Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

coop loan / lowell financial unsure what to do


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6277 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

Recieved a letter from lowell Financial may last year, didnt ring or write just wrote out a cheque for 1 pound a month just so no ccj action would not start... plus i didnt really know what it was for.

 

Came across this site before new year.......

 

Sent out a C.C.A. to Lowell Financial 5/01/07 as they said I had a debt of 2850 with cooperative bank,

 

recieved a copy of credit agreement for a loan of 3k plus loan interest charge of 1400.00

 

the agreement is dated 10/10/96.........

 

signed by myself and hubby but no other signature on agreement.........

 

sent out a s.a.r. to Co-Op on 5/01/07 but have not heard anything from them yet other than the signature from the post office.

 

what should I do not is this under the limitation act?....

any help here would be great...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recieved a letter from lowell Financial may last year, didnt ring or write just wrote out a cheque for 1 pound a month just so no ccj action would not start... plus i didnt really know what it was for.

 

Came across this site before new year.......

 

Sent out a C.C.A. to Lowell Financial 5/01/07 as they said I had a debt of 2850 with cooperative bank,

 

recieved a copy of credit agreement for a loan of 3k plus loan interest charge of 1400.00

 

the agreement is dated 10/10/96.........

 

signed by myself and hubby but no other signature on agreement.........

 

sent out a s.a.r. to Co-Op on 5/01/07 but have not heard anything from them yet other than the signature from the post office.

 

what should I do not is this under the limitation act?....

any help here would be great...........

 

The agreement sounds wrong, as it should be signed (etc) by the lender too, unfortunately, by paying the £1/mo you might have re-set the limitation. Unless it was already statute barred which IMHO it can't be legally resurrected once already legally statute barred...?

 

If "me" i'ld stop paying the £1/mo and see where it goes as, if they do start hassling you again you can always come back and ask for advise, as they are still only in the first stage of the collection process.

 

I'ld also be tempted to send them the, "statute barred letter" in bold text!

 

I'm sure someone more knowlegeable will advise better :)

 

(those who don't try don't get!)

 

Best Regards, Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i started paying the pound a month may 06 im also positive the payments for the loan stopped in 98-99

 

in the letter template it does mention about not paying.....looks like i balls up there.

dont know where to go from here really .... they may have caught me just before the 6 years were up what about the countersiged agreement avenue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA must be signed by them too!

 

Unless someone with more experience comes and says i'm wrong, STOP paying and see where it goes, like I said it's still at stage 1 of collection process.

 

Send them the statute barred letter (with dates), should they come back to you, then say they have no legal right to ressurect the debt, even given the payment/s that you were bullied (with legal threats) into making.

 

You could also mention that you are making complaints to OFT/TS/POLICE.

 

This is still only in the 1st stage of collection, come back for more advise or help should you need to. :)

 

Good luck, Dave.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

DOH!!!

 

recieved a letter today......... from Lowell

 

"we can confirm on our records that you actnowledged the account by making a payment of one pound on 19th January 2007 we would also like to advise that regular monthly payments of one pound have been made since nov 2005. therefore the limitation act 1980 sec 5 does not apply in your case we now require payment of the full balance by return"

 

:o

well any suggestions........:-? (gutted)..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bummer :(

 

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w289/diskmandave/Cap-one.jpg

 

Is this more or less what they sent you?

 

If so, see my own thread, diskmandave vs Lowell (CapOne)

 

You still need to establish if the debt was already statute barred before you started paying the pound a month! A tiny hope?!

 

Regards, Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is only my signature on the credit agreement not countersigned does this make a difference?

 

I found this on another thread a few days ago, hope it help...

 

OFT rsponse to failing to provide agreement:

 

 

For your information, the general effects of sections 77-79 requires the creditor/owner

(in the case of a hire agreement) under an agreement for (fixed-sum credit, running

account credit and hire agreement) to provide the debtor/hirer with a copy of the executed

agreement and a statement of account on request.

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days

(not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all.

This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month

(for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in

this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with

the request albeit out of time, he may once again enforce the agreement.

 

A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement

and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do

not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the

agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but

remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor

(the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when

each is/was due). However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points,

but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have

difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody

would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs

to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot

otherwise.

 

In the absence of a copy of the original agreement someone's liability for a debt can only lead to

further query. However in circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under

section 25(2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader failed to investigate and/or

provide details as appropriate when a debt is queried or disputed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so basicaly they have to have a signed copy which they have, but there isays no countersignature from the loan company .........sooo........it does not say anything about the countersignature/

 

Apperently not, you could basically make up your own arguement/s from that and see how Lowell's run with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In whatever you write to them, i'ld be tempted to include this paragraph unless you can use more to your advantage/situation:

 

A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement

and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do

not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the

agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but

remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor

(the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when

each is/was due). However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points,

but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have

difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody

would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs

to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot

otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sandrockDOH!!!

 

recieved a letter today......... from Lowell

 

"we can confirm on our records that you actnowledged the account by making a payment of one pound on 19th January 2007 we would also like to advise that regular monthly payments of one pound have been made since nov 2005. therefore the limitation act 1980 sec 5 does not apply in your case we now require payment of the full balance by return"

 

:shock:

well any suggestions........:confused: (gutted)..........

Lowell Financial

Enterprise House

1 Apex View

Leeds

Yorkshire

LS11 9BH

 

 

19TH February 2007

 

Your Refxxxxxx

Original Creditor : Co-operative Bank

 

Dear Mr Beaver

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company

 

Thank you for your letter dated 15th of February 2007 in response to my letter dated the 12th of February 2007 in regards to the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5, to which the points you raised I have noted.

 

In regards to my request which I sent you on the 5th of January 2007 requesting a copy of the credit agreement along with further information (copy attached), I received a copy of the Credit Agreement duly signed by myself and my partner. May I draw your attention to the following:

 

Section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)

(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the

prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the

prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the

prescribed manner).

And Section 60(1) (a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed

terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the

prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the

creditor or owner.

I therefore , unfortunately, I have to inform you that you have not complied with my original c.c.a. request which you signed for on the 12th of January 2007 .

 

I trust you will look into this Credit Agreement that you supplied a copy of unsigned by the creditor, and I look forward to your prompt reply in relation to this matter.

I will be informing the OFT regarding this breach of my original request and the FSA to which I will forward a copy to yourselves.

Yours faithfully,

sandrock

 

what ya think........ any more info I could put in here??????????:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Sandrock,

 

What a nightmare !! Ok, firstly, since the CCA that they have sent you has only one signature on it, they have not fully complied with your request. The CCA needs to have both signatures for it to be enforceable; yourself and the creditor.

 

I would write to them about this first. If they do produce the document with both signatures on it (Hmmm), you can then move onto Stage 2... asking for proof of when the last payment was made on the account, prior to you sending off £1 in 2005 because the account may already have been statute-barred. However, if they cannot comply with your CCA.... then there is no point asking them about this. They are very late anyway....

 

I have made some changes to you letter... you are being too nice to them ;)

 

Your Refxxxxxx

Original Creditor : Co-operative Bank

 

Dear Mr Beaver,

 

Please note that I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 15th of February 2007, the contents of which have been noted.

 

Unfortunately, the copy of the Credit Agreement supplied by you does not appear to have been properly executed. As I am sure you are aware, section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, states that a Consumer Credit Agreement does not comply with the regulations under section 60(1), unless it is signed by both "debtor/hirer" and "creditor/owner" and also contains all the prescribed terms and conditions of that Agreement.

 

As you have been unable to comply with my request, I must inform you that until I receive a properly executed Credit Agreement (per my request of xx/xx/xx, the above account remains in dispute and any further action taken by your company to try and enforce an alleged debt will represent a further offence until such times as a properly executed Agreement can be produced in court.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Anybody have any views on this ? If not, send it by recorded delivery and keep a copy for your records.

 

Sandrock, at this point I cannot say if the debt is statute-barred or not, but if it was me... I would fight them with every last breath. I hope I have been of some help on this occasion...

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...