Lowell threatening me Again !!

Thanks waylander62 & daveiron.

Yes I did mean the actual agreement. I will have to look up the best way to word the SAR as I am going to have to send one I feel.

I did weave in a sizeable chunk of the new version of the three letters in my initial response to their threat of legal action which included the questions about has the agreement ever been sold or traded etc, plus the bit about having someone their end sign the letters and take responsibility for them. As they haven't signed anything nor sent me anything recorded delivery I've been basically acting as if I've not heard from them and sending them questioning letters about their lack of contact. Risky probably but fun.

They have responded to my latest letter which included the cease & desist with another unsigned letter ( along with another bunch of photocopies the same as previous ) in which they say the account was legally aquired by assignment under the provisions of the law of Property Act 1925. They are satisfied that I've been informed of the processing of my data by their client and themselves in accordance with their clients instructions and that they are justified in continuing to process the data in accordance with the provisions of the original contract (there's me thinking it was just an agreement ) which has been assigned to their client. They consider their client are entitled to rely on Schedule 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998 that deals with exceptions to any request under Section 10 and that they will continue to process data in relation to the account for the purpose of collecting payment. They do not regard their attempts at contacting me as harrassment. They've been instructed by their client and are under an obligation as per the court rules to keep me informed of the progress of the account etc, etc and now require me to respond by return to discuss repayments blah, blah !

Any thoughts guys ?

When debt collectors constantly keep asking people to pay alleged amounts of money without providing adequate proof of claim, this must go a long towards constituting harassment as its defined in the relevant law.

I'm assuming there is a law on this in the UK.

I am also assuming there is also regulator of the financial services industry in the UK.

That being the case, if a DC does not within a reasonable time, put up or shut up or, they will likely be guilty of harassment.

Consumers (debtors) should not waste any time lodging a complaint the regulator.

Even through DCs wont be rattled too much about this, its worth doing because the more people that complain, the more they get pushed back.

Sooner or later the regulator will launch an action against one of them to send a message to the industry.

Rather than keep telling DCs to go away, inform "that because they have not put up of shut then they do not have case, in which they are harassing you and that you will lodge formal complaint with the regulator if they do not cease and desist as of xyz date.

No one should have to ask for proof of claim more than 3 times before they are justified in lodging a complaint with the regulator.

Thanks Ausk,

Unfortunately the "regulators" are pretty much a waste of space and frequently find in favour of the DC's, even if the evidence is against the DC and in favour of the "victim", just to lighten the workload as they are understaffed. There is a youtube video about it which, when I find it again, I will post the link on here.

My last letter writing episode to the regulatory bodies out there a few years ago concerning a previous and separate case resulted in them telling me that the DC was entitled to demand I pay them. I ignored this and fought on with the DC eventually giving up as they had no paperwork at all but in their last letter to me said in their opinion I still owed them, ha, dream on !

I will be writing to the regulatory bodies anyway but won't be holding my breath for any positive action to be taken from their side.

Just came across this SAR info .... https://debtcamel.co.uk/free-access-data-gdpr/

'You have the right to get a copy of the information that an organisation holds about you. But before May 25 2018, you were usually charged £10.'

And concerning the CCA what should I do about the question of where the original CCA is if I can't send a SAR to the original lender according to the article ?

'DON’T use a SAR to ask for your CCA agreement

If you want to ask a creditor for a copy of the Consumer Credit Act agreement for your loan, credit card, catalogue or hire purchase agreement, then there is a special procedure to do this, see National Debtline’s factsheet Credit agreements – getting information. This involves you paying £1. This is not a SAR and, so far as I know, the GDPR changes will not affect the £1 charge.

If you follow the special procedure then the debt collector has to try to obtain a copy of the CCA agreement and if they can’t do this within 12 days, the debt is unenforceable in court until they can do this. If you send a SAR instead, you do not have this protection. NB your request for the CCA agreement should be sent to the debt collector, not the original creditor.'

An official CCA request can be made at any time to whoever 'owns' the debt, they ahve a statutory obligation to provide it.

a SAR is usually made to the original creditor and asks for everything they have in relation to your account, which would include the agreement, but in a SAR you can ask for specific things, they have an obligation to provide what you request.

I have NEVER sent a SAR to a DCA only to the original creditor.

Thanks waylander62,

That helps to clarify things, may I ask what questions you have put in your SAR ?

I've never written/sent one and haven't as yet found any examples that may be useful for me to use as ideas to extract information. Found a few templates online covering different subjects though, even one in the link in my prior post.

I was thinking along the lines of, " concerning the whereabouts of the original CCA agreement can you confirm to me that it has never been burnt or destroyed whilst in storage ? If it has not been burnt or destroyed please explain in full where it now is ! "

I was considering adding a question about the Deed of Assignment, " please supply a copy of the Deed of Assignment as under the ruling **** (can't remember offhand) I am entitled to have a copy of this document even if partly redacted ! "

Not sure how well that would go down but what are your thoughts on that approach ?

Hi barnweb,

Re the SAR. I have always done it this way,


                                      SUBJECT-ACCESS - REQUEST

This is a Subject Access Request under the Data protection Act 1998.

Please supply the following documentation;

Sorry can't the Lord Denning judgement from the top of my head ,If you cannot find it let me know.

hope this was helpful.

Found it.

See (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd 1998.[3] All ER 842)

Where Lord Denning M.R. said " the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give good discharge under the contract"

in addition regarding the destruction of the storage facility, you are over thinking that one.

just an inquiry into whether their storage facility, where they store all of the agreements has ever been subject to a fire, flood or any other act of god which has resulted in the destruction of said facility and therefore the destruction of the agreements contained within.

you dont need anything else, you dont even need to know where yours is or anything, that is not why you are asking the question.

Thanks daveiron & waylander62 for your prompt responses,

Been rushing about and only just now had a chance to log in.

In a previous court session concerning a different case the judge said that the Denning ruling has been superseded by case law and in no way was I allowed to see the Deed of Assignment as it was private. After that happened I managed to get in touch with a solicitor by 'phone who told me the judge was talking bull and I did have the right to see it which is why I was thinking of adding it to the SAR. Nice to see you've done it too.

I do probably overthink too much and make dumb mistakes in an attempt to not let any stone be left unturned so to speak.

You may have overlooked this question in previous posts but are solicitors actually allowed to just send letters unsigned by anyone "real" and just have their company name printed as the signature ?

Doesn't seem to be best practice in my opinion and makes them appear even more dodgy than they are already known to be.

Hi barnweb,

I have also heard that about the Denning judgement , we may have both got it from the same source.
However ,I have never seen or heard that case law stated anywhere with proof.
I suspect if it existed the claimant would have great delight in shoving it in front of us.

Regarding the unsigned letters ,clearly they do not want any liability attached to themselves ,
probably a good indication that they are uncomfortable with what they are claiming. I would be inclined
to ask them why it was unnamed & unsigned , and is it an attempt to deceive you.

Don't be concerned about over thinking ,I find the more angles that you look from ,the better you
will be at defending against them.

Thanks daveiron,

Yes, with the Denning judgement it was only after it was all over I realised I'd been stitched up by a biased judge who spent the majority of the time talking to and agreeing with the "enemy" barrister and they were spouting so much legalese I had to ask them to explain what were they talking about in real (layman) English.

First time ever in court so I'm not used to such things.

I've been ignoring the Lowell letters and talking to them as if I haven't been receiving them ( they haven't sent any to me recorded so stuff 'em ). I'll be sending them another letter even though my last one was a cease & desist and I'll point out that their initial letter threatening action against me was unsigned and ask exactly the questions you suggest.

I occasionally muddle myself with the over thinking and make dumb mistakes but I'm getting better dealing with how these procedures work.

Have you received the claim form yet?

My understanding for pre 2007 agreements , it is easier if the claimant can produce a copy of the signed agreement otherwise as paul tilley said you need to make a positive assertion you did not sign one. Sadly in Arrow Global v Frost the judge decided on balance an agreement was signed because the claimant provided evidence of 'how it was done' and Mrs Frost was deemed an unreliable witness (code for a liar).

If a claim comes it may be the DN and deed of assignment that wins the day for you .

Did you send the GDPR request off- that would tell you for example the date the DN was sent , the date the account was sold - will that say it was sold to Lowell and will the date agree.

Long way to go yet

Hi mattyb,

No claim made as yet, am trying to keep that at bay for as long as possible.

I'll have to look up the Arrow Global v Frost as I don't know the story.

Would be nice to be able to afford Paul Tilley but then if I had a bank account fat enough to afford him I wouldn't be in this tiresome situation in the first place.

DN ? I assume that means Default Notice.

Haven't yet sent the GDPR as have been discovering the best way to word it in order to extract the best possible result.

Cheers

Hi
Yes by DN I do mean default notice as served under S87(1) CCA

In Arrow Global v Frost, a fast track case I think and from an agreement before 2007. The claimant were only able to provide a recon of the original agreement. The evidence of Mrs Frost was not exactly convincing, she contradicted herself , additionally when Mr Frost was asked if he agreed with her evidence he said he hadn't been listening.
The Judge ruled that even though there was no signed agreement, on balance he believed one containing all the prescribed terms had been signed.

Also damning was his judgement on the service of the DN, he went against Goode - the bible in these cases and decided , I think, the DN was served the day it was posted and not the day it was received, This means that many consumers argue there should be 18 days from the date of the DN until the remedy day to allow for post- the Recorder in this case said no- if it is dated the 1st that is the date it was served- absolute hokum if you ask me

Hi,

just quick question.

Did anyone had a look into new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/pdfs/ukpga_20180012_en.pdf

and also can you not request them to sign the letters.
Just tell them that you need to establish reverse liability just in a case and that they expect to take liability from you so it is logical that there needs to be a counterpart on the other side of the table, at the end of the day they try to establish bilaterall contract.
   Or put them on notice that, unless reverse liability is established, the dialog can't continue. If they ignore the notice, send second, after that 3rd and tell them that if there is nobody who wants to take responsibility, they will are ignored. Of course, don't ignore them but at least you got more paper for the court to show.

At the end of the day its game, and more green point you got then better.

Only my 2cc

J

GDPR

Chapter1
84 Other Definitions

(4) “Personal data breach” means a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed.

(6) “Restriction of processing” means the marking of stored personal data with the aim of limiting its processing for the future.

Chapter 2

86 The first data protection principle
(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data must be—
(a) lawful, and
(b) fair and transparent.
(2) The processing of personal data is lawful only if and to the extent that—
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 9 is met, and
(b) in the case of sensitive processing, at least one of the conditions in
Schedule 10 is also met.


Chapter 3

96 Right not to be subject to automated decision-making
(1) The controller may not take a decision significantly affecting a data subject that is based solely on automated processing of personal data relating to the data subject.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent such a decision being made on that basis if—
(a) the decision is required or authorised by law,
(b) the data subject has given consent to the decision being made on that
basis, or
(c) the decision is a decision taken in the course of steps taken—
(i) for the purpose of considering whether to enter into a contract
with the data subject,
(ii) with a view to entering into such a contract, or
(iii) in the course of performing such a contract.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a decision that has legal effects as regards an individual is to be regarded as significantly affecting the individual.


97 Right to intervene in automated decision-making
(1) This section applies where—
(a) the controller takes a decision significantly affecting a data subject that
is based solely on automated processing of personal data relating to the
data subject, and
(b) the decision is required or authorised by law.
(2) This section does not apply to such a decision if—
(a) the data subject has given consent to the decision being made on that
basis, or
(b) the decision is a decision taken in the course of steps taken—
(i) for the purpose of considering whether to enter into a contract
with the data subject,
(ii) with a view to entering into such a contract, or
(iii) in the course of performing such a contract.
(3) The controller must as soon as reasonably practicable notify the data subject that such a decision has been made.
(4) The data subject may, before the end of the period of 1 month beginning with receipt of the notification, request the controller—
(a) to reconsider the decision, or
(b) to take a new decision that is not based solely on automated processing.
(5) If a request is made to the controller under subsection (4), the controller must, before the end of the period of 1 month beginning with receipt of the request—
(a) consider the request, including any information provided by the data
subject that is relevant to it, and
(b) by notice in writing inform the data subject of the outcome of that
consideration.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a decision that has legal effects as regards an individual is to be regarded as significantly affecting the individual.

99 Right to object to processing
(1) A data subject is entitled at any time, by notice given to the controller, to
require the controller—
(a) not to process personal data relating to the data subject, or
(b) not to process such data for a specified purpose or in a specified
manner, on the ground that, for specified reasons relating to the situation of the data subject, the processing in question is an unwarranted interference with the interests or rights of the data subject.
(2) Where the controller—
(a) reasonably requires further information—
(i) in order that the controller be satisfied as to the identity of the
individual giving notice under subsection (1), or
(ii) to locate the data to which the notice relates, and
(b) has informed that individual of that requirement,
the controller is not obliged to comply with the notice unless the controller is
supplied with that further information.
(3) The controller must, before the end of 21 days beginning with the relevant time, give a notice to the data subject—
(a) stating that the controller has complied or intends to comply with the
notice under subsection (1), or
(b) stating the controller’s reasons for not complying with the notice to any
extent and the extent (if any) to which the controller has complied or
intends to comply with the notice under subsection (1).
(4) If the controller does not comply with a notice under subsection (1) to any extent, the data subject may apply to a court for an order that the controller take steps for complying with the notice.
(5) If the court is satisfied that the controller should comply with the notice (or should comply to any extent), the court may order the controller to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.
(6) A court may make an order under subsection (5) in relation to a joint controller
whose responsibilities are determined in an arrangement under section 104
only if the controller is responsible for compliance with the obligation to which the order relates.
(7) The jurisdiction conferred on a court by this section is exercisable by the High Court or, in Scotland, by the Court of Session.
(8 ) In this section, “the relevant time”, in relation to a notice under subsection (1),means—
(a) when the controller receives the notice, or
(b) if later, when the controller receives the information (if any) required
under subsection (2) in connection with the notice.

barnwebb wrote:Thanks waylander62 & daveiron.

 They are satisfied that I've been informed of the processing of my data by their client and themselves in accordance with their clients instructions and that they are justified in continuing to process the data in accordance with the provisions of the original contract (there's me thinking it was just an agreement ) which has been assigned to their client.  They consider their client are entitled to rely on Schedule 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Data Protection Act 1998 that deals with exceptions to any request under Section 10 and that they will continue to process data in relation to the account for the purpose of collecting payment.  They do not regard their attempts at contacting me as harrassment.  They've been instructed by their client and are under an obligation as per the court rules to keep me informed of the progress of the account etc, etc and now require me to respond by return to discuss repayments blah, blah !

Any thoughts guys ?

No they are not. See what did I send above.
It looks like you can restrict much more with the new GDPR than they think.

waylander62 wrote:in addition regarding the destruction of the storage facility, you are over thinking that one.

just an inquiry into whether their storage facility, where they store all of the agreements has ever been subject to a fire, flood or any other act of god which has resulted in the destruction of said facility and therefore the destruction of the agreements contained within.

you dont need anything else, you dont even need to know where yours is or anything, that is not why you are asking the question.

you can do that, but any damage to your data is considered as DATA BREACH and the Controller has a DUTY to inform you as your Data has been compromised. Also the Controller is liable for any damages caused.

From what I'm seeing, there are still not people properly trained for this regulation and if you send them notice quoting it they are shttng themselves.

Thanks for that extra info jsicho,

I'll have to work out the best way to word all this so I don't shoot myself in the foot.

Things like .... " as you have failed to provide a genuine original or certified copy of the CCA then this is clearly a DATA BREACH on your part as you consider yourself data controller and you are therefore liable for all damages caused to me by you" .... or something along those lines maybe.

Hi guys, this is the latest installment that I received a couple of weeks ago but have been rushing about too much to get a chance to upload it or reply to it.

What annoys me the most, and I'm sure most people on this forum, is that wasters like these spend all day cooking up the best way to screw you over but you and me haven't got time to deal with it nor afford to pay someone to deal with it as we're all too busy trying to exist.  

Anyway, rant over and helpful comments on the best approach to the letter uploaded always gratefully received.

To be honest, not really that threatening.

just letting you know that they 'believe' they have provided enough information for you to give up and pay.

they are not going to correspond to any more requests and after 30 days may send you a letter before action. let them.

the choice is yours whether or not you respond they are not really going anywhere in the near future with this.

TBH i had Lowell and their solicitors do the same to me fairly recently, got a similar letter.

what i did was.... wrote back to them acknowledging their 'belief' that what they sent was good enough to go to court, told them why i 'believed' it wasn't, acknowledged their point about not responding to anything more

then finished up by saying, for reasons that i have already mentioned i now await your claim as i no longer wish to persist in this argument of 'beliefs'  I will however defend any claim in full that you wish to file against me using the points of law at my disposal under the CCA.

I look forward to receiving your claim.

next letter was "we have decide to close your account" balance £0.00

i called them out.

Thanks for the confidence boost waylander62, I shall need to decide on what to respond with and prepare for a court fight should things not go the way I hope.