**DISCONTINUED** Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Yes, of course, which is why I've not even thought about reclaiming even though I had PPI on all three cards. I've never got a NoA for any of them despite defaulting over five years ago. :noidea: However, if the debt has been sold, it can only be offset if it gets bought back, otherwise Lloyds can't pay the redress to Lowell. The reason for waiting till a debt is SBd is not to do with set-off but to avoid the risk of acknowledging the debt during its life, especially if the redress ends up being offset. :mmph:

IFYPFY :grin:

Autocorrect going mad again

Of course no one would want to reset the SB clock
Just wanted to point it out. Sadly non of my debts are near being SB , anyway I was so tight I didn't have any PPI

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

A statute barred debt in England and Wales not only still exists but Is collectable by any means bar court action, but to pursue the debt once the debtor informs the creditor that the debt is statute barred it may amount to harassment to continue to pursue it.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

A statute barred debt in England and Wales not only still exists but Is collectable by any means bar court action, but to pursue the debt once the debtor informs the creditor that the debt is statute barred it may amount to harassment to continue to pursue it.

nem

This little discussion referred to reclaiming PPI and the creditor can still offset the PPI redress from the debt even if it's SBd, although very few debts remain with the original creditor that long, however, as far as I'm aware, mine have not been sold despite defaulting over five years ago. I had PPI but not reclaiming because it would just be offset and probably also reset the clock. :mmph:

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

This little discussion referred to reclaiming PPI and the creditor can still offset the PPI redress from the debt even if it's SBd, although very few debts remain with the original creditor that long, however, as far as I'm aware, mine have not been sold despite defaulting over five years ago. I had PPI but not reclaiming because it would just be offset and probably also reset the clock. :mmph:

I have a number of cases where CRA records have not been amended by CRA's more than 4 years after an account has be assigned to a debt purchaser, there is also a question that has not to my knowledge been addressed, i.e. the debt purchasers returning debt to OC's when a debtor makes a PPI claim to the OC.

Front loaded PPI on assigned debts should be/is much easier to reclaim as the lump sum " premium " show separately on an agreement..
Companies Lowell for instance are pursuing debts assigned to the 4+ years ago and debtors are unaware of/ or CRA records have not been updated when the debts have been assigned.

I am about to take this up with 3 main CRA's and 2 debt purchasers on formal basis.


nem

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Can you explain what you mean about the buyback of debt, is it in regard to this debt or in general.
As long as the date of default remains the same, does it, in the great scheme of things actually make any difference whose name is reported on the CRA file, certainly on Noddle it does say the date it was last updated

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Can you explain what you mean about the buyback of debt, is it in regard to this debt or in general.
As long as the date of default remains the same, does it, in the great scheme of things actually make any difference whose name is reported on the CRA file, certainly on Noddle it does say the date it was last updated

I was referring to resetting the clock for limitation purposes by reclaiming PPI as opposed to CRA records, I don't see any connection between PPI reclaims and CRA records. Debt purchasers 'updating' default dates is sadly a very common problem but not at all related to PPI. :mmph:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Im sorry Flamingparrot, I was really referring to this

I have a number of cases where CRA records have not been amended by CRA's more than 4 years after an account has be assigned to a debt purchaser, there is also a question that has not to my knowledge been addressed, i.e. the debt purchasers returning debt to OC's when a debtor makes a PPI claim to the OC.

Front loaded PPI on assigned debts should be/is much easier to reclaim as the lump sum " premium " show separately on an agreement..
Companies Lowell for instance are pursuing debts assigned to the 4+ years ago and debtors are unaware of/ or CRA records have not been updated when the debts have been assigned.

I am about to take this up with 3 main CRA's and 2 debt purchasers on formal basis.

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

The PPI would be reclaimed from Lloyds, not Lowell so I can't see how it could be offset from another account owned by Lowell.

I was referring to my NatWest Loan/OD -the loan is SB next March and I was hoping to do a PPI claim. Doesn't look like it matters as they'll use it on the loan anyway (I had [incorrectly] assumed SB status 'wipes out' debt).

Would have been sold to Hoist along with most Santander defaulted accounts. The defaults would have been recorded originally by Lloyds and Lowell would just have updated the record to show them as new owners. Are the default dates correct or have Lowell updated them too?

Default dates have come from Noddle. No idea if Lowell have updated them too but I 'assume' not as they only bought debts around 12 months ago. Defaults are much older.

How so?

See agreements (when posted). Again I assume the CMC pointed out they have an unenforceable agreement.

The account where the payments have been applied won't to SBd but it is good news if they've only been paying the overdraft and not the loan they themselves admit it's not enforceable (I'm still intrigued). Not to mention that overdrafts are much harder to defend and even to calculate when the clock starts to run for them, unless you've kept a copy of their final demand.

I have a statement of account which confirms that no payments were were made to the account from that date, until the last letter received.

With the agreements, would be useful if you could post up redacted versions ofthem.

Finally done, redacted and ready to post. Is there a sticky with instructions on how to post for the forum illiterate!?

What accounts are you referring to? From the details above, none of the ones listed are SBd, the Natwest loan still has over six months to run as the clock doesn't start from date of last payment, arguably a month later (i.e. when you first miss a payment). If those details are clearly stated on your creditreport, they would be known to the DCAs.

It was a speculative question for the benefit of others really. If ambulance chasers rarely have any paperwork, I highly doubt they would be able to prove payments/acknowledgement was made so would it be worth a try to stall a claim (assuming one had only made 'token' payments after account got into arrears)?

With the Nattiest account I am guessing that they are aware they can not fulfil a S78 request which franky seems odd as they can clobber together any old bowlarks however maybe they are being truthful and know that should it go to court it is irredeemably UE. I know a bank being honest is a bit like a finding a generous Yorkshire man

See attached, I think they are aware agreement is unenforceable.

The reason for waiting till a debt is SBd is not to do with set-off but to avoid the risk of acknowledging the debt during its life, especially if the redress ends up being offset.

All is clearer now, although £5k worth of PPI claim wouldn't go amiss this close to xmas!

but to pursue the debt once the debtor informs the creditor that the debt is statute barred it may amount to harassment to continue to pursue it.

nem

Good point

I am about to take this up with 3 main CRA's and 2 debt purchasers on formal basis.


nem

Good luck with that! I have found them juvenile at best, and ignorant at worst (amongst other things). As you may see in the T&C's for the Cahoot loan, nowhere does it 'inform' me how my data will be used and therefore does not comply with the 'legitimate reason for doing so and you have been told what is going to happen to your data from the ICO guidelines.

They just put their fingers in their ears and go La La La.....

They told me that it is the responsibility of the creditor to ensure the information given to them is correct. Who are we to question it, we are only the data subject after all!?!?!........

Great discussion people, now the initial shock of an N1 through the door sealed with BC lipstick has died down!

Thanks again.

I'll have agreements up later today when I sort how to!

Nor.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Im sorry Flamingparrot, I was really referring to this

Any queries on CRA file entries need to be addressed to the Data Controller of the company/creditor that originated the entry.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

I was referring to my NatWest Loan/OD -the loan is SB next March and I was hoping to do a PPI claim. Doesn't look like it matters as they'll use it on the loan anyway (I had [incorrectly] assumed SB status 'wipes out' debt).

It wipes out debt in Scotland where it's extinguished but not south of the border. However, as discussed above, redress is not always offset from the debt even if it's not extinguished.

See agreements (when posted). Again I assume the CMC pointed out they have an unenforceable agreement.

CMCs were not exactly impartial, it was in their best interests to say the accounts were unenforceable. :ohwell:

I'll have agreements up later today when I sort how to!

I have a statement of account which confirms that no payments were were made to the account from that date, until the last letter received.

Finally done, redacted and ready to post. Is there a sticky with instructions on how to post for the forum illiterate!?

There certainly is: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...r-details-safe!) :nerd:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Nem
I am really not sure what the reply below has to do with the question

Any queries on CRA file entries need to be addressed to the Data Controller of the company/creditor that originated the entry.

nem

The questions was

Can you explain what you mean about the buyback of debt, is it in regard to this debt or in general.
As long as the date of default remains the same, does it, in the great scheme of things actually make any difference whose name is reported on the CRA file, certainly on Noddle it does say the date it was last updated

Which arose from your statement

I have a number of cases where CRA records have not been amended by CRA's more than 4 years after an account has be assigned to a debt purchaser, there is also a question that has not to my knowledge been addressed, i.e. the debt purchasers returning debt to OC's when a debtor makes a PPI claim to the OC.

Front loaded PPI on assigned debts should be/is much easier to reclaim as the lump sum " premium " show separately on an agreement..
Companies Lowell for instance are pursuing debts assigned to the 4+ years ago and debtors are unaware of/ or CRA records have not been updated when the debts have been assigned.

I am about to take this up with 3 main CRA's and 2 debt purchasers on formal basis

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

There certainly is: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...r-details-safe!) :nerd:

That was painless, thank you!

Ignore the redacted area under payment, that's just my scribble. There is also a sheet on charges which I haven't included.

Enjoy!........

Nor

P.S. Shout if I've left personal info on there somewhere!!

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

And the 'begging letters!......

Nor

[Norfolk Enchants]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

Hi all,

I've had my letter from BC telling me that they are "formally confirming our clients intention.....", and that the client is prepared to enter into negotiations, however I am to contact them to arrange this!

Is it worth writing to them to remind them that they have failed to provide me with any/all documentation to which I am lawfully entitled and that I am unable to enter negotiations due to this? And their failure to comply with s.78 prohibits their client from proceeding?

On a final note, any input on my two posts above?

Nor

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell/Bryan Carter for Lloyds debt.

No:- this is one of their template responses to see if you give up the fight, ignore for now. i.e. near last minute begging letter to you before they cry in their empty beer glass, read other BC threads and you will see their missives.