Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

evelyn darling and lowell financial/portfolio/???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5722 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

It looks fine to me, but I'm not sure what you mean by;-

 

"though I’m sure your legal quarters will be aware, of the OFT ‘s powers which will come into effect in 2008."

 

Are they getting new powers?? If so will they be relevant to your case??

I'm not 100% what powers the OFT have anymore as I think things changed a little earlier this year. They were involved in my complaint aginst Lowell, but that was about 12 months ago now.

 

It looks good, and the reference to the 'calling card' is particularly good as that is undoubtedly a dodgy area for Lowell. I'd send it and see what happens.

 

Personally, I'd take it as far as it will go because Lowell have got away with too much for too long and they show no signs of doing things by the rules. They deserve a slap and it's long overdue.

 

All the best.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I would leave the bit about 2008 out of it. Clownells can only deal with the here and now. Send your complaint to them. Let them try to resolve which of course they wont. Then complain to the FOS who will chage Clownells £400 for the privelege of investigating them. I agree with Dannyboy the are long overdue a huge slapping not just a tap on the wrist. Everyone who deals with these muppets gets the ubiquitous yellow card

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay then! i'll take that part out! thanks guys, i put it in because TS said they will be given more rights to revoke the licensces of DCA's who dont comply with CCA requests properly, but true, its not really that relevant right now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letter i sent to TS, for bgqs,

 

ATT: copy documents

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Could you please advise me regarding the following issue?

 

Over the course of the last few weeks I have been in correspondence with the debt collection agency Lowell financial Ltd. regarding an alleged debt they own in my name, sold on by Capital One Bank. The debt is currently in dispute with Capital One due to unlawful charges. I sent Lowell financial a request for a true copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement (as can be seen in the letter I have attached) under the consumer credit act 1974, and received a copy of an undated application form which does not contain the prescribed terms which I believe constitute an “agreement“. I also received a letter dated 23rd April 2007 informing me they had defaulted me even though I was not due to pay them an instalment until 16th May 2007, therefore I feel they defaulted me merely because I requested proof within my rights that they were entitled to collect aforementioned debt. I have included a copy of this correspondence.

 

Lowell financial Ltd. have also sent me a letter stating that they have passed on the debt to themselves, Lowell financial Ltd., from Lowell portfolio Ltd., which in itself is very confusing as all previous correspondence had been with the Lowell financial Ltd., not Lowell portfolio Ltd. Would this constitute as a breach of the Office of Fair Trading guidelines section 2.5, 2.4©? A copy of this letter is enclosed.

 

You can see from my letter I have enclosed that I was exercising my rights under the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 act in asking for a “true copy of the original agreement”, and also enclosed the maximum statutory fee of £1.

 

They have been in no way amicable and have continued to send letters threatening me, and to send agents to my home. Today on june 7th 2007 I received a card made to look like a card which had been hand delivered insinuating that they had visited my home when I was at work and would visit again that evening, a copy of this card is enclosed. It caused a lot of distress as I live in a block with many other residents and my partner called me whilst I was at work worried that he’d either missed someone and I was in trouble or that one of the other residents had answered the door. I do not think that this is anywhere near in line with the OFT’s guidelines regarding fair debt collection practices and would appreciate any advice. I would be very grateful of any help you can give me in response to this situation, in regards to whether they have fulfilled their duties under the consumer credit act 1974, and also wether they are adhering to the OFT debt collection guidance 2003, or the use of “look alike letters” 2000.

 

thank you for your time.

 

Please treat this letter as a formal complaint in regards to this matter.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hello, been off as i have moved house. got a reply from lowells saying they stand by their previous letters and denied everything and basically said that TS were lying, i was lying and we are all idiots. i am now going to forward it to the ombudsman. i ma tempted to send them a letter asking how on earth they can call trading standards idiots which is basically what they are saying...

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello, been off as i have moved house. got a reply from lowells saying they stand by their previous letters and denied everything and basically said that TS were lying, i was lying and we are all idiots. i am now going to forward it to the ombudsman. i ma tempted to send them a letter asking how on earth they can call trading standards idiots which is basically what they are saying...

Post Clownells letter and give us all a laugh:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

lastscan.jpg

 

 

1. the postcard WAS made to look like someone had called, trading standards thought that as well which is why they have forwarded it to the OFT.

 

2. "letter dated 8th may" is a letter they sent me with a second copy of an application form with the signature box highlighted. this is what i sent to TS and is what they said isnt an agreement and could be disputed in court.

 

3. the "second letter" they refer to is indeed my complaint, the first letter was merely requesting a copy of procedures. how they tackled that as a complaint i dont know.

 

the further page was just gumph about how this is thier final decision and that i can contact the FOS if im not happy, which im not and which i will. im suprised the fact that even though i clearly outlined the fact that Trading standards were interested in the card issue that they wanted permission to send it to the OFT, they still blah blahed it and claim it is not meant to look hand delivered - it is posted above, please have a look. it does indeed state someone will call at a set time, which as no one "phonecalled" me, then i and any other would take that to mean knock on my damn door.

 

this is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....therefore your account has been returned to our collections process where it shall progress towards a natural conclusion..

 

Ha ha we all know what that will be. NO CCA = End of story for Clownells

 

Their postcard says that they were sorry you were out. HTF would they know you were out if they didnt call at your house. They are stretching it with their silly yellow postcards, they know it, we all know it and now TS agrees with us. Sorry Clownells get out the cheque book you owe FOS £400 and unlike your threats and lies thats a fact:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what im planning to send to lowells. yes or no? if any one wants to help amend this id be very grateful because im not too sure if this is all okay.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Attn: FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

Re:- Account/Reference Number

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78 you have not fulfilled your duty to supply me with a copy of my consumer credit agreement. You have defaulted under the given time scale. The document you sent me, twice no less, does not contain many of the prescribed terms that are part of a valid consumer credit agreement. I am in receipt of a letter further substantiating this from Trading Standards. I also wish to draw your attention to the sending of the “calling card” which was intended to look as though you had visited my home. The card was unclear, it is obviously worded to appear that a visit had been made, there is no prior “warning” to this proposed false visit, and therefore I wish for you to consider this letter as a FORMAL COMPLAINT in the actions of Lowell Financial Ltd. And Lowell Portfolio Ltd. To clarify, this complaint is regarding the failure to present to myself, within the given time scale, a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement, and also the use of misleading, unclear correspondence with intent to cause fear or unease. I also wish to inform you that this matter will be taken further and please find enclosed a copy of the guidance I was sent by trading standards, and take note, though I’m sure your legal quarters will be aware, of the OFT ‘s powers which will come into effect in 2008. I look forward to your response.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

then this enclosed...

 

debtinfoTS.jpg

 

 

 

any advice is appreciated!

 

Hi evelyn darling,

I was wondering whether you had the whole article on the Trading Standards quote about debt collection? It cuts off at an interesting point re: written correspondence opened by anyone other than etc.

I've trawled through the TS website but can't find the article so if you can point me in the right direction to be able to view it I'd be grateful.

thanks ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Hi there,

 

Have just been reading your thread and wondered what the outcome was as I too have an inssue with Lowell.

 

Let us know when you get the chance.

I'm the Mummy and quite frankly, the CSA can kiss my butt!! :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Would like to know whats happened with this.. anything new? :)

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...