Capital One - Lowells

[marypoppins]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

A little update from Lowells.

News on your credit agreement request. We have been in touch with Cap1 about the copy of your credit agreement.

They have let us know they are trying to retrieve the agreement from their archive. As soon as we have it, we will send it to you.

What will happen next

In the event we cannot obtain a copy of the agreement we will write to you again and inform of this. Once you have seen your credit agreement, we will ask you to pay your outstanding balance in full.

[marypoppins]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Lowells have responded and they have asked the original lender for a copy of the credit agreement together with statements.

They will do their very best to send the information within 12 working days but it depends on when the OC produces it so they will let me know if they don't receive it in time.

[marypoppins]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

CCA request going off to Lowells today (RD), will update in due course.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

It depends on what the debts were and whether they'd be enforceable or not.

consider a diary --> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...-Read-me-First!

[Henry Petals]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Just having a quick scan through this thread. Last year the CAB on our behalf contacted various agencies and offered them £1 a month.. Most accepted. Should I have gone this route? Lowells are handling three of the accounts.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

When was this Crappy One card taken out? Most of their old agreements are UE anyway, giving you another line of defence should the agreement actually turn up.

I would definitely be looking to send a request at some point in the near future, as I would want the protection of s. 78 should they ever issue an SD.

If you made a payment in July 2009, that was probably in response to a bill issued on 30th June. That would make the first missed payment, and consequently the cause of action, 30th July. So, I take the statute barring date to be 31st July 2015. For me, that is too far into the future to be playing an ignoring game.

SH

mine just after that

[ScabHunter]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

When was this Crappy One card taken out? Most of their old agreements are UE anyway, giving you another line of defence should the agreement actually turn up.

I would definitely be looking to send a request at some point in the near future, as I would want the protection of s. 78 should they ever issue an SD.

If you made a payment in July 2009, that was probably in response to a bill issued on 30th June. That would make the first missed payment, and consequently the cause of action, 30th July. So, I take the statute barring date to be 31st July 2015. For me, that is too far into the future to be playing an ignoring game.

SH

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Hi Cadwallader, it sounds like the same one and mentions passing it on to Hamptons.

I haven't done anything yet but agree that maybe an s78 request should be sent.

Letter bombardment by Lowells as has been reported as to what to expect on another forum - forget where;-

Lowells = 1 x letter on letterhead from original creditor.
about 5 or 6 on Lowells letterhead claiming to know what you wear and when.
3 on Red DCA paper = Lowell in Drag.
3 from Hampton!s legal = Lowell wearing False Teeth.
1 from Lowell (swan song) : sometimes this step is omitted.

[marypoppins]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Hi Cadwallader, it sounds like the same one and mentions passing it on to Hamptons.

I haven't done anything yet but agree that maybe an s78 request should be sent.

[cadwallader]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Hi marypoppins

I have had the same series of letters from Lowell and have just received the latest - last opportunity to avoid debt being passed to our legal dept. Have you had this one? Did you send off a s.78 request? I haven't yet but am becoming a little anxious about ignoring them any further, feel the time has come to respond with a s.78.

Rgds cadwallader

[marypoppins]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Hi, I've been on my hols so just updating so I know where I am with this one.

Letters from Lowells 1/9 Your debt is still outstanding, what could happen if you do not pay and we're here to help etc.

Another 15/9 Your debt is still outstanding, assessing your credit file, a payment plan that you can afford.

These are the headings of each paragraph and the last letter give 15 days to pay or agree a payments plan other wise they will prepare the account for further action!

This has now appeared back on Noddle with Lowells, default date is December 09 and I have checked my old statements and the last payment I made was July 09 so a few more months to hang on in there!

Was wondering whether to send them an s78 request but I don't like to keep bringing my file to their attention.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

You already know who's blog it is but we don't promote it on AAD.

Has he been declared to be a non-person as well as being a caninophile?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

You already know who's blog it is but we don't promote it on AAD.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Last edited by Never-In-Doubt; 24th August 2014 at 19:05. Reason: removed links

Aren't we permitted to know from whose semi-literate blog that came?

(I do know...)

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Capital One - Lowells

Today in North London a Claim was dismissed by a District Judge, it wasnt because of a breach of s78, or a defective default notice, but for a reason which should have been flagged up pre issue, it should have been noticed by those reviewing the file before even serving a letter of claim and it goes to show that it is important to comply with the pre action protocols or get your ass whooped if you dont. The problem faced by this claimant was as follows. The Claimant had sued Mrs and claimed that Mrs owed them money arising out of an agreement. On request for documentation there was a wall of silence, with the only response being "were taking instructions" accordingly the only defence the client could lodge was a simple "i have no idea what they are talking about" The Court clearly picked up that there was an issue or two, as it called a preliminary hearing (which took place today) In the run up to the hearing, the opponents provided limited disclosures, in the form of statements, the statements showed that the account was a joint account and therefore the claimants claim fell into real difficulties, why? well s141 (5) Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires all parties to a regulated agreement are party to any proceedings. The problem this claimant faced is that it sued Mrs but not Mr, furthermore, Mr's account had not been assigned to the Claimant, so it couldnt join Mr to proceedings ( see Pickthall v Hill Dickinson) and in addition, since proceedings had been issued, the Claimant could not go back and pursue Mr later , in short the claim was a mess and once proceedings had been issued the Claimant lost any chance of getting its house in order. Accordingly, at the CMC today the Judge dismissed the Claim on the basis that even though the claim may have had merit, the fact the Claimant did not get its house in order and make sure the assignment was carried out correctly to ensure it had a claim against both parties, meant that the claim could never succeed at trial.