Krapital1 and Lowell

[Spud]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

While that is not exactly a LBA you need to respond with 'something' before the 14 days are up because Lowells idea of "litigating the account" is often to serve a SD.

A good point well made actually - Lowells do seem to be a bit trigger happy with the SD's

Proactive management of anything concerning Lowells seems to be the order of the day - A suitable letter now could hold off having to defend a SD later.

A slightly amended Template letter may fit the bill but I have to confess I do not really feel "Qualified" or have the experience to advise on the correct wording ect.

I believe Niddy or Scabhunter ( To name only a couple) have had some conciderable input into Lowell letters recently that have seen them back off. A quick search should bring up quite a lot of information on these

Sorry, Did'nt want to read and run as it were

[SXGuy]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

The thing that bothers me, is Lowells response is one of basically saying "cap1 would have had systems in place to prevent non compliance with CCA1974. The point is, thats an argument for court, its an assumption on their part.

Which makes me believe they dont actually know what cap1 sent, nor whether its enforceable. So a letter back to them, really needs to hit them hard with the fact that its not actually enforceable, and should they litigiate, this will be pointed out, and costs will be claimed.

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Thanks all for responding. I haven't had any response from Niddy as yet, I'm sure he's very busy. Any suggestions for a letter to send off to them to keep them quiet???

Thanks in advance

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Had a look through the UE templates, any advise as to which I should send?? Final response UE (CCA recieved) or Final Response CPUTR (lip). Not sure which I should use, or if indeed there is another that would better suit the purpose of a response to the above letter.

Thanks in advance

[Deepie]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Had a look through the UE templates, any advise as to which I should send?? Final response UE (CCA recieved) or Final Response CPUTR (lip). Not sure which I should use, or if indeed there is another that would better suit the purpose of a response to the above letter.

Thanks in advance

I'd be sending this if it were me----> Threat by Creditor - Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Thanks Deepie. Will get that sorted now

I am a little concerned with the threats for legal action??

[tastyjane]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

I would be very careful with this mix (got me into all sorts of trouble :-) ) - I would definitely send them something sooner rather than later.

Jane x

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Ok, update. Nothing much happening really. Get a monthly letter asking me to sort out payment arrangements. Thought I'd send this to them today as still waiting for a copy of the Credit Agreement:

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

31^st August 2013



Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for the information you sent following my request under the CCA 1974.

However, I made a request to you on 28^th November 2012 for a copy of the executed agreement applicable to the alleged debt. Under the CCA s77/78, you are obliged to send me a true copy of the actual credit agreement but have only sent me a copy of the initial application form. I have included a copy of the Application Form sent in error as the copy of the credit agreement.

For a credit agreement to be enforceable in a court of law it must contain a number of prescribed terms. If any contract is missing any of these prescribed terms then it can be deemed ‘unenforceable’ and the debt cannot legally be collected by the lender.
In section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 it clearly states;
(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1) (a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).
Here is an overview of the requirements of section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. For a credit agreement to be enforceable it must contain the following prescribed terms;
1) Amount of credit
There must be a term on the agreement which states the amount of credit which has been issued
2) Credit Limit
The agreement must include regarding a credit limit or if a credit limit is not required (i.e. in the case of a loan)

3) Repayments
The agreement must contain information on how the debtor is to make repayments. This could be in the form of any of the following points;
a. Amount of repayments to be made
b. Date the repayments are to be made
c. Timing of payments
d. Frequency of payments
e. Total number of repayments (For instance, when a loan is required)
f. The power of the creditor to vary any of the above mentioned
f. The manner in which any of the above is to be determined.
4) Rate of interest
There must be a term referring to the rate of interest to be applied to the credit agreement

A regulated credit agreement contains all of the prescribed terms, other required information and statements of my statutory rights.

I would therefore be obliged if you would send me a copy of that document as soon as possible.

Yours
What do you think???

[Enforcer]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Up to you, however a crap one agreement from 2000, not containing any prescribed terms? UE. So was mine from 2001. They normally send a photocopy of the application form with your signature, then large initials, ie from a felt tip pen, which they will deem as their acceptance.
I don't think you need to send that letter unless they try to issue court documents, as the alleged agreement has been in dispute since November 2012.

[nightwatch]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

I agree with Enforcer, why waste your time ink and money, chillax till they come up with something new

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

Thought I'd update. It's been fairly quiet on the Lowell front. Lots of offers of reduced amounts. Basically we've just ignored them.

16th of September we received a letter from RED - Lowells legal Gorillas. They're threatening to apply for a CCJ or an attachment to earnings or sending the bailiffs round.

I've sent them an email back stating that Lowell have failed to comply with my CCA request and the account is still in dispute. I've explained that the application form is not the correct CCA and is unenforceable aunder section 127.(3) of the CC Act 1974 as the application was made in 2000 prior to the change in regs in April 2007.

Hopefully it'll keep them quite for a while

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

O.H. has had threat of the RED Campaign seems as usually will be 3 attempts letters/telecons before Little Hampton without false teeth had been reported?

[ratbag1970]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

RED aren't going to write to me again. "Hamptons Legal will contact you soon unless you call to discuss your account" so I'm expecting something from them fairly soon

[rockwell]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

You may be interested to know, one of the Hampton Legal Directors (just resigned) goes by the highly appropriate name of Mr. ARCE!!!

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Krapital1 and Lowell

You may be interested to know, one of the Hampton Legal Directors (just resigned) goes by the highly appropriate name of Mr. ARCE!!!

Probably could not be ARSED any more with the job of Fraud!!