Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • 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

Daughter v Lowells


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6076 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

My daughter CCAd Lowells last week. She got a reply this morning saying they're requesting a copy of the agreement from the original lender.

 

Also received this morning was another letter from Lowells, this one from their pre-litigation dept.

 

How should she deal with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i cca,d lowells and got the same reply,then a little over the time limit another letter saying they couldnt get the info i asked for and they would pass the account back to OC and i would hear no more from them x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore any letters you get except CCA ones.

The pre-lit is simply the latest nasty-gram and complete cobblers.

 

Make sure that ALL your deals are documented and logged as this will be needed later on.

Once they are in criminal default, 12+month, and start demanding payment with the CCA then it time to approach Trading Standards and get them to deal with this issue on your behalf.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I CCAd Lowells in July. They have just sent a copy of the 'original credit agreement' - could some kind person have a look and advise if it is a credit agreement or an application form. Many thanks.

1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

2.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no ships, oooops meant prescribed terms.

It's not even signed by them !!

Totally UNENFORCEABLE.

 

 

S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14.

 

Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2.

 

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

 

8.3 What are the prescribed terms?

 

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:

 

* amount of credit – see Q8.

 

* credit limit – see Q8.5

* repayments – see Q8.9.

* rate of interest – see Q8.6

 

Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.

 

 

Also check out Peter Bard's excellent thread on the subject: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, nothing other than her application form.

 

--

 

Interestingly, they sent another letter just a day after their CCA response- 'I write to inform you that your account has been sold to Lowell Portfolio on the --/09/06.

 

Amazing, it's only taken them 1 year to give that information!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning CB. Oh, right. But as they've sent the application form - trying to pass it off as a CCA - they are waiting for a reply. So I should just wait now until their next letter?

Wait until they send you the next demand for money and you can respond by pointing out that they have not complied with your CCA request

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember CCA is a game of "Who Blinks First".

The next letter you get will probably be a threat of being passed to their Pre-litigation department, ie Hamptons ilLegal.

Now DON'T panic as this is simply another desk in Lowells offices.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing more from Lowell, however, just received a letter from Hamptons Legal saying the account has now been passed to them. It's threatening legal action in 7 days unless some payment made. (Just spotted at the foot of the letter that Hamptons is a trading style of Lowells.) Just as you predicted CB!

 

Should I now respond by pointing out that they have not complied with my CCA request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go with a Curlyben special

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

 

 

 

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the CCA 74.

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be resolved on 23rd

July, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, Subject Access request and have also breached s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Of Course we all know Lowells=Hamptons=Red Debt=Hamptons but if they want to play silly buggers then let them.

 

Hamptons = Same Sh!t Different notepaper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee there's a surprise ;)

OK blatant rip from another thread, but here goes...

 

Two versions.

1/

Dear DeadHead.

Oi! Idiot the corporate brain cell is obviously being overused and this letter is meaningless twaddle as RED and Lowell are one and then same.

May I recommend a good Psychiatrist for your multiple personality disorder.

Yours insincerely

The Bloke What You Threatened

2/ the real one ;)

Edit as needed

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

 

 

 

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the CCA 74.

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be resolved on 23rd

July, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, Subject Access request and have also breached s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Enjoy

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...