Lowell harrasment

[rod]

I have been receving letters from lowell dating back to Jan 14 demanding payment of £1390,97 for a old lloyds bank A/C dating back to 2007. I send them a CCA letter on 21/3/14 requesting a copy of the original overdraft agreement. They replied on 21/7/14 stating that they sent me statement of the A/C on 15//4/14 showing how the balance accrued, the statement also show that the last payment I made into the A/C was in 2007, they also said in the letter that under consumer credit act 1974 supplying a copy of the agreement is exempt for current a/c.

As the debt was over 6 yrs old I sent them a Statue Barred letter on 8//8/14. I recieved a reply on 11/9//14 stating that lloyds are unble to provide a copy of the defauft notice has its not held on their system and they did send it to my old address prior to 15/7/09. they also offered a 15% discount on the the debt and have stoopped the collection for 14 days to allow me time to get back to them.

Do you think I should sent them another SB letter?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Lowell harrasment

see what happens next, sure more comments will be made! they are trying it on over their J cloths wiping up the tears as less money in pot for xmas bash!

[ScabHunter]

Re: Lowell harrasment

I wouldn't. I would just send a short letter referring them back to the one previously sent. Tell them that their actions now constitute harassment, head the letter “Formal Complaint” and tell them that you expect to receive a reply stating that this matter is now closed. Failing this, the matter will be escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service in due course.

SH

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Lowell harrasment

They seem to keep doing this, intimating that SB starts from the Default Notice or date of SRA default, a clear attempt at deception.
There is a Statute Barred Final Response template: http://www.all-about-debt.co.uk/inde...statute-barred

[rod]

Re: Lowell harrasment

I wouldn't. I would just send a short letter referring them back to the one previously sent. Tell them that their actions now constitute harassment, head the letter “Formal Complaint” and tell them that you expect to receive a reply stating that this matter is now closed. Failing this, the matter will be escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service in due course.

SH

ok thanks

[rod]

Re: Lowell harrasment

ok thanks

I have received a reply from Lowell dated the 20th November 2014 after sending them a formal complaint letter referring them to my SB letter dated the 8/8/14. The letter state that:

”the period of limitation can be calculated from the date the default was entered. In the case of BMW Financial Service (GB) v Hart (2012) the court of Appeal ruled that the registration of a default could be taken as the last cause of action.

They are saying that the A/C will be become barred 6yrs after the last action in this case the default date. they go on to list 3 separate a/c with the dates as follows:

the Lloyd bank I know about - start date 6 /7/2001 - default date 15/7/2009

then these two which I can’t recall:
start date 23/6/2006 - default date 2/9/2010
start date 1/4/2005 - default date 14/2/2009
They have already stated in a letter dated 11/9/14 that Lloyds bank are unable to provide a copy of the default notice and that they would have posted it to me in 2009.
They also state that they are in their contractual right to request payment from me and that it does not constitutes harassment
I am not sure if what they’re saying is right.
Can anyone help….

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Lowell harrasment

I have received a reply from Lowell dated the 20th November 2014 after sending them a formal complaint letter referring them to my SB letter dated the 8/8/14. The letter state that:

”the period of limitation can be calculated from the date the default was entered. In the case of BMW Financial Service (GB) v Hart (2012) the court of Appeal ruled that the registration of a default could be taken as the last cause of action.

They are saying that the A/C will be become barred 6yrs after the last action in this case the default date. they go on to list 3 separate a/c with the dates as follows:

the Lloyd bank I know about - start date 6 /7/2001 - default date 15/7/2009

then these two which I can’t recall:
start date 23/6/2006 - default date 2/9/2010
start date 1/4/2005 - default date 14/2/2009
They have already stated in a letter dated 11/9/14 that Lloyds bank are unable to provide a copy of the default notice and that they would have posted it to me in 2009.
They also state that they are in their contractual right to request payment from me and that it does not constitutes harassment
I am not sure if what they’re saying is right.
Can anyone help….

Ok so there is something to bear in mind here:

A Default Notice issued to you, and a consequent termination of a credit agreement, as required under the provisions of the CCA1974, is NOT the same thing as a default marker recorded on your credit file.

So, with regard to Lloyds, even if they quote the above judgement, if they cannot prove when a default notice was sent (its not good enough to state that they would have posted it), or provide a copy of it, they're on a loser.

So they questions is for the other two accounts - when did you receive a default notice in the post - not when was a default recorded with the CRAs?

[rod]

Re: Lowell harrasment

Ok so there is something to bear in mind here:

A Default Notice issued to you, and a consequent termination of a credit agreement, as required under the provisions of the CCA1974, is NOT the same thing as a default marker recorded on your credit file.

So, with regard to Lloyds, even if they quote the above judgement, if they cannot prove when a default notice was sent (its not good enough to state that they would have posted it), or provide a copy of it, they're on a loser.

So they questions is for the other two accounts - when did you receive a default notice in the post - not when was a default recorded with the CRAs?

I cant recall them writing to me about the other two accounts regarding the default notice. they only mentioned that the lloyds A/C default notice was sent to my address prior to July 2009.

[oldyboy]

Re: Lowell harrasment

Anyone else remember the Rankine case a few years back?

DCAs latched onto this case, as in their minds it meant CCA requests could be manipulated by them, as in the time limits for a reply no longer count, etc.

Strikes me lowells have latched onto another to twist for their own uses.

I would keep sending the SB letters and see what else they come up with.

[MrsD]

Re: Lowell harrasment

me too, head the next one PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

and they shouldn't be mentioning a pile of accounts on one letter, that is misleading you

do you think the other accounts could have been yours?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Lowell harrasment

me too, head the next one PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

and they shouldn't be mentioning a pile of accounts on one letter, that is misleading you

do you think the other accounts could have been yours?

If they are not, it looks like they are fishing.

Refer the oafs to the Fundamentally Clueless Authority.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Lowell harrasment

They seem to keep doing this, intimating that SB starts from the Default Notice or date of SRA default, a clear attempt at deception.
There is a Statute Barred Final Response template: http://www.all-about-debt.co.uk/inde...statute-barred

Rather than ensuring that they are fully aware of the retort in the case of Arkell v Pressdram?

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Lowell harrasment

Anyone else remember the Rankine case a few years back?

DCAs latched onto this case, as in their minds it meant CCA requests could be manipulated by them, as in the time limits for a reply no longer count, etc.

Strikes me lowells have latched onto another to twist for their own uses.

The case Lowell mentions related to a car HP agreement; there has been plenty of discussion around whether this should be applied to other consumer credit contracts. Simple fact is that each case hinges on its own circumstances and facts, therefore the 'cause of action' needs to be carefully considered in each case.

I think Lowell would consider very carefully should they enter a claim on the basis of the above case as any loss to them would make them very unpopular with their industry chums!

me too, head the next one PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

and they shouldn't be mentioning a pile of accounts on one letter, that is misleading you

do you think the other accounts could have been yours?

Yes - make sure you keep correspondence seperate - though nothing wrong with one envelope and three letters. Remember above - each case centres on its own facts.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Lowell harrasment

I have received a reply from Lowell dated the 20th November 2014 after sending them a formal complaint letter referring them to my SB letter dated the 8/8/14. The letter states that:

”the period of limitation can be calculated from the date the default was entered. In the case of BMW Financial Service (GB) v Hart (2012) the court of Appeal ruled that the registration of a default could be taken as the last cause of action.

They are saying that the A/C will be become barred 6yrs after the last action in this case the default date. they go on to list 3 separate a/c with the dates as follows:

the Lloyd bank I know about - start date 6 /7/2001 - default date 15/7/2009

then these two which I can’t recall:
start date 23/6/2006 - default date 2/9/2010
start date 1/4/2005 - default date 14/2/2009
They have already stated in a letter dated 11/9/14 that Lloyds bank are unable to provide a copy of the default notice and that they would have posted it to me in 2009.
They also state that they are in their contractual right to request payment from me and that it does not constitutes harassment
I am not sure if what they’re saying is right.
Can anyone help….

Capita eorum sunt plenis stercoris!

If one reads the case of BMW Financial Service (GB) v Hart (2012) - link - carefully, one will see that the case had precisely bugger all to do with the date on which a default was entered or registered with any CRA. A charitable interpretation would be that they have made a mistake; a less generous view might be that they are somewhat mischievous or even disingenuous.

[rod]

Re: Lowell harrasment

Capita eorum sunt plenis stercoris!

If one reads the case of BMW Financial Service (GB) v Hart (2012) - link - carefully, one will see that the case had precisely bugger all to do with the date on which a default was entered or registered with any CRA. A charitable interpretation would be that they have made a mistake; a less generous view might be that they are somewhat mischievous or even disingenuous.

Ok thanks

. I will just keep on sending them a SB letter,

- - - Updated - - -

The case Lowell mentions related to a car HP agreement; there has been plenty of discussion around whether this should be applied to other consumer credit contracts. Simple fact is that each case hinges on its own circumstances and facts, therefore the 'cause of action' needs to be carefully considered in each case.

I think Lowell would consider very carefully should they enter a claim on the basis of the above case as any loss to them would make them very unpopular with their industry chums!



Yes - make sure you keep correspondence seperate - though nothing wrong with one envelope and three letters. Remember above - each case centres on its own facts.

Ok Thanks