Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

But you do need to treat yourself, how about a kojak lollypop

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

I do wonder if these firms realise any compo they pay me does go towards making the site better thus inadvertently it's helping us to cost them more long term as we're obviously helping others beat the same firms

It's kinda like when the banks default

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

I am impressed at Lowells speed of service after all.

Cheque for £100 arrived today - still waiting for Opus's cheque from October of course

[oscar]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

I liked the bit in the first setence, at the end ...... "I share your disappointment"

[jen_br]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Result... 2012 year of the Mod Christmas party Woot! lol

[IF]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Yay!! Niddy!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Perhaps you should register your thanks by offering the Leeds Losers an appropriately discounted opportunity to sponsor a page about how to deal with bullying DCAs?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Perhaps you should register your thanks by offering the Leeds Losers an appropriately discounted opportunity to sponsor a page about how to deal with bullying DCAs?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Kerching

Its the apology that matters more to me you know. Not the money.

I was pissed that they thought they could behave this way and so had to tell them the errors of their ways. I am happy at this response and have confirmed I wish to close the complaint.

Now, back to Opus - they aint getting away with this any longer

* Niddy senses some legal action headed their way unless they pull their finger out pretty damned quick

[PlanB]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Kerching

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Well Well Well........

I am in receipt of your e-mail dated 7th February and have noted your comments. Firstly, I do not hesitate in offering my apologies for what you have experienced in this matter and let me assure you, I share your disappointment.

As you know, your file was originally investigated by xxxxxx a member of my department. xxxxxx has now passed the details onto me to respond in my capacity as Complaints Resolution and Quality Assurance Manager. I appreciate the effort you have gone to in providing all the required information at first contact, and I have also read your full thread on the allabout forum, which has provided me with the full extent and context of your dispute.

Before addressing your points, let me confirm again that xxxxxxxx has arranged for the removal of the default in Lowell’s name and that we are returning the account to the original creditor. The update to your credit file was requested on 7th February and would normally update overnight.

As I understand your complaint, you are unhappy with the following:-

1. We have registered a default without applying due diligence.
2. We did not respond to your first e-mail of 28th January and you had to escalate the matter.
3. You queried that a default could be applied with just one defaulted payment.
4. You were not given a 14 day remedial period or notice of our intentions.
5. We have disregarded advice set in place by regulatory bodies and a direct instruction from the Financial Ombudsman.

Please let me know if I have missed or misinterpreted anything.

1. You pointed out that the onus is on us when we purchase debt to do our own checks. I can confirm that due diligence checks form an important part of the process when we agree to the purchase of a package of debt. We buy all accounts in good faith that they are valid and require payment.

2. We received your e-mail of Saturday 28th January and moved it into an appropriate administration queue on Monday 30th January. This was received into enquiries@lowellgroup.co.uk. The fact that you headed the e-mail “Formal Complaint” was missed by our colleague who allocated it to the wrong work queue for general enquiries, rather than Complaints where it would have been acknowledged on the first working day. For this instance of human error, I apologise unreservedly.

3. As I am sure you are aware, we are not a lending company, we are a dept purchase company and therefore we do not apply original defaults. Instead, when we purchase an account, we simply transfer the default applied by the original client into our name. I understand that you will object to two points here: that the account was not in default and that the credit file information should not have existed, however, I am talking generally about the nature of our business for context, rather than commenting specifically about your account with this reference.
I am aware that the application of the original default was part of your FOS complaint raised in relation to Opus and therefore, will not comment directly in relation to this.

4. Regarding notification of our intentions, I can advise you that we were in the process of returning the account to Opus, when we received your letter. As part of this process the default would have been removed from your file automatically. This is also the reason why no collections activity took place on this account.

5. I believe our actions demonstrate that when we were made aware of the involvement of a FOS directive, we took the necessary steps to repair the situation. In addition, as the process was already initiated to return the account and avoid any need for us to contact you, we were not in breach of sections 87/88 of the Consumer Credit Act.

If I can now address your comment about a story of how we “tried to bully” you, I believe that we have acted with the best intentions throughout this process and have never pursued you for a balance. We have looked to rectify the issue as soon as possible and had it not been for a manual error, we would have responded much sooner.

We make every effort to ensure transparency and fairness in our dealings with our customers and have a culture of Treating Customers Fairly. As such, we will learn from your experience to ensure this does not happen to anybody else and I thank-you for bringing this to our attention.

Regarding your request for compensation I have reviewed the FOS award with regard Opus and have referred this matter back to them for further consideration in light of the account being sold. They will review this separately.

During our time as legal owners of the account, I have also reviewed our handling of the matter to establish if any compensation is appropriate, paying particular regard to the time it has taken for you to deal with ourselves. As I am sure you are already aware the FOS do not consider an individual’s personal income when making an award and consequently neither will I. What I will consider is inconvenience and any detrimental effect. I hope I have assured you that we were in the process of resolving this matter for you and would have removed the default. I would also note that as Opus are no longer charging interest on the balance then there would have been no requirement to transfer to a 0% alternative to save money and as such, you have not faced further financial loss. If you have applied for credit for any other means during the period of our default being registered and can provide evidence of being declined due to our default, we will consider this further on receipt.

The fact does remain that due to the length of time your dispute was ongoing you were understandably vigilant of your credit file and have acted promptly to protect your interests. If I was in your position I would have done exactly the same. It is for this inconvenience that I would like to offer you a goodwill gesture of £100.00 in resolution of your complaint, in addition to passing the detail on to Opus for further review. We will send the cheque with the hard copy of this letter.

Once again, please also accept my personal apologies.

Please be assured that the Lowell Group of Companies are committed to resolving complaints in a fair and consistent manner and I do hope that you have found this to be the case. I would also like to confirm that this letter represents our final response on this matter; however, should it be the case that you remain dissatisfied you may have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You need to do this within six months of the date of this letter. For more information please see the enclosed guide 'Your Complaint and the Ombudsman.'

Yours Sincerely

[PlanB]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

There once was a fellow named Bright
Whose speed was much greater than light.
He set off one day
In a relative way
And returned the previous night.

He obviously wasn't travelling on the Northern Line

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Reminds me of all those years I spent at school studying logarithms, that splendid 17th Century invention which I've never needed when adding up my purchases in Bloomingdales

So that's a 'whoosh', is it?

The point of my comment was that 5.6 * 10^9 m/s > 3*10^8 m/s, which latter is the speed of light.

There once was a fellow named Bright
Whose speed was much greater than light.
He set off one day
In a relative way
And returned the previous night.

[PlanB]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

At about 5.6 * 10^9 m/s ?

Reminds me of all those years I spent at school studying logarithms, that splendid 17th Century invention which I've never needed when adding up my purchases in Bloomingdales

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

9 days is a lot when it's libel mate

My argument goes like this, they were quick to add it the same day they bought the "debt" disputed balance/account and so they should be able to remove it at the same speed, right?

At about 5.6 * 10^9 m/s ?