Lola girl UE diary...newbie!

[Lola girl]

Yes I agree and I will see if I can get a call in with Colin next week and have a chat.

I could really do with delaying this as much as possible as I have no option but to remortgage in October so will have to see what JCS think

[Colin G Quinn]

Hi,

I have received an email advising you have sent me a message, but for some reason I am unable to see it on my forum inbox.

Would it be better to email me at my work email address; colin@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk?

Kind regards,

[Lola girl]

Thanks Colin G Quinn will drop you an email!

[Kenny91]

Roger what did you mean by this teasing info?

"Personally I would speak to @JRS The M&S Bank 27.9.06
plus 17/03/20 Litigation Dept within HSBC Repayment Services
There were issues in the past over M&S Bank.

Also there may be issues over Lowell."

There appear to be three of us with M&S/Lowell matters so would be good to know if we can pool knowledge to see them off.

Must admit, I'm really surprised not to have received legal papers on this given M&S held on to it for years before selling to Lowell.

Thanks,

K91

[Still Waving]

Letter of claim has arrived - wondering if to fill the form in and request all documents and send a SWID?
Night Monkey did you respond to yours?

Whatever you decide to do, I don't think it's a good idea to send a SWID letter at the same time as you reply to the LOC. The LOC gives you 30 days in which to reply. I can't be sure, but I think the SWID used to be utilised when a debt collector was hassling, I can't recall whether we used to send them to solicitors.

One option might be, since Lowell don't know that the account is in dispute, to send a SWID to whichever Lowell company has been chasing you. They may then stand Overdales down - particularly if you ask them to - at least for now. BUT don't lose sight of your deadline for responding to the LOC.

EDIT: I see that I have been overtaken by events.

[Still Waving]

What we used to do by rote with LBC and indeed SWID in the Past often worked against Our Interests.
You need an expert and current knowledge of Law and tactics here!

Hi Roger

Just out of interest and for information - can you point to any instances of this?

[Roger]

Hi Roger

Just out of interest and for information - can you point to any instances of this?

Well HSBC had issues over their handling of Debts using in house resources.
Hence 15/02/21 £50 cheque received from M&S after reviewing their collections process. Thats 2 years before it was sold!

M&S at one time approached new customers with a pad that they filled in and requested to sign here!

I personally sent for the List of various Documents as we used to do upon receipt of a LBC.
But in my own Case the Account had been closed earlier for inactivity and M&S had just ignored and carried on with a CLOSED ACCOUNT

The SWID recommendation was for when the Account was first sold. Then we just ignored everything.
The argument was send it straight away and not wait until the last minute!

If you look at the SWID in past Diaries the arguments are set out there.

Niddy here https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...36#post1195536
Says not to send a SWID to 1st but send a CCA 78

[SteveB]

Roger I am confused.
You seem to be making a claim but are unable to support it with ANY evidence or even an explanation.


Here Niddy says 1st credit will not entertain blagging letters but surely if they are serious as opposed to blagging I.e. there was a problem , it would be fine.

Isnt a SWID a good blag if you are trying to eke out time. So blag and then maybe follow up with a s77-79 request

However if a claim has been made surely a response along with a S77-79 request is the right way forward as essentially advised by NDL. Ask for the documentation to prove their claim. That just seems like common sense to me.

My understanding is that unlike some advisors (step change for example) NDL are truly independent

[Roger]

Roger I am confused.
You seem to be making a claim but are unable to support it with ANY evidence or even an explanation.


Here Niddy says 1st credit will not entertain blagging letters but surely if they are serious as opposed to blagging I.e. there was a problem , it would be fine.

Isnt a SWID a good blag if you are trying to eke out time. So blag and then maybe follow up with a s77-79 request

However if a claim has been made surely a response along with a S77-79 request is the right way forward as essentially advised by NDL. Ask for the documentation to prove their claim. That just seems like common sense to me.

My understanding is that unlike some advisors (step change for example) NDL are truly independent

I joined AAD 2014

Now Tactics and the Law and Procedures have changed over the years what was advised and worked 10 years ago might not work now!
The Banking crisis created problems for certain Banks who were basically forced together (I am thinking of the Lloyds Group among others) and here in certain cases there are issues over the validity of CCA and indeed Assignment.

Tactics have changed laterly to delay sending the CCA S78 (Plus £1) request because over time the records aren't always available which is why the DSAR becomes important.

Refering to Niddy and His comment about a SWID or CC S.78 request!
The SWID followed where the CCA S.78 was considered UE (but the UE might be rectifiable AAD Template Letters provided suitable replys to original Crediots hence disputing the validlity of the CCA S.78 received) and the Account was Assigned on to a DCA whilst still in dispute and thus in Law UE

AAD had opinions on the timing or otherwise of sending the SWID!
"..Originally posted by Pixie View Post
This is where I'm different as I liked to send a letter such as SWID pretty much on first contact from a dca then I ignored further letters unless they were really threatening court action etc. IMO if you later sent a SWID they could come back with "so why didn't you tell us that at the start?"

Niddy mentions 1st Credit in those Days they threatened Bankurptcy!!

AAD had a Letter to be sent on receipt of a deemed Letter Before Action when we asked for well basically everything!

Remember the LBC is fairly recent legal requirement
AAD To start with suggested response to the LBC was to ask for the documentation we had previously asked for under the Letter Before Action!

BUT what happened is that the LBC was used by the DCA's to get their ducks in a Row to build their CASE
Then they would Sue!

Tactics changed with what information or otherwise we asked for and how we should respond to or otherwise the LBC!

Just realise that the CCA 74 has over the years been changed that DAC's are smarter and often part of global Groups.
That Case Law also comes into the Equation in what is a highly specialised area of the Law

The AAD advice has been that a Good Diary to assist you and for any comments and possible advice suggested.

AAD through Niddy has a especial relationship with @JCS and we havw this free initial consultatian
Well a Good Diary benefits all parties.
It means you can obtain current and particularised advice (your Debt your Diary)

This is a massive benefit for AAD for advice of what is CURRENT with Law and tactics from a free consulation, especially with the Threat of being sued when sent a LBC.

[SteveB]

Roger
I am still non the wiser

The fact you joined AAD in 2014 means nothing in reality- all it says is that you are old :-)

The talk of 1st Credit is again irrelevant as they do not exist anymore- they are now Intrum or so i understand.

You still haven’t actually answered the question, it is all just statements. It goes without saying that law is not static- that is the way law works in the UK. The courts interpret and creat laws.

Why should I not trust NDL, they are after all experts.

You may argue that a good diary is important, I would wonder if debt purchasers might not cross reference and get some information I might not want them to have.

I am not for a moment saying that a good set of records is not important.

From what I have read and my own experience , sending a DSAR does not always get a copy of the agreement. Some say it is not personal data and the ICO has no teeth really where the consumer is concerned.

Isn’t the LoC simply the new name and process for a LBA - it is also aimed at preventing court so ignoring it seems against the spirit and according to NDL is a bad thing.

I appreciate you think very haughty of JCS and I am not in a position to comment but again, from personal experience, free initial advice from lawyers tends to be very very vague.

For example when I was an executor of a will the legal advice was rather useless.

[Roger]

Roger
I am still non the wiser

The fact you joined AAD in 2014 means nothing in reality- all it says is that you are old :-)

The talk of 1st Credit is again irrelevant as they do not exist anymore- they are now Intrum or so i understand.

You still haven’t actually answered the question, it is all just statements. It goes without saying that law is not static- that is the way law works in the UK. The courts interpret and creat laws.

Why should I not trust NDL, they are after all experts.

You may argue that a good diary is important, I would wonder if debt purchasers might not cross reference and get some information I might not want them to have.

I am not for a moment saying that a good set of records is not important.

From what I have read and my own experience , sending a DSAR does not always get a copy of the agreement. Some say it is not personal data and the ICO has no teeth really where the consumer is concerned.

Isn’t the LoC simply the new name and process for a LBA - it is also aimed at preventing court so ignoring it seems against the spirit and according to NDL is a bad thing.

I appreciate you think very haughty of JCS and I am not in a position to comment but again, from personal experience, free initial advice from lawyers tends to be very very vague.

For example when I was an executor of a will the legal advice was rather useless.

What do you want SteveB ?

We know the Web is trawled by DCA's and in some Cases entries have been cited in court as evidence of admission of Debt. This is not unique to AAD but also other sites as you obviously know! BUT my own experience is also that a Good Diary with comments can frighten them off!

When the LBC became a legal requirement then AAD's immediate response was to treat this as a Letter Before Action.
But it was being abused by the DCA's playing into their hands, because it became clear it was simply another way to threaten and get their eggs in a row.

You statement ".. it is also aimed at preventing court so ignoring it seems against the spirit .." that's very naive!
Time to wake up to the real world where the spirit of the Law is replaced by DCA's seeking to maximise their profits!

Tactics apply do they NOT because we see LBC's issued and NOT followed by claims clearly a DCA's trying to scare a Debtor!

My advice to you would be that here at AAD we know through experience that Good Diary's have a successful track record!!
Again many like myself with AAD have found @JCS advice excellent.

As you point out yourself "..YOU are not in a position to comment.."

[SteveB]

Roger
I am far from naive but I was looking for some experiences backed up with evidence - so you say JCS provided excellent advice to you- that is great but not every case is suitable for legal representation.

You say the letter of Claim was being abused by the DCA's but do not explain how or why other than in your mind. I tend to agree with another poster who says that there is plenty of time to get the the paperwork in order once a defence is filed.


National Debt Line say that the letter is designed to keep things out of court and there might be penalties if you do not respond. If a debt is SB or there is a UE credit agreement, would a judge look kindly on you letting it get to court if you knew that? Remember many Debt purchasers (not DCA's) will, where possible go to the brink in the hope that the defendant will 'bottle it'

[Pondpaddler2]

I might be missing something here, but I don't seem to have read your debt story SteveB...? I might give your comments more consideration if I could understand how you came to be here. Obviously if I have inadvertently overseen your posts, then please correct me.

[SteveB]

There are many people who have posted on here without spilling what their personal debt history is. Would you ask Prof David Starkey on how he knows about the Tudors ?

Let’s say I have a deep interest in debt, follow various experts on Twitter etc including JC. I call out wrong or poor advice , was banned more times than I care to remember from some of the let’s say rings groups both on forums and FB for challenging their ideas such as the dangerous three letters.

My argument is that no two debts are the same, some need and warrant paying for legal representation and some don’t . I also note most debtors are in some way vulnerable and may jump at any ‘advice’ given them.

Answering a LoC has a track record, both here and elsewhere, in stopping debt purchasers in their tracks. There is also reputable sources that say ignoring them is not a good idea- for example National Debt Line and Debt Camel a registered debt advisor.


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...s/debt-pap.pdf

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#13.1

I personally believe that while the Government is not on our side they do provide a framework

[Roger]

SteveB This is Lola girl Diary