Lowells bought a "non" debt--advice needed for 2nd letter in 3 letter process

Hi....I need advice if possible on the following:

I am working on behalf of my neighbour on this issue--it is not my "debt".

She had a phone call from Studio--a catalogue company, a month or so ago, saying that Lowells had just bought a large number of accounts from them (studio) and that from now on, all payments were to be made to Lowells.
This call came out of the blue with no prior warning. She was NOT in debt and had been paying regular payments by debit card. She told the woman on the phone to xxx off and that she had no contract with Lowells and did not know them.

She then received a letter from Lowells regarding this and so I sent a first letter in the three letter process.

This is my first letter:

                                                                                                                                 
Mr C.White
Lowell Financial Ltd,
PO Box 1411
Northampton
NN2 1BQ

14th Sept 2017                                                          Re- Ref No: xxxxxxxx

Dear Interloper

Thank you for your recent contact dated: 4th Sept 2017

I do not have a contract with you and I do not know you.
I was not in debt and I did not give you permission to buy this account.
Any contract has to be a meeting of minds and agreed by BOTH parties.

I feel this matter is serious and wish to deal with it in writing. I do not give you permission to contact me by telephone. I will be logging the dates and times of your calls and messages and should you do so. I must warn you that they will constitute ‘harassment' and I may take action under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, which makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing 'alarm, distress or humiliation', because of their frequency or manner.

Please provide verification of your claim, by providing me with true and certified copies (not photocopies) of the Deed of Assignment (NOT Notice of Assignment) and Deed of Novation.
Please also provide me with the name of the individual who is the duly authorised representative from your company, who has seen the Original Note and is certifying these assignments as certified copies and that your company now has the Original Note (Credit Agreement) under penalty of perjury and with unlimited liability and confirm that the Note has never been sold prior to your company purchasing this account. Please also confirm the name of the individual who is the duly authorised representative from your company, who has carried out due diligence under The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and what actions s/he has taken in relation to this account.

Please provide this information and documents within ten (10) days from the above date, so that I may settle any financial obligation I might lawfully owe. Your said failure to provide verification of your claim constitutes your agreement to the following terms: that you are a third party interloper; you have no legal standing; no first-hand knowledge of this matter; your claim is fraudulent; any damages I suffer you will be held culpable; you agree to pay all fee schedules; that any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed and that you will no longer pursue this matter any further.

Should you provide sufficient evidence that I owe your organisation or your client any outstanding amount and that you can provide proof that they have assigned you agency, I should be happy to pay any verified claim in full.

Yours faithfully,

xxxx:xxxx
By: Sovereign xxxxx of the family: xxxx
Authorised Agent and Representative for xxxxxx xxxxx

No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.


ok---so we then received a reply from Lowells dated 27th Sept 2017:


                                                                                         Balance £642-83

Dear Miss xxxx,

We acknowledge of your correspondence.

We note all your comments and have investigated the matter.

Our stance is as follows:

--Lowell Portfolio I Ltd purchased your account from the original creditor in 06/2017
--Formal notice of this assignment was provided to you by letter dated 02/09/2017--which complies with the requirements of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
--This is not an assignment under the Provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
--That we are not acting as agents for the original creditor or any other third party.

To provide further evidence of your liability for this debt, we have requested, from the original creditor, a copy of your agreement--together with copy statements of your account. We will write to you further once we have received these documents and , in the meantime, your account is on hold. During this time, should we receive any similar correspondence from you regarding this account, we will not be providing a response. If, however, you do have any specific questions regarding the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

For the avoidance of any doubt, please note that, whilst Lowell will always endeavour to comply with all relevant regulatory requirements, we do not acknowledge or accept any of the terms, conditions, fee schedules or timeframes that you have set out in your correspondence. Any claims against Lowell based on these unilateral terms and conditions will be vigorously defended.

Yours sincerely
signed
Richard Johnson

Head of Customer Management

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So----given the fact that my neighbour was not in debt, had a call out of the blue from Studio saying that Lowells had just bought accounts in bulk from them and that she has no contract with Lowells--what do we do next?.

They have bought the "debt" and, as far as I am concerned, that debt is now paid.
What is the Law of Property Act 1925?

does she have a copy of the terms and conditions of the account when she first opened it ?

if yes then she needs to have a read of them

if No then she needs to request a copy of the terms and conditions of the account from Studio.

thats what i would do.

is this a live studio a/c ? or has she defaulted in the past and is now paying it off each month?

waylander62 wrote:does she have a copy of the terms and conditions of the account when she first opened it ?

if yes then she needs to have a read of them

if No then she needs to request a copy of the terms and conditions of the account from Studio.

thats what i would do.

is this a live studio a/c ?  or has she defaulted in the past and is now paying it off each month?

Her account was live and she has not defaulted. As I say, she was just "told" in a call from Studio (catalogue company) that Lowells bought accounts from them in bulk.

The fact is that, as far as I am concerned, if Lowell's have bought her account, then that account is paid--in full. She has no contract etc etc with Lowells--they have arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to buy an account without any agreement from her. A contract has to be signed and agreed by BOTH parties--a "meeting of minds".

I am sure she has a copy of the terms and conditions somewhere, but she is not so well at the moment and that is not her priority.
She had a contract/ agreement with Studio.... no one else.... and she was not in debt with them.
Thanks, Waylander62.

ok i understand, what i dont understand is why studio have sold her account ???
the reason i asked about the terms and conditions are to see if their is a term in there that says they have the right to transfer your debt to a third party.

If there is then she does have a contract with lowell in the eyes of the english civil courts unless you can prove otherwise.

this still doesnt make a lot of sense to me as to why studio would sell her account ? which is being paid and has not defaulted ? has she purchased anything from studio since june 2017 ?

Hi guys

Perhaps Studio defaulted on their own finances and lowell were appointed to administrate their accounts?

Or they self-finance the credit they offer and needed a quick influx and sold some accounts?

....just guessing.

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi guys

Perhaps Studio defaulted on their own finances and lowell were appointed to administrate their accounts?

Or they self-finance the credit they offer and needed a quick influx and sold some accounts?

....just guessing.

Cheers!

i understand what you are saying, but lowell cannot service the account can they ?

they cannot give good discharge as per the act they say have purchased it using ? if she places an order for goods lowell cant provide those goods can they ?

very strange !! there must be more to this ?

This has happened before to someone either on here or on the old site. I can remember reading about it and it was the exact same scenario, studio selling on an account to lowells that wasn't defaulted on.

Its very simple, studio will have contracts with numerous suppliers to supply a fixed or minimum quantity of goods over a prescribed time and often these will have penalty clauses within these contracts.

Studio may have had a lot of defaulters and made huge losses.

Studio may simply be rationalising their accounts and looking for a cash injection for their shareholders.

Studio may be looking at a takeover by another company and told to get their accounts in order by a certain date.

assassin wrote:Its very simple, studio will have contracts with numerous suppliers to supply a fixed or minimum quantity of goods over a prescribed time and often these will have penalty clauses within these contracts.

Studio may have had a lot of defaulters and made huge losses.

Studio may simply be rationalising their accounts and looking for a cash injection for their shareholders.

Studio may be looking at a takeover by another company and told to get their accounts in order by a certain date.

Ok assassin, if that is the case, then how do we stand?.

As mentioned before, my friend just had a phone call out of the blue from Studio saying that Lowells had purchased many of their accounts in bulk.

In a reply from Lowells, they mention the Law of Property Act 1925--what is that?

As far as I am concerned, my friend has nothing to do with Lowells...no contract (meeting of minds)..they bought the debt, therefore--debt paid.
She was not in any debt and paid Studio regularly by debit card.
Lowells unilaterally and arbitrarily took it on themselves to do this.

If you look at my opening post, you can see my first letter to them and their reply.
I understand that the DEED OF NOVATION is very important in this---would they be able to provide this?

assassin is more than likely correct in his assumption,

however this does not make it right, or indeed lawful under the CCA.

it will without a doubt state somewhere in their terms and conditions ( studio ) that they have the right to transfer the account to a third party.

which in this case they have done, it being lowell.

in my opinion, and it is just my opinion, the 3 letters would be a waste of time, it would be best to look at other areas and ask other awkward questions.

my first point of call would be to write directly to studio and ask for a copy of the letter they sent on the 2nd september 2017, send to STUDIO directly and not lowell.

was this an active account ? or did your friend stop using it a while ago and it had become dormant.

Also further or in the alternative to what waylander has stated is that their is the issue of obtaining a good discharge.

So operating on the proviso that you are not challenging the debt but intend to discharge it, you need to know the purchaser/assignee/transferee of the account has good title to the rights and beneficial interest, so you can discharge the debt, otherwise why the hell are you paying them.

Proof of their having been assigned such title will have been effected by way of a deed from the OC, its a transfer or disposal of property.

Contract ad idem is not really anything to do with it.

Candor wrote:Also further or in the alternative to what waylander has stated is that their is the issue of obtaining a good discharge.

So operating on the proviso that you are not challenging the debt but intend to discharge it, you need to know the purchaser/assignee/transferee of the account has good title to the rights and beneficial interest, so you can discharge the debt, otherwise why the hell are you paying them.

Proof of their having been assigned such title will have been effected by way of a deed from the OC, its a transfer or disposal of property.

correct, i agree, i mentioned this myself in a previous post in this thread,by selling to lowell they have effectively cut off your ability to trade with them for any further goods because lowell cannot provide the service by which you first entered the agreement.

that is why i asked if the account was open and trading or if it had become dormant.

now is the time to gather any and or all evidence you can, ask studio for a copy of that letter in my previous post.

Hi Waylander,

Her account was open and not dormant--she was not in debt and was paying as required monthly by debit card.....As I said, she received a phone call out of the blue from Studio to say that Lowells had purchased a large number of their accounts in bulk.
Again... as far as I am concerned, if anyone is foolish enough to buy a "debt", then that debt has been paid by them and therefore does not exist any more.

What is the Law of Property Act 1925, which Lowells quote in their letter?

also, the DEED OF NOVATION is a significant piece of documentation, as far as I am aware--so would Lowells be able to provide that?

  ok, then by selling to lowell they may have created a problem for themselves and lowell this is why we need to ask some awkward questions and get the answers in writing.

because lowell bought the "debt" does not mean that it is satisfied in the eyes of the law ( not my own thoughts but the law )

law of property act is the act that they claim they purchased the debt 'under', which is why i think you should ask studio for a copy of the letter sent on 2/9/17 to start with.

forget the deed of novation, this would not have been transferred using a novation agreement.