Daughter v Lowells

[Dispirited]

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?

[elliesnan]

scare tactics or just a standard computerised letter. just let the 12+30 days lapse and see what they come back with.

[elliesnan]

just to add l had a couple of those and a letter offering me a once in a lifetime discount to pay the alledcged debt off standard bumf IMHO

[Dispirited]

Thanks elliesnan. I'll tell her to wait and see what develops.

[col123]

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

[firstwithit]

I also cca them, delivered on 20th, letter from their pre lit section arrives dated 23rd and today letter dated 25th saying they are requesting!

[Curlyben]

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.

[Dispirited]

Thank you col, firstwithit and Curlyben. Your replies are much appreciated.

[Dispirited]

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

[diskmandave]

It looks pretty but the only prescribed term that I can see is the right to cancel, i've no doubt there were no terms & conditions either.

[Curlyben]

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

[Dispirited]

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!

[Dispirited]

Curlyben, still as handsome as ever I see. Thank you!

[NitrousOxide]

As pointed out that is really only a application form. It contains nothing that could even pass it off as a CCA agreement.

[Dispirited]

Thanks NitrousOxide.

[Dispirited]

Forgot to ask, is my next step to send them a default letter, and if so, can anybody supply a link?

[Curlyben]

Nope WAIT for their next letter

After all you CCA is till outstabding.

[Dispirited]

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?

[ODC]

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

[Dispirited]

Got it, thanks ODC, thanks CB.

[Curlyben]

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.

[Dispirited]

"Who Blinks First" - I like it.

 

Apparently I have to spread some Reputation around before I can reward you again so have a public THANK YOU!

[Dispirited]

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?

[ODC]

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

[Curlyben]

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