Lowell threatening me Again !!

Hi folks,

A bit of background first as I can’t find the original thread from the previous goodf site.

Lowell have been hounding me since April 2015 and they decided that my “dispute” was a “complaint” and even sent me photocopies of the credit agreement plus terms and conditions etc back in July 2015.

I told them that it was all unenforceable and told them to Cease and Desist. They ignored that of course.

I ignored any further correspondence from them including when they sent the copy credit agreement etc to me again in January 2016.

After a years worth of their junk mail, in December 2016 I got a “Pre-Legal Assessment” letter. It was a few days before Christmas so I put it to one side and promptly forgot about it ………… nothing happened !

2017 came along and I continued to receive the usual junk from them, which I ignored, and they changed tactic in September by passing over to a company called Lucas Credit Services. Their letters I also ignored.

January 2018 and Lowell have sent me another “Pre-Legal Assessment” letter although this one is a bit more sinister as they say, ‘We are now deciding whether to transfer your account to our solicitors to take legal action against you to recover this debt’, ‘What does legal action mean’, etc, etc.

Obviously I would like some advice from you great people at goodf on how to deal with this letter but also …….. and this is an important bit, ….…. I’ve been told that in the last half of 2017 (August I think) the law changed in favour of us victims in that a debt collector has to have a lot more (?) in their case before going to court. Now I don’t know anything about this and was wondering if any of you good folks know what has changed and how it might help me with this current problem ?

Legal action could mean the issuing of a claim with the courts with the aim of getting a CCJ

The pre action protocols changed on 1st October but to be honest I think they were in favour of the debt purchaser but dressed up to make it look better for us. In theory when you send a LBA you respond asking for various documents they will rely on in court but all that does is a) let them know if you are likely to fight it and b) Let then know what you are likely to ask for. That way they can toddle off and get them all together.

There are also get out clauses which will let them proceed more quickly if the debt is approaching SB

Might help if you gave a little background
What type of debt it is and roughly how much it is

Hi there warwick65.

It's a credit card below £10,000.

Yes, I imagine that issuing a claim is what is on their mind.

What actually changed with the pre action protocols as I will probably wind up sending a LBA as the letter this time is much more direct unlike the vague rubbish one previously.

I think it is true that the LBA just gives them ammunition to toddle off and gather what they need but not being able to afford a shit hot solicitor I don't have many options available.

The supposed rationale behind the new PAP was for full and open disclosure
They send you a letter where you can admit all or part, deny all or say you aren't sure. there is then a section to say what documents you need. From sending the letter you have 30 days to respond and once you respond they should have 30 days to comply
The rules do say if they do not follow these procedures they could be sanctioned but the sanctions are not specified . there is also a clause that says if there is good reason why the PAP can not be followed in full then they don't have to- for example the limitations clock is about to expire.

Excellent solicitors may not be as far out of your reach as you may think, well one in particular who really is the bees knees

Once a claim is issued you still follow the same process such as CCA request ( if you haven't sent one before) and CPR requests ( Tiggy and I disagree on the how there- I say 31.14 for documents mentioned in POC followed by Part 18 questions to clarify what they have) Certainly in the small claim it is difficult to enforce either as technically neither are valid once the case has been allocated

Lots of help available here and elsewhere

So basically it's business as usual as they can just not comply with anything if they don't want to or can't be bothered in the first place. And as the financial "authorities" aren't independent, they just agree with everything even if it's a blatant criminal scam to extort money from the vulnerable.

'Excellent solicitors may not be as far out of your reach as you may think, well one in particular who really is the bees knees'

Hmm, I'm intrigued, who might they be ?

Here's a quick update.

I chose to ignore their “Pre-Legal Assessment” letter.

Today I received a letter offering me a 60% discount so clearly they aren't planning on doing much else, at least for the time being.

I wonder whether I have a legitimate harassment claim as they have sent me endless junk mail for nearly three years with two threats of litigation which they haven't followed through.

Thoughts anyone ?

Hi guys.

Well, here we go; I’ve just received a letter from Lowell saying my ‘account’ has been sent to Lowell Solicitors Limited. Apparently photocopy signed by someone called Craig White.

Conveniently in the same envelope is a letter from Lowell Solicitors with the heading ‘Notice of Acting’, a term I’ve not seen or heard of before, telling me I must contact them to ‘discuss or make arrangements to pay’. Photocopy signed by no-one, just Lowell Solicitors

I don’t think so !

The only communication from me was in 2015 as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread when I sent a Cease and Desist Order which they decided was just a complaint to which I replied ordering them to immediately stop their illegal activities. My last letter to them in 2015 was pointing out that I hadn’t made a complaint but a valid dispute; they of course ignored that too.

What, if anything, would you guys suggest as the best course of action in dealing with this latest aggravation ?

Hi barnwebb,

If it were me ,I would take a look at the 3 new letters for purchasers ,and respond along the lines of:

Since my previous correspondence with you and having done much research I now require the following documentation from you . then list all on there & anything else you can think of .Insist throughout on ALL thats requested.

Hi. When you sent lowell your dispute letter years ago did they point out why they thought you only had a complaint. Did they list things that showed you how they came to their decision.

Thanks daveiron and 1saberwow for the quick response, sorry I’m a little behind in replying as I had to dig out the paperwork.

daveiron – absolutely good idea, I don’t know if I should actually start the new three letters process though. Maybe I should as I haven’t previously used the three letters on them but I did use the original old version letters on Fredrickson, see below.

I can add a few things to it that I put in my CPR18 to Hoist/Cohen recently such as; I believe your client is attempting Unlawful Enrichment etc.

1saberwow- no, they didn’t really list anything. When I got the letter informing me the account had been sold to Lowell, and after a number of their template begging letters, I sent a Cease & Desist Order ordering them to immediately stop their illegal activities because prior to that I’d been relentlessly hassled by Fredrickson which is part of Lowell anyway. I made a point of telling them they were in breach of section 40 of the Admin of Justice Act 1970 and FCA parts 3.3.7 & 7.5.3. I suggested I would start legal proceedings under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 but of course I can’t afford that.

Their response was ‘acknowledgement of your complaint’ and that they are waiting for information from the original creditor. Clearly they were just continuing on from the Fredrickson correspondence as I never directly sent Lowell the three letters.

Another letter arrived dated two days after the first with the ‘Summery of your Complaint’ that I’m unhappy with them contacting me regarding a debt that I don’t acknowledge and I’ve felt harassed by their contact and believe they’ve breached various regulations by pursuing the debt with no documental evidence. (Included was a photocopy of application and basic short printouts of statements most of which were irrelevant as they were from the years before I’d paid off and zeroed the account in 2011).

Their ‘Findings’, with paragraphs of waffle about them being debt buyers, default date, statements, data controller etc , very basically, was that they are ‘satisfied the debt is valid and due, and that our contact has been appropriate’. They are ‘unable to uphold your complaint that our contact constitutes harassment or that we have breached any industry regulations’.

I responded by asking how my Cease & Desist became a complaint, that the documents they sent were Unenforceable at Law and they should Immediately Stop their illegal activities.

They replied that they ‘note all of your comments’ and that ‘all of the concerns you raised have already been fully investigated and addressed’ in their previous letter. This was their ‘final response on this matter and our complaint investigation has been closed accordingly’.

I responded by asking how does a dispute become a complaint which they have failed to address whatsoever. I told them they were using underhand practices to dodge the real issues.

They ignored that letter and I’ve ignored all of their template begging letters since 2015 including the random one that arrived two years ago which is allegedly a copy of the credit agreement.

Any thoughts ?

Personally i would start the letters with them, also count how many times you have asked various companies e.g. OC
Debt collectors ,Debt purchasers .To supply their proof of claim ,which obviously they have not done.

If this should ever progress to court ,you can then show that you have requested this xx times and its still not been provided.
Is this pre or post 2006 ?

Thanks daveiron,

This is pre 2006, not that it seems to make any difference.

Hmmmm, well this is a bit depressing, received a 'Letter of Claim' at the weekend so it's on to the next level of fightback now, CPR18 etc, yawn !

Of course it's not CPR18 time yet but I have sent off a formal CCA request with the £1 and a Pre Action Conduct letter along with that new form we have to fill in now so we'll see what happens next.

Hi guys,

Here below is the response I’ve received from Lowell solicitors.  

I had sent the formal CCA request for an original or certified copy to their ‘client’ Lowell Portfolio and the Pre Action to the solicitors along with copies of each letter enclosed so they both got all the correspondence.  In the Pre Action I mentioned I’d been harassed by Fredricksons and Lowells for the last four and a half years and had repeatedly asked for legitimate evidence to be provided which had been denied to me.

I’ve had no response to the formal CCA request and clearly the solicitors are not interested in providing all the info that I’ve requested and are pressurising me by sending a crappy printed photocopy of the CCA and as per usual not signing their letter.

I’m not entirely sure how to progress if that is what I can call it.

If I don’t respond they’ll make a claim and if I do respond they’ll probably make a claim because I’ve admitted I received the letter with the cr*ppy CCA copy.   If I tell them a copy is unacceptable they’ll probably make a claim anyway as they’ll argue that what ever judge it was some years back said a crappy copy was good enough.

Any thoughts goodf people ??

they quite clearly think that the copy of the agreement they have sent you is sufficient to take you to court and win.

what makes you think it isnt ? that is the key and an integral part of your defence.

Thanks for the quick reply waylander62, sorry that I've taken so long to respond.

What makes me think that the copy isn't sufficient ........... hmmm, well, that's difficult to pin down.  When I found it online a long time back I seem to remember that the law stated that the agreement had to be the original but since then it would seem that some judge in the recent past has been persuaded by a smart ar*e lawyer that a dodgy copy is good enough as there was a fire in some storage facility somewhere and the original might have been burnt so then case law comes into effect and buggers everything up concerning having an original.

I will fight on anyway telling then I won't accept anything less than the original or certified copy and if I lose out maybe I'll pay them in photocopied bank notes because after all, I don't know if the original bank notes were burnt in a fire, or lost etc.  I bet that would go down like a lead balloon.

My previous torture session in court with a different claimant/case the judge said their virtually unreadable crap copy was acceptable but it all got hung up when they didn't produce a default notice.

I'll continue stalling/blocking as much as I can and any advice from anyone concerning my potential need for a defence will be appreciated.

Take a look at Consumer credit Act 1974 sec 61 & 61a . Does the copy sent to you show everything ,is it legible ?

Well daveiron, having had a more thorough look at what has been sent to me I've just realised that I've been sent a cr*p photocopy of the application form of which the CCA part in small print where signed is pretty much unreadable and a print out of what they have called the 'original agreement' which has my name and address on it.  They could have put my name and address in themselves for all I know as none of those pages has my signature and I don't recall ever receiving a print out of the agreement from Cap One back in the day.

Rather strangely, in my opinion anyway, they have also included an undated copy of a letter allegedly from Capital One referring to the 'current agreement terms and conditions' being on the back of the letter and in an enclosed leaflet along with a separate print out which they have called the 'defaulted agreement' within which again, none of the pages has my signature nor even my name or address.

So, that's a tad confusing, I assume that only the original agreement "might" be enforceable as it is signed and not any updates, particularly if not dated, advice please.

I'm now looking for the old paperwork as I think the account number is wrong, meanwhile in my research today I discovered these useful bits of info.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=81b46eee-ede4-44b5-9c69-bb024ec197bd

and

https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dispelling-the-myths-on-section-781-consumer-credit-act/

Hi barnweb,

My understanding is that for pre April 2007 accounts .they must provide a 'true copy' of the agreement . I would imagine that if they could have provided a legible copy they would have done so, Its my guess what they
have sent you is all they have . Its only accounts after that date that they can reconstitute an agreement.

Barnwebb having read your recent posts i can see you have been doing your research, good.

You have already come up with a couple of minor arguments in relation to the agreement, check out the CCA itself and read what it says and compare it to what you have been sent, you can still call on section 127 if the agreement is pre april 2006, the law was changed but not retroactively.

yes there is a case law to help them regarding a possible fire destroying their storage facility, this has NEVER happened by the way a judge decided that it would be better to include this "just in case"

well........ why not send a SAR to capital one, in a SAR you can ask for specific things not necessarily everything they hold on you. So.... why not send a SAR to capital one asking if their storage facility, where they store the agreements, has ever been destroyed by a fire or flood or any other act of god which has resulted in the destruction of said facility. If the answer is no then when some smart arse solicitor decides to throw in that case law, you come back with.. this has not happened in this case here is the proof.

Hi daveiron and waylander62,

With regards to agreements before April 2007 and having a 'true copy' along with section 127 I've come across these.

http://legalbeagles.info/unenforceable_credit_agreements.html

and

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/13/1.html

Specifically CONC 13.1.4 talks about the 'true copy' !

I might well send a SAR, they haven't directly responded to my formal CCA request at all.

In the letter posted previously Lowell say if no response is received they have instructions to re-initiate the Pre-Action process but there is no time scale offered so what time limit would be 'normal' in this case. It's now nine days since there letter date.

Methods of payment are not on the back either, not that I have any intention of paying them a penny.

Just a quick update.

Lowell solicitors still are not signing their letters ( is that even allowed ? ) and neither them or Lowell portfolio have sent me any of the documents I've requested but still say they've sent a copy of the CCA and want me to call to arrange payment. Not sent a SAR as yet but sent Lowell a letter pointing out in bold large writing that they have an obligation to provide the documents and if they can't then to explain why. Also sent them a Cease and Desist letter which I'm sure they will happily ignore as they have done in years previously.

Can someone tell me what a CCA actually is in terms of the financial world. Is it an "instrument" that is sold and bought within the markets and therefore regarded as "cash" especially if it is signed ?

Thanks.

CCA is a shortened term for Consumer Credit Act

i think you are referring to the actual agreement, yes the agreement is an instrument it may have been sold or securitised as it would be better known, but that information is very hard to prove.

Hi barnweb,

Yes as waylander said ,they are a negotiable instrument .That is why I put it in the 3 letters ,& its my opinion that you leave them in no doubt that should they proceed to court you will be asking that question.
That puts them in a no win situation ,either they lie (perjury) or tell the truth ,in which case you ask the question 'has the original agreement ever been sold or traded in any way' if the answer is yes then they have no claim,if the answer is no then where is the agreement now and why cannot you produce it. That is where waylanders suggestion re a SAR would also come into play.
I have yet to see any response from any "lender" regarding those questions.If they were not instruments that they trade ,they would have great delight informing you of such .Instead all you get is total silence on the subject.

Would be a good idea if some of us did some more digging re securitisation of agreements ,in order to show that in court.
https://youtu.be/22K-EUnF9bM