Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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 Financial CCA Letter Mumbojumbo reply


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5823 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

I'm just not convinced it's a genuine Lowell employee. I just can't believe anyone would be thick enough spend all day in a stressful call centre situation trying to effectively steal money from people, and then try to convince those who know better that what they are doing is completely 'honourable' and justified.

 

But the more I think about it..........:mad:

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most DCA's take the the moral high ground. They are brainwashed in to thinking that they are superior and the debtors are the lowlife. I am absolutely convinced the mole is a genuine employee. I would not be surprised if the mole was quit high up in the organisation. They are running scared and the actions of the mole justify that. If we keep the pressure on and get continued public support we can see an end to the underhand tactics and malpractices of these people. Non compliant CCA request applied for after 26 May is now an offence under new legislation and we should hit the DCA's hard with this. After the oneshow the TS's would have to take a more proactive stance. The mole knows the end is nigh for his immoral earnings and his post are of a desparate man about to lose his job. :cool:

Fight the injustice's of life with joy in your heart and abandon bitterness as it will destroy YOUR soul. Just at the foot, of a very steep learning curve. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very unlikely that Mole-Inside is the genuine article as Lowell employees run the risk of dismissal if they are found to be posting on these sites, :)
There have been several 'visitations' to this site by the Leeds Losers. All short lived I hasten to add. It would appear that the truth is hard to stomach for the DCA Threat Monkeys

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hoist by their own petard."

 

"victim of their own scheme" Sounds good to me dannyboy. ;)

Fight the injustice's of life with joy in your heart and abandon bitterness as it will destroy YOUR soul. Just at the foot, of a very steep learning curve. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this about Lowells

 

SAFE - Struggle Against Financial Exploitation Ltd. - INFORMATION CONFUSION

 

 

Isn't it nice to think we worry them soooooooo much they have to come on here and try to give us wrong information.

 

I wonder how many DCA Monkeys have dreams of being used by a Dominatrix? Usually people like that enjoy being dominated outside of their "stressful" jobs!

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately the same sources that Lowell use to 'Trace' alleged debtors are available to anyone who wants to use them.

 

Im amused that if Lowells directors are not doing anything wrong why they should fear for their personal safety.

 

It seems alright for Lowells to use sytems to Trace people yet when the same people try to see where the directors of Lowell spend their ill gotten gains then they run crying. Two sets of rules eh?

 

Hope they dont get paranoid at every car thats behind them on the way home from the office.

 

Do these people really think that anyone actually cares about them enough to target them. What a sad life they mus lead. Still I suppose they could employ some of their highly trained Licensed Field Agents to guard them.

 

secret.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The records at Companies house can be purchased online for the princely sum of £1-00. Although the up to date records of Lowell Farcical show the Directors as living c/o Enterprise House older records show a different address for each of them should anyone be in the least bit interested. These records are available for anyone to view at their leisure. They are not secret, neither is the electoral list, the telephone directory, online estate agents nor various other records which can be located by a few keystrokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this about Lowells

 

SAFE - Struggle Against Financial Exploitation Ltd. - INFORMATION CONFUSION

 

 

Isn't it nice to think we worry them soooooooo much they have to come on here and try to give us wrong information.

 

I wonder how many DCA Monkeys have dreams of being used by a Dominatrix? Usually people like that enjoy being dominated outside of their "stressful" jobs!

 

:D

 

 

I think it's quite cute that they ran off to the ICO quoting laws. All of a sudden the ICO means something to them! Maybe CAG should post a response that we don't recognise that law and will be sending out some crews to run them off the road? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they must be living in the same fear that they engender into others by threatening doorstep visits. How ironic:D I feel so sorry for them:wink:

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone could collect their doorstep at any time:D.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...