Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Incidentally, do you now recognise the debt BC are chasing on behalf of Lowells?

If so who was the original creditor and when do you think you opened the account? This will help us to decide whether the documents they send back (if any) are "honest and accurate".

The original creditor is capital one... the account/credit card was original opened in 2004, maybe even 2003, but definitely before 2005 as I emigrated to OZ early 2005.

[PlanB]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

The original creditor is capital one... the account/credit card was original opened in 2004, maybe even 2003.

I'm not going to give you false hope, but if I were a gambler I'd say the odds are that Lowells will not come up with a compliant CCA. You'll probably get a fudged tear-off application form. We'll see.

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Small update...

CCA request letter/PO sent to Lowell's and copy to BC via registered post!

Lets see what they bring...

If they don't respond in 12 days from the date they receive it, does that mean the debt is void?

Thanks again,

Sloth.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

If they don't respond in 12 days from the date they receive it, does that mean the debt is void?

No it means they cannot enforce the agreement, not that the debt is void. I'd suggest going through the following thread that explains the whole process, as it should be important to you to understand the templates you are sending out and how/why they can be applied to your circumstances:

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...enforceability

Best
SnV

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

No it means they cannot enforce the agreement, not that the debt is void. I'd suggest going through the following thread that explains the whole process, as it should be important to you to understand the templates you are sending out and how/why they can be applied to your circumstances:

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...enforceability

Best
SnV

Ok, thank you.

I've started to read through that info thanks... I'm now slightly concerned....

I currently have a clean credit history... due to that fact that this debt (+ the other 2 I think I have) is older then 6 years I presume?!? and has fallen off my credit file.

Is this unenforceable route likely to harm my credit file/report in any way??

Thanks,

Sloth.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Ok, thank you.

I've started to read through that info thanks... I'm now slightly concerned....

I currently have a clean credit history... due to that fact that this debt (+ the other 2 I think I have) is older then 6 years I presume?!? and has fallen off my credit file.

Is this unenforceable route likely to harm my credit file/report in any way??

Thanks,

Sloth.

They cannot report another default with the CRA's if they have already done so. However, as you made a payment in 2009, they can still enforce through the courts as its not become statute barred (which will screw your credit rating even more).

There is no harm in making a CCA request - its a legal entitlement you have and may prevent court action from being taken against you.

If they start reporting to the CRA's again, and its duplicate or false reporting, then you get it removed.

[ATW]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

In your opening post you say that you stopped paying anything towards these debts in 2009. If that is the case none of them are yet statute barred if i have understood what you said properly.

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

In your opening post you say that you stopped paying anything towards these debts in 2009. If that is the case none of them are yet statute barred if i have understood what you said properly.

I stopped making payments to Lowells for these debts around 2009.

I guess the last payment to the original creditor was around 2005... I don't know if this makes any difference or not?!?

Thanks,

Sloth.

[ATW]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

I do not think that they are statute barred. The payments in 2009 will have restarted the clock.

[PlanB]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

I stopped making payments to Lowells for these debts around 2009.I guess the last payment to the original creditor was around 2005... I don't know if this makes any difference or not?.

No. It's the last payment you made to the account regardless of who owns it at the time of that payment. Capital 1 (the OC) sold your account to Lowells (a debt purchaser) who now own the account. You paid them up until 2009. This debt won't become statute barred until 2015. Having said that 2015 is next year so it may be wise to keep them talking without admitting or acknowledging anything. What date in 2009 was your last payment?

None of this statute barred debate makes any difference to the fact that they have not yet complied with your section 78 request. That could be the basis of your defence in its own right.

Correct me if I'm wrong but legal proceedings have not been issued yet have they? Chill.

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Hello All,

Update of sorts:

Received a letter today from Lowell's... which is obviously a response to the prove it letter, it reads as follows:

Thank you for your recent correspondence - We apologise for the late response.

We can advise that this account is currently in the care of Fredrickson International. We now ask that you contact
them to discuss the account. We have included their contact details below.

We trust this is satisfactory.

Since then I've obviously sent them and BC the CCA request... Do I contact Fredrickson's or leave it with the CCA's I've sent to BC and Lowell's.

What does this letter from Lowell's mean? If anything?

Thanks,

Sloth

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Letter from BC,

Received a letter from BC yesterday, reads as follows:

We thank you for your communication regarding this account.

We have referred the matter to our client and will revert to you as soon as we are in receipt of instructions.

In the meantime, we confirm that we have placed the account on hold.

A result of sorts? At least some breathing space I suppose.

Thanks for all your help,

Sloth.

[sloth]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Hello Sloth.

Im interested to know if you have any updates on this matter?
I've been reading the thread with interest as i've just received a "letter before action" letter from Fredrickson's myself today and am figuring out how to handle it.

Hi Skanker,
You'll find plenty of assistance on this forum.... they're an extremely friendly and helpful bunch

Regarding my own situation... I've heard absolutely nothing since I received the letter from BC stating that my account was on hold.

I'm not too sure whether this is a good or a bad thing?!?

Anyway best of luck with your 'issue'

Sloth.

[SXGuy]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Its a good thing, longer on hold the better. They more than likely passed I back without telling you, just wait for the next lot of letters and we will advise then.

[cookie2112]

Re: Bryan Carter/Lowell Threatening Court Action

Hi Sloth, can't offer any particular help here but didn't want to read your thread and move on without wishing you luck with this! Interestingly in my case Natwest have used the postal order I sent for with my SAR letter to make it look like I made a payment on the account, as PlanB stated in her earlier message....

I never put the name of the payee on the Postal Order - I leave it blank. My logic is that if I make it payable to the creditor they could use that as an excuse to credit it to my debt account to frustrate the SB clock. I know AAD's CCA request letter specifically tells them they can't use the money for anything else, but I like to be extra careful.

Anyway, good luck, fingers crossed for you!