backdoor CCJ's?

the fact that lowells know you have not legally updated them is the very reason they have sent the letter of claim, hoping you might not get it as you'd moved then they'd get straight in with a backdoor court claim in seconds.

dca's dont/cant default debts or more correctly issue default notices as agreements/contracts would have been terminated by the OC on or before the debt sale. 

what are the defaulted dates for each registered on your credit file as that +14days will be SB date.

for the minute i would pers IGNORE everything to date and restart as if nothing has been returned/sent etc for now. cant hurt you .

so hit letter of claim and follow post 2 

inc a NEW cca request for the 118118 debt. but obv not one for the 3 debt

just pluralise the wording where needed in our reply pdf to encompass both debts.

no harm in sending it away before you go away.

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

Thank you very much and for your patience in helping me out. 

For a bit of background and context, all of the creditors were given my updated information for my previous residence where I was s21'd in June, the place I've ended up in I can't stand and am looking to move out of in the next month as soon as I have a break clause which is why I hadn't wanted to update the details knowing that I had a redirection in place, I definitely hadn't realised that court documents wouldn't be redirected so I'll get on that asap.

You'll also be pleased to hear that I have 5 years and 1 month without any form of missed payments so the light at the end of the tunnel is firmly approaching

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 118118 debt I have two current defaults on my file, one created by Madison CF with a date of default of 26/03/2018 (last updated 31/10/23) and one from Lowell's relating to the same debt with a default date of 25/04/2018 (Last updated 05/11/23)

 

I did always think it was unfair that I've got multiple defaults listed against the same debt but the credit reference agency said this was valid and within their right to do this.

 

My question about the three debt (which is registered on my file in the name of Lowell with a default date of 24/07/2018) is that if they are saying it's not a regulated borrowing and they can't provide an agreement or statement of the account then should it be on my file at all and could they ever take it further based on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so neither sb's till past mid 2024.

not sure where you have got the idea from that not being able to provide a statement nor a contract copy should mean a debt should not appear on your file? you had the phone/contract you used the facilities it provided, you defaulted by not paying or was there was some form of dispute ,with 3  which to date we dont know?... how did this 3 debt come about.?

as for the 118118 debt i'll repeat what i said earlier , the original 'creditor' defaulted you on or before the debt sale, now typically the org entry is simply renamed to the new debt owner but there can be dual entries for the same debt, and it doesnt hurt you twice having 2 defaults for the same debt, however the date should be the same. but thats lowells for you.

so was there a dispute with 3? or you just stopped using the sim and this is the unused airtime contractual months till end of contract sum they are after which is not on under ofcom/fca guidelines.

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

In the time since you first messaged i have sent notifications to all creditors with my new address so thank you again for that prompt. 

 

Just on the 118/Lowell's one I do believe there are two entries as they are also for different amounts (1780 Vs 1400) which reflects the amount when it first defaulted and then I did attempt to make reduced payments for a while (I think directly to 118118 and not to Lowell's but I'm not sure) for a short time which reduces the balance. I think I wrote at the time saying it was a payment that didn't acknowledge the debt which I disputed on the grounds of unaffordable lending but I'm sure that won't have worked and extended the SB timeframes a little.

Is there anyway I can find if these are dual entries and what can I do to ensure accuracy in the date/amounts?

 

The three thing would have been the early termination / abandonment of a contract part way through.

The reason I assumed that without the agreement and statement it wouldn't be enforceable is based on what I'd assumed from all of the things you request in the CCA requests and pre action checklists, I had just assumed that these were things a company would have to produce to prove the debt existed in the first place and that I had agreed to it and the terms.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

telecom accounts are not credit so not covered by the CCA. 

118118 debt, the ref no' for the debt should be the same for both entries. 

if theres an irresponsible lending claim to 118118 why did you not start it following our guide rather than paying.:noidea: you cant pay a debt and say the payment it not acknowledgement of a debt.

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

They are different account numbers on my file for 118118 and Lowells entries, most of the digits of the account numbers are starred out but the last three digits are visible and different on the accounts. How would you proceed with this based on that info?

I never took a claim forward for irresponsible lending I just made a payment because I wanted to stop being chased and harassed by creditors and stated that I believed this was irresponsible lending at the time. I am looking into the possibility of starting a formal complaint and claim now based on this information as the statements I received show that the interest portion of the loan is far higher than the balance that's been defaulted and it was a high APR loan to someone with active payday loans and defaults on their credit file already using debts to pay off other debts etc.

I guess I'm most surprised by the three situation, if they are unable to provide any evidence of the contract details or what I'm meant to have signed up for then how could they prove where the balance came from eg for agreed penalties for early cancellation, I would thought that they need some documentation to even start a claim

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well as i said they probably hoped you'd ignore the PAPLOC and they'd file and get a backdoor ccj for the combined debts to your old address.

then any paperwork wriggles are too late. theres not such thing as a penalty for early cancellation. if you go read a few lowell telecom or mobile claimform threads here you'll get the whole idea rather than keep asking questions you'll later understand their answers. they have either discontinued or lost most court cases here involving mobile/telecom debts to date.

as for 118118 id be getting the irresponsible lending complaint of asap in priority to the PAPLOC reply, then it'll be nicely in progress and give lowell a nasty shock on both debts they they  might not try court and want to lose.

as 118118 still trade..and you had numerous defaults / other outstanding lending on your file at take out time i assume ?  you should get all the interest taken off the loan and only have to poss repay the initial sum borrowed minus payments to date. the guide is in the payday loan general forum here.

id also get the paploc reply ready and worded and put it up here 1st before you send it off , 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...