Barclays OD - 5 Defaulted Accounts on CRa file !! 4 from lowells !! for the sane debt!!

[tifo]

sent three letters off today :

 

1 to Barclays asking for £5,000 compensation for a default they are maintaining which they have no legal right to anymore (they sold it 5 years ago).

 

1 to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd asking for £5,000 compensation for submitting and maintaining an extra default.

 

1 to Lowell Financial Ltd asking for £10,000 compensation for submitting and maintaining two defaults they have no legal basis for. That's at £5,000 per default.

 

I may be lucky and get what i ask, but if not i will take it to court and ask for an award of between £1,000 (likely) and £5,000 (OFT guidance for submitting wrong default/default information).

 

Plus, they have defaulted on my CCA s78 request last week and will commit and offense soon.

 

Any advice ?

[InKogneeToh]

Hi tifo

 

Of course you can ask for any amount you want but if it gets to court, which is likely, then I think you have to be able to substantiate your claim as a damages one, i.e. show that the figure equates to the actual loss you have incurred as a result of their actions.

 

Also, extra compensation for e.g.distress, inconvenience etc. is a tricky one and I'm not sure whether the courts would allow any part of a monetary claim that includes an amount for this.

 

Where have you seen the OFT guidance of £5000 for wrong default?

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

I understand your points Pam.

 

I'm just trying to rattle them a bit, cos they have created a problem for themselves. Lowell Financial especially as they have never owned the debt and have no legal basis for issuing 1 default, never mind 2! I'd like to see how they get out of it, especially in court.

 

Then there's Lowell Portfolio who have by *mistake* entered an extra default.

 

Thirdly, there's Barclays who have maintained a default every month (i last checked last month) despite selling the account to Lowell Portfolio. I'd like to hear what they say in court.

 

So, mistakes happen and restitution is paid for them. I'm just giving them all a chance to settle the matter. A few grand is nothing for these companies and why should they be able to get away with it? A default still makes a difference to my credit score. The fact remains i cannot get credit or a decent bank account because of this and other defaults.

 

As for the OFT, £1000 is a figure they have quoted from actual awards by the financial ombudsman.

 

significant awards (£300 - £1,000)

 

1. "A bank reported late payment information to a credit reference agency, so the customer had difficulty obtaining other credit. Until that point the customer had not noticed the bank’s error. The bank apologised for its error but there was then a delay in correcting the information with the credit reference agencies. We made a significant award".

They call anything over £1,000 an 'exceptional' award and i have chosen £5,000 to keep it within the small claims limit.

 

However, every case is looked at on its own merit and their defaults have affected me for over 5 years, a very very long time to carry on making a mistake. So i think i am justified in asking for what i have.

 

I have also reported them to the OFT, ICO, TS and my MP Jack Straw (now you know where i'm from), and asked his office to ask the above governmental organisations for regular updates on my complaint.

 

This creates a lot of heat for Lowell and to escape the fire i hope they pay up. Otherwise its court for them.

 

The actual debt is only £189 now but they still will not write it off, so let them keep it!

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

I wasn't in any way implying that you shouldn't go for the jugular and I hope that you do get fair compensation for their unscrupulous antics. I was just mentioning that justifying an amount of damages in court is sometimes tricky.

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

thanks Pam,

 

i'm hoping they'll pay before going to court, especially since all those gov bodies will be after them as well!

 

i don't think the banks will pay (Barclays and Natwest) so will use the OFT and Financial Ombudman for those as well. I'll accept an award of £1,000 from each which is what is stated, but i will push my case to 'very exceptional' given the long time period and its cumulative effects, as a default shown as outstanding for 5 years will make a difference to a recent one?

 

You know more about defaults so your advice may be invaluable.

[InKogneeToh]

 

You know more about defaults so your advice may be invaluable.

 

I'm not sure about that! Just that I disagree with you as to the re-defaulting of accounts that have already been previously defaulted.

 

For example, My hubby's alleged debt with Lowell has probably had a default issued against it by them, although we haven't checked yet.

 

But in our old copies of his credit record from way back it shows a default by Barclaycard for the same account which has now dropped of the record.

 

So my argument is a) how can you default an account that has already been in default and b) how can Lowell say we have defaulted with THEM when we haven't even acknowledged the debt or entered into (and subsequently breached) a payment arrangement with them (i.e. defaulted) and c) how can we have defaulted on an account with them when they have not yet established (by production of the executed agreement) that they actually have a legal right to this money??

 

Regards, Pam

[dannyboy660]

Tifo,

 

Take look at this.....

 

When paying bills can hurt your credit - MSN Money

 

"A lender will generally write off an account as a bad debt within six months after it becomes delinquent -- in other words, six months after the borrower stops paying. The write-off is reported to the credit bureaus as a "charge-off."

 

Some people incorrectly believe that a charge-off means they no longer have to pay their debt. But "charge-off" is basically just an accounting term, notes debt expert Gerri Detweiler, author of "The Ultimate Credit Handbook." It doesn't relieve you of the legal or ethical obligation to pay the loan, and the lender or a collector can still come after you.

Usually, a lender will turn the charged-off account over to its collections department or a collection agency, and you'll have two entries for the same account on your credit report: one from the original creditor showing the account's status as "charged-off" and another from the collection agency showing the account's status as "in collections."

(If you have more than two entries for the same debt, which sometimes happens when an account is passed from one collection agency to another, you can demand the credit bureaus remove the extra entries.)"

 

 

Slightly American in it's flavour, but then so are our friends at Lowell.

 

Check around some of the "Charged Off Debts" on a Google search....it's very American, very interesting and very Lowell.

[OneStepLeft]

 

Usually, a lender will turn the charged-off account over to its collections department or a collection agency, and you'll have two entries for the same account on your credit report: one from the original creditor showing the account's status as "charged-off" and another from the collection agency showing the account's status as "in collections."

(If you have more than two entries for the same debt, which sometimes happens when an account is passed from one collection agency to another, you can demand the credit bureaus remove the extra entries.)"

 

 

Interesting but a little contradictory in itself. They say you'll have 2 entries as though it is the "norm" in the first para, then go on to say says you can demand they remove any extra entries which "sometimes happens" in the second para.

[tifo]

spoke to Lowell 'Legal Director' today.

 

he basically said we haven't done anything wrong as we were entitled to enter a default at CRAs, it makes no difference it was in Financial name when it should have been Portfolio, still the same group.

 

he didn't seem to understand that they are separate Ltd companies, spoke to three people (operator, manager, director) they all said same thing, i.e. same group so makes no difference which Ltd company.

 

he didn't seem too bothered about CCA non compliance, said in 'exceptional' circumstances we have more time than 12 working days, as its unfair to ask us to comply in such a short time.

 

anyway, he'll reply to my letters soon.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

What a load of hogwash these people spout!!

 

I bet this 'legal director' didn't enlighten you as to what debt you are supposed to owe to Lowell Financial that you have apparently defaulted on, did he?!?

 

And I don't suppose he was able to direct you to the section of the CCA that allows extra time to comply with s77/78 either!!!

 

It's gonna be very interesting to hear the next instalment of this particular fairy tale!

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

Pam,

 

no, he didn't tell me which Financial account i'd defaulted on.

 

no, he wasn't able to tell me which CCA s77/s78 let him have more time.

 

yes, it is going to be interesting.

 

he kept on going on about it being the 'same group' so it doesn't matter who puts the default.

 

but he did say they've told the relevant agency to remove the entries by Financial, so theres admittance there of their mistake!

 

now, just for compensation! i did tell him i have complained to all the relevant authorities i could find, and he said they will answer any inquiries they get within the due time.

 

considering this debt is only £189, they are not letting go! he still asked me when i am going to make my regular payment, the cheeky ****!

[InKogneeToh]

:lol: You couldn't make it up, could you! :lol:

[tifo]

no, not even if i tried!

 

lets see if the court will accept the 'same group' argument.

[tifo]

just a quick note if Lowell are reading this ....

 

Hi !!!

[tifo]

still waiting and they're running around trying to get out of it ....

 

now have confirmation from ICO that they're on the case, the OFT have kept the details to make a case when they get enough complaints. The CSA are also finding out what Lowell are doing.

 

just leaves the TS and my MP now.

[tifo]

waiting ...

 

they have so far refused to remove the 2 defaults by Lowell Financial Ltd despite them never owning the account and no explanation is given why the won't remove.

[InKogneeToh]

waiting ...

 

they have so far refused to remove the 2 defaults by Lowell Financial Ltd despite them never owning the account and no explanation is given why the won't remove.

 

Hi

 

Any news from the ICO yet? It looks like you will have to start court action under the DPA to get this sorted but a report from the ICO would hopefully be very helpful.

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

The ICO say they have passed it to a case worker.

 

I can wait, as the debt is a very small amount and i cannot see them pushing it too far for that much, considering they will accept 25% as a settlement. I am surprised they haven't written it off because it is not worth spending the time on.

 

But, the amount makes no difference here as i am chasing the unlawful data processing and there is no way they can get out of that as they have never had any legal right for that.

[tifo]

received new report from Equifax who have (kindly) removed default entries from a few DCAs as they did not receive a reply.

 

however, i notice two things :

 

1. On one default at Equifax, the name has been changed from Lowell Financial Ltd to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, but the "last updated" date is still shown as October 2006, which it cannot be because this formed a major part of my complaint to Lowell in January this year. Is this allowed as they are separate Ltd companies?

 

2. Lowell Portfolio I ltd have entered a new default which was not there previously for the second account they have, last month. This is after they have defaulted and offenced on my s.78 CCA 1974 request. What can i do?

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

I would write to Equifax and LP1.

 

1) Tell them that you KNOW that the change from LF to LP1 was made very recently and not in Oct 2006 and that you expect the CRA entry to be corrected to the date the update was actually made (and only left there if they have complied with CCA)!

 

2) Tell them that LP1 are not entitled to enforce the alleged debt due to failure to comply with CCA, and that since they have no proof whatsoever that you owe them anything, their entry is unsubstantiated and must be removed.

 

Have you got a previous copy of CRA file showing earlier entries?

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

Hi Pam ... Happy Easter!

 

Yes, of course i have the report from Jan which started the whole thing.

 

They sent me one now (free of charge!) as they have made some changes.

 

Must say, i find them easier to deal with than Experian. I get letters almost every week keeping me informed of what they have done or are waiting for. Experian sent the one standard letter and that's it.

 

I was going to do the same as what you suggest, but its good to ask.

 

Also, will update the ICO on my complaint against Lowell and state they have defaulted me after non-compliance.

 

I was also going to ask the CRAs for the removal of DCA default entries where they have not complied with s.78 and therefore not proven they own the debt. Tell the CRAs that as a Data Controller they have to make sure the info is accurate and i as the Data Subject am telling them it is not, and what steps they have taken for the DCAs to prove they can actually default me? If their client cannot provide tangible proof then please remove the entries ... or else ...

[InKogneeToh]

Hi, and Happy Easter to you too!

 

You will probably get the usual 'we have to believe the DCA and not you' cobblers from the CRA as they are in the credit industry's pockets but at least it will be more ammo for your claim/complaint!

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

spoke to ICO today re my complaint about Lowell.

 

they said if Lowell now processes the correct info re defaults (i.e. they have corrected their mistake) then we are OK with it.

 

i asked what about the past 4 years of multiple unlawful defaults and the effect on my credit score? they said our job is compliance and if they are now complying ..... blah blah blah!

 

i've made a complaint with TS so lets see what they say.

 

CSA have no reply for me yet.

 

and the director at Lowell keeps 'threatening' to reply and doesn't. Now he's stopped acknowledging emails!

 

I haven't been able to contact him on the telephone number in his emails as it always goes to a voicemail.

 

I have rang the 0845 number but the collections department have not been able to redirect my call. The answer i always get is that he is 'unavailable'.

 

Today i was indirectly called a liar by the operator who took the call, at 10.45am. I asked 'can i be put through to {director} please' and he asked 'have you spoken to him before'. I replied 'yes, i have a few times on the telephone, he has also rang me and we exchange emails'. The operators reply was 'i can't see any record on the computer of him having called you' (meaning i am lying that we spoke on the telephone) and 'if he had spoken to you then you should have his extension number' (meaning i am lying again).

 

and no compliance at all with my s.78 request. Not a mention of this at all (after acknowledging they received it). This was for 2 accounts.

 

So ..... any advice anyone?

[InKogneeToh]

Hi Tifo

 

I'm sorry to have to say that the only way this 'shower' are ever likely to take you seriously is when a claim form arrives in their morning post one day!

 

A disgraceful situation but sadly true I fear!

 

Regards, Pam

[tifo]

yes, Pam, i think the same.

 

but, i am worried about having a solid case as they will say we corrected the mistake when it was bought to our attention (would they have to explain why they did it in the first place?). This is the ICO opinion.

 

The judge might agree with them.

 

I will need to prove that i suffered as a result of their default, but since i have many others as well, i cannot single out theirs only.

 

The replies i've had from others is that you never suffered any loss from our default because you have other defaults and this is why you cannot get preferential rates on mortgage, loans etc.

 

I need to prove that each default makes a contribution (about -120 points) but how can i do this?

 

i'm afraid the judge might not agree with me and i lose .... judges can be like that sometimes.