Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

by Best Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:02 pm

Evening all,

Following on from my prior topic on the former GOODF forum, and my gratitude to those on here for carrying on the baton, I have received an update on my alleged debt situation and would welcome some thoughts.

I hold an alleged Tesco loan for £17k, with no contact from the OC since 2014. I am a home owner.

This morning the postman delivered an envelope containing 2 letters. The first being from Tesco Bank and advising "we have decided to transfer (this is sometimes called "Assign") all of our rights to another company, Lowel Portfolio 1 Ltd."

The second letter is from Lowell giving me "formal notice that your loan with Tesco Bank was sold and assigned to Lowell on 08/11/2017".

I couldn't help but notice the same print reference codes are written down the side of both letters. They were clealry created and printed together.

Is this common or am I being hoodwinked here?

Also, there is no clear explanation or description of the assignment. My quotes above are an exact copy of the letters. Do I commence the standard 3 letter process or the "debt purchased" 3 letter process ?

All advice appreciated.

by **LionsShare** Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:47 pm

Best wrote:This morning the postman delivered an envelope containing 2 letters. The first being from Tesco Bank and advising "we have decided to transfer (this is sometimes called "Assign") all of our rights to another company, Lowel Portfolio 1 Ltd."

Is this common or am I being hoodwinked here?

Also, there is no clear explanation or description of the assignment. My quotes above are an exact copy of the letters. Do I commence the standard 3 letter process or the "debt purchased" 3 letter process ?

All advice appreciated.

To be honest I can't help with your question but if you can find if the "debt" has been sold then by all means read this thread from start to finish, it may be of some help:

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1509-3-letter-cock-up#12681

There is also an embedded thread in that above which will also need reading!

by warwick65 Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:46 pm

It is perfectly normal for the notices of assignment to come in the same envelope

Lowell are legit

I would possibly expect a LBA from Lowell fairly soon- this seems to be their current M.O. although it might be a while-

This seems to be a way from statute barred
When was it opened, defaulted and when was the last payment.

You may want to send a S77 request to Lowell although I would wait until you hear from them

by **assassin** Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:19 am

No, this isn't legitimate so why would a creditor write to you with another letter from the claimed purchaser of the debt, they would write individually.

One common tactic several years ago was just this, one company printed off the documents in the name of both companies, and from memory a court case ruled this illegal because the company sending the documents were cimmitting fraud, so save both documents and the envelope as proof of fraud.

by Tiggy Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:39 pm

assassin wrote:No, this isn't legitimate so why would a creditor write to you with another letter from the claimed purchaser of the debt, they would write individually.

One common tactic several years ago was just this, one company printed off the documents in the name of both companies, and from memory a court case ruled this illegal because the company sending the documents were cimmitting fraud, so save both documents and the envelope as proof of fraud.

Can you find a link to that case Assassin?

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 just says a notice of assignment has to be issued, it doesn't say which party has to issue it.

by **assassin** Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:58 pm

There was no single case Tiggy, there were numerous instances of this happening and it featured heavily on the old site, and in the media. It appeared to be an upcoming fraudulent tactic of debt collectors.

What was happening was that a party was producing two pieces of paper snd sending them out to a debtor, one in their name and one in the name of the OC, they were printed on the same paper and even the same printer and when debtors queried this with the OC they were told the OC had no records of such a letter ever being sent by themselves. This became rife for a period of time until someone raised the issue of fraud being involved, it was deemed that where fraud had been involved, neither pieces of paper was valid and if a notice was sent this was also invalid as it was deemed as a fraudulent transaction.

by Kestrel Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:14 pm

Some further info here from the old site:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50272
Scroll down & you will see this:

NEW INFO
Be Cautious of Notices of Assignments!

Look carefully at all notices of assignments sent to you. Look for identifying tell tale marks and ref numbers, return addresses, etc. Even retain the envelopes, as most DCAs are now sending out fraudulently produced NoA's in an effort to dupe you into thinking you owe them and the original creditor has passed it on. See examples below recently received by Lowell's purporting to be from O2. When I contacted O2, they had never sent any notice of assignment, yet the letter is letterheaded from O2. Incidentally the return address from the O2 "notice of assignment" is the return address for Lowell's. It stinks of fraud, and I am now in a court battle with Lowell's for breach of Section 2.2 of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines under misrepresentation and unfair business practises. Also applicable is Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

More here:
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=53610

by warwick65 Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:47 pm

There seems to be a lot of opinion and no fact - the alleged court case doesn't have an outcome.

As Tiggy quite says, the only obligation for sending a NOA is that one is sent, there is nothing to say who should send it.

Of course should a claim ever be issued you put them to proof one was sent which is different. I am not convinced throwing accusations of fraud (a criminal act) into a county court case is really a good idea.

by Tiggy Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:09 pm

I was dealing with PRA under Pre Action Conduct and they claimed HSBC had sent me a Notice of Assignment.

Knowing this to be untrue, I said I believed them to be in contempt of court for providing a falsehood in a legal document under a Statement of Truth - they subsequently, closed the account and never commenced proceedings.

However, it was pure stupidity on their part to have claimed that, as under Section 136 of the LoP there is nothing to prevent either party issuing the Notice of Assignment and attempts to use this arguement in a defence without being able to make reference case law is a waste of time.

by Best Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:10 am

I feel my starting point should be the new "debt sold" 3 letter process.
At least see what response and evidence they can produce.

Would that seem sensible?

by **assassin** Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:57 am

Be Cautious of Notices of Assignments!

Look carefully at all notices of assignments sent to you. Look for identifying tell tale marks and ref numbers, return addresses, etc. Even retain the envelopes, as most DCAs are now sending out fraudulently produced NoA's in an effort to dupe you into thinking you owe them and the original creditor has passed it on. See examples below recently received by Lowell's purporting to be from O2. When I contacted O2, they had never sent any notice of assignment, yet the letter is letterheaded from O2. Incidentally the return address from the O2 "notice of assignment" is the return address for Lowell's. It stinks of fraud, and I am now in a court battle with Lowell's for breach of Section 2.2 of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines under misrepresentation and unfair business practises. Also applicable is Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

by warwick65 Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:09 pm

Best wrote:I feel my starting point should be the new "debt sold" 3 letter process.
At least see what response and evidence they can produce.

Would that seem sensible?

Personally I would leave it until/unless they start giving you grief and then hit them with a S77 request

If the worst happens and a LBA arrives of a claim then I would be looking at good legal advice - there is some excellent free advice around

by Best Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:21 pm

Interesting Warwick65.
I'll do some self educating on here but out of curiosity, do you hold little value to this 3 letter process??

by warwick65 Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:43 pm

Frankly I do not think the 3 letter process has any merit at all, however it is true that in some cases companies may decide not to pursue a debt but I am sure it is not because of the 3 letter process.

Look at it this way, if it worked, wouldn't you use it in a defence when a court claim arrives - well I have NEVER seen a case when that has worked ( and by worked I mean a case won on court) , however I have seen plenty of cases when using the CCA and other legislation has worked.

by Best Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:53 pm

Well upon closer inspection the OC "Debt Assigned" letter and Lowell letter were definitely printed by Lowell. The page serial numbers and envelope PO box address confirm it.

My question is now this - does a formal Notice of Assignment letter need to state the applicable law (Property Act) to which it relates, or any other formal "wording" ?? This alleged OC letter literally just says "we assigned your debt".

Although these letters are both from Lowell I'm just trying to ascertain if the assignment is a valid one and I should take note / ignore and see what comes next.

by **daveiron** Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:59 pm

Hi best,

Stick with the 3 letters ,the whole idea of them is to stop it going to court in the first place.

by **Society of the Spectacle** Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:28 pm

daveiron wrote:Hi best,

Stick with the 3 letters ,the whole idea of them is to stop it going to court in the first place.

Agreed,
and beware of people who deliberitely mislead by leaving out vital information.
YES warwick, this means you.
{Look at it this way, if it worked, wouldn't you use it in a defence when a court claim arrives - well I have NEVER Evil or Very Mad

seen a case when that has worked ( and by worked I mean a case won on court) albino

,}

Mincy, santa

TOO many Mince Pies for Christmas ?
Very Mincy mincy Warwick-

I shall REPOST Dave's Line,in BIG,
Stick with the 3 letters , the whole idea of them is to stop it going to court in the first place.

by **daveiron** Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:56 pm

Warwick,

Maybe you would like to share some of your victories with us .Did they all go to court before you won ?

by warwick65 Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:57 pm

There is no prescribed format for a notice of assignment it just has to say that company x has bought the debt - I will look up some of mine just to be sure

Society of the Spectacle , stop making one of yourself.
I may disagree with Tiggy on some things but they do write some solid defences that make no mention of the three letters
The basis of a defence is that you use the law as it stands so S77-79, S87(1) , assignment issues and other parts of the CCA

Yes I get the fact the three letters ask for documents but a S77-79 request is far more powerful as it has sanctions if they do not comply whereas a letter asking for the agreement does not.
The three letters also lose all credibility when you ask for things that are not relevant and then say you will charge them random charges

The only good thing about the 3 letters is that they helped me get costs against Lowell because they answered one of my letters as if it was one of the three which it wasn't so I was able to say - look they are acting completely inappropriately and how am I supposed to gather facts.

by warwick65 Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:05 pm

daveiron wrote:Warwick,

Maybe you would like to share some of your victories with us .Did they all go to court before you won ?

Happy to

vanquish account closed after non compliance with S78 and no proper DN- £1200
Halifax Loan closed after non compliance with S77 - over £7K
provident Loan closed after non compliance with S77- over 2K
BOS master card closed after non compliance with S78 - 2K
MBNA closed after non compliance with S78 £700
capital One card successfully defended in court with costs awarded £5K

Then we have another £20K that will be SB within 2 months and while it is possible claims will arrive they all have faults and can be defended

There are more but they will take too long to write out

See I have been round the block a bit and seen off many creditors through a variety of S77-79 requests , the normal harassment letters and in some cases complaints to the FOS

by Tiggy Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:47 pm

Best wrote:Well upon closer inspection the OC "Debt Assigned" letter and Lowell letter were definitely printed by Lowell. The page serial numbers and envelope PO box address confirm it.

My question is now this - does a formal Notice of Assignment letter need to state the applicable law (Property Act) to which it relates, or any other formal "wording" ?? This alleged OC letter literally just says "we assigned your debt".

Although these letters are both from Lowell I'm just trying to ascertain if the assignment is a valid one and I should take note / ignore and see what comes next.

No, Section 136 of the Law of Property Act is completely silent as to who should send it and what a Notice of Assignment should contain.

All it says is that one needs to be sent to the debtor.

by Sponsored content

Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)

Re: Lowell & OC Letter in same envelope (strange?)