TalkTalk / Lowell Letters

[adamtucker]

Hi all,

I am new to the forum and have been reading some other peoples experiences with Lowell relating to various telecoms companies but I cannot find distinct information that I can directly use for my case, or that I have not tried already.

I have exchanged numerous letters, emails and telephone calls originally with TalkTalk, and now with Lowell (letters only). I am up to Letter 9 as they just seem to send the same responses each time all revolving around no contract existing, CCA so TalkTalk do not need to provide any account information, etc; however I understand this to be incorrect - they need to provide some evidence that the account does in fact relate to myself, and that the debt does in fact exist.

My previous letter, which is attached (along with their response and my latest response to them), outlined numerous reasons as to why this debt does not relate to myself, and their latest response seems to reflect this, yet ignores these points and states that the debt is due for payment... its like banging my head against a brick wall!

Would you be able to provide any advice on how to proceed on this? I am not at a court letter just yet, but I cannot see that they will continue to respond and will probably claim that my letters are all of the same nature - however, they have just not provided any evidence to suggest this even relates to myself. The sticking points for me are the fact the phone number doesn't even relate to my area code, the bill amount changed and their calculations to get to this figure in previous letters didn't add up, and they haven't provided any evidence that I entered a CCA.

Very frustrating and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Adam

[des8]

Whilst awaiting for a response from the knowledgeable ones I would suggest you repost your correspondence, but this time delete all identifying details e.g. address, name, account numbers etc

[Kati]

Whilst awaiting for a response from the knowledgeable ones I would suggest you repost your correspondence, but this time delete all identifying details e.g. address, name, account numbers etc

I've redacted the documents Des xx

tagging Diana M ??

[adamtucker]

Hi, thanks for the comments.

Attached are documents with name/address removed - not sure that any other information is particularly sensitive.

Apologies for the delay in uploading these!

[adamtucker]

Good morning, I am yet to receive any responses regarding my post.

Over the weekend I received the attached which is the latest position from Lowell. I am running out of ideas and becoming extremely frustrated with this matter as they still have not provided evidence to suggest this account even relates to myself and seem to ignore this fact continuously - is there anything else I can say / do to get this point across and get this resolved?

Thanks in advance.

Adam

[MIKE770]

hello it was the weekend be patient we are volunteers and have a life to live as well?

[adamtucker]

Hi Mike, thanks for the prompt response. I did add the documents on 6th March, which is why I was happy to leave it for a couple of weeks to see what responses (if any) came through. As I am new to the site I am unsure as to response times, etc - apologies if I have offended anyone. Also, I am not sure if posts are vetted prior to being displayed on the forum so although I may have uploaded the documents on the 6th they may not have 'gone live' until a later date.


I have drafted a potential response as follows, not sure if this will achieve anything - particularly the desired outcome of getting this all ended:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your response dated 13^th March 2018 and received on 18^th March 2018.

As has been previously stated, I refute any suggestion that I owe any debt to TalkTalk.

Your previous 2 letters have accepted some of the points raised by myself evidencing the fact that this debt does not relate to myself or any account I held with TalkTalk in the past, however your responses then continue to request payment. I am not going to make payment for an account which does not belong to me and have been advised that there is no legal commitment for me to do so.

I have informed you that the account number / telephone number you have provided does not and has not ever been associated with myself, and therefore the balance due has no association with me if it even exists. No ‘evidence’ provided by Lowell suggests otherwise on either of these points. Again, as has been advised, I am to take no further unless evidence can be provided to suggest otherwise.

If a Service Agreement was entered into then evidence of this would be available to TalkTalk, and therefore Lowell. If you can provide a copy of this then I can reassess my position, however at this time nothing provided has remotely indicated that this account belongs to me, let alone carries any legitimate balance.

Evidence can be provided in writing, or a copy of a verbal agreement which TalkTalk would have a recording of if it exists. Until such evidence is provided there is no proof that the debt a) exists, and b) belongs to me and therefore no further communication is required unless to provide said evidence, or to confirm that the balance has been removed.

Yours,


Any comments would be hugely appreciated.

[MIKE770]

Diana M

[R0b]

Hello

First of all, the CCA requests are only applicable to consumer credit agreements. Back in the earlier days, some mobile service providers did offer contracts that were subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 such as Vodafone and O2 but I don't believe TalkTalk has ever offered mobile phone contracts on consumer credit but I could be wrong.

I've only scanned the letters you sent and received from Lowell but I am curious where you got some of your information from in the responses you made. For example, you make a reference to the Bill of Exchange Act but that has absolutely nothing to do with mobile phone services at all. I've never heard of an "Instrument of Novation" before but I suspect what is meant by that is a novation agreement which again I think is highly irrelevant in this situation. Finally, allegations of fraud are taken very seriously by the courts and I would recommend not to mention any such allegations unless you have some substantial proof - Lowell are a debt purchasing company so its unlikely that they are acting 'fraudulently'. There's a difference between acting fraudulently and not being able to prove their case.

Moving on, you have not said whether or not you actually entered into the agreement but leaving that to one side, Lowell have suggested that a notice of assignment was issued but didn't say who gave that notice. Have you tried submitted a Subject Access Request to TalkTalk and Lowell to see what comes back?

At the end of the day, it burden of proof rests with Lowell to prove that you entered into the alleged agreement and also that they are entitled to bring a claim by evidencing the notice of assignment.

If you are absolutely adamant that you didn't enter into the agreement and/or the information that they have supplied is incorrect then you may be able to have a claim/counterclaim for harassment and seek compensation that way.

I'm rather surprised that both you and Lowell have got up to 9 letters/replies and I think you've been sucked into the usual ping pong correspondence which does neither party any good. Lowell have already set out their position and quite clearly stated they won't enter into further correspondence if you have more or less repeated what has already been said.

So rather than sending multiple responses, you either wait and see what they do since they haven't actually sent a letter before action (from what I've seen) and wait to see what happens. Equally, if they continue to call you or send you letters then maybe you can respond at that stage and put them on notice that you consider their conduct as harassment.

[adamtucker]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the very informative response.

Some of the responses I have sent are from other online forums as advised by people commenting on similar cases with TalkTalk, so I used those just to see if I had any luck (some people state they had succeeded with these, however there is no way to know whether that is true or not... based on your comments I am thinking they are talking rubbish).

Basically, I used to use TalkTalk for phone, broadband and TV, but never a mobile phone which was first mentioned by Lowell and has confused things as I have stated this point but they continue to advise that inserting the sim card is acceptance of an Agreement. My point based on the current position from Lowell is that the information they have provided is incorrect and not recognizable to me. Ie, the phone number of the account has never been a number associated with myself at my present or even past address, and therefore also the account number is incorrect.

I have pressed them for proof of the debt which they have been unable to provide but I am concerned that they do respond quickly and do not appear to be backing down, so I am of the impression they will issue a letter before action, although I am surprised they haven't done this already.

I have not tried the Subject Access Request - thanks for this information. I will certainly look into this ASAP - any advice on where to visit (online or otherwise) to get this started? i will do some Googling in the meantime as well.

I sent responses, particularly after some of the points raised by Lowell indicating to me that they have the wrong person / account and I wanted to make them aware of that so that if this does go further, ie to court action, then I have provided as much information as possible and can refer to later down the line.

Thanks again for the input. Really appreciate it.

[adamtucker]

I have found a template online on the ico website for the Subject Access Request and have added the relevant section to my previously drafted letter which I will paste below. Would you recommend sending in this format, or should I remove the previous text and just send the Request?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your response dated 13^th March 2018 and received on 18^th March 2018.

As has been previously stated, I refute any suggestion that I owe any debt to TalkTalk.

Your previous 2 letters have accepted some of the points raised by myself evidencing the fact that this debt does not relate to myself or any account I held with TalkTalk in the past, however your responses then continue to request payment. I am not going to make payment for an account which does not belong to me and have been advised that there is no legal commitment for me to do so.

I have informed you that the account number / telephone number you have provided does not and has not ever been associated with myself, and therefore the balance due has no association with me if it even exists. No ‘evidence’ provided by Lowell suggests otherwise on either of these points. Again, as has been advised, I am to take no further unless evidence can be provided to suggest otherwise.

If a Service Agreement was entered into then evidence of this would be available to TalkTalk, and therefore Lowell. If you can provide a copy of this then I can reassess my position, however at this time nothing provided has remotely indicated that this account belongs to me, let alone carries any legitimate balance.

Evidence can be provided in writing, or a copy of a verbal agreement which TalkTalk would have a recording of if it exists. Until such evidence is provided there is no proof that the debt a) exists, and b) belongs to me and therefore no further communication is required unless to provide said evidence, or to confirm that the balance has been removed.

Also, please supply the information about me I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to:

• My personnel file / account information;
• Emails between TalkTalk and Myself (between 2011 and 2017);
• Letters between TalkTalk and Myself (between 2011 and 2017);
• Telephone recordings between TalkTalk and Myself (between 2011 and 2017);
• Copies of statements (between 2011 & 2017) held against my account.

If you need any more information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.

It may be helpful for you to know that a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should be responded to within 40 days.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at ico.org.uk


Yours,



Thanks again, and apologies for spamming by own post!

[Amethyst]

For the Subject Access Request - Subject Access Request Letter

Sending that to Talk Talk will help find out what this debt is and where it has come from.

I think the most recent letter draft you posted in better than anything before, as you actually say what the issue is, that you have never held a mobile phone account with TalkTalk and do not recognise the telephone number they are stating it is attached to, nor that any debt is owed to talktalk. I think you just got caught up in using weird letters hence ending up playing letter tennis.

Have you checked if anything shows on your credit file ?
And was there any debt outstanding when you stopped using talktalk for landline/broadband etc ?

[R0b]

You always have to remember that any correspondence between parties could come before a judge and it's not going to help you if your copying letters that either you don't understand, are not applicable to your case and might be considered aggressive i.e. allegations of fraud. Always think about what you want to say to get your point across and if you are going to reference any legislation or case law, make sure it applies otherwise you will make yourself look silly and reduce your credibility.

You can find some SAR examples here -> http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...quest-template

Their latest letter is dated 13 March and say they have put things on hold for 30 days so you might expect a letter before action after this time. You might want to consider waiting until the letter before action comes because as part of the pre-action protocols for debt claims, they have an obligation to supply certain information on request (which is why its not best to get into a slanging match early on) and will be in breach if they either don't supply it or they don't give a reason why.

Their letter also mentions a copy statement, did you receive it and what did it refer to?

[Amethyst]

Ooo crossed posts apologies... Okay I wouldn't send a SAR as such to Lowell, just to Talk Talk. ( and change Personnel to Personal ( or leave that out altogether ) and add Any Agreements and related Terms between myself and TalkTalk )

To Lowell send more like

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your response dated 13^th March 2018 and received on 18^th March 2018.

As has been previously stated, I refute any suggestion that I owe any debt to TalkTalk, or, subsequently to yourselves.

Your previous two letters have accepted some of the points raised by myself evidencing the fact that this debt does not relate to myself or any account I held with TalkTalk in the past, however your responses then continue to request payment. I am not going to make payment for an account which does not belong to me and have been advised that there is no legal commitment for me to do so.

I have informed you that the account number / telephone number you have provided does not and has not ever been associated with myself, and therefore the balance due has no association with me if it even exists. No ‘evidence’ provided by Lowell suggests otherwise on either of these points. Again, as has been advised, I am to take no further action unless evidence can be provided to suggest otherwise.

If a Service Agreement was entered into then evidence of this would be available to TalkTalk, and therefore to yourselves. If you can provide a copy of this then I can reassess my position, however at this time nothing provided has remotely indicated that this account belongs to me, let alone carries any legitimate balance.

Evidence can be provided in writing, or a copy of a verbal agreement which TalkTalk would have a recording of if it exists. Until such evidence is provided there is no proof that the debt a) exists, and b) belongs to me and therefore no further communication is required unless to provide said evidence, or to confirm that the account has been closed.

Of course, should you decide to take legal action against me relating to this account, without having provided any evidence of the alleged debt, I will strongly defend my position.

Yours,

[adamtucker]

Thanks guys.

Please see attached the Bill Summary and a previous letter, both stating different phone numbers (neither of which mean anything to me). This again just seems to suggest confusion and misinformation coming from their part?

I did have a TalkTalk account which was being disputed, however it does not directly relate to the information Lowell is providing - I originally thought this was what the letters related too, however I am struggling to line the two of them up.

I will keep hold of the letter draft for now and on receipt of letter before action before sending it. Noted your comments about past letters, these were clearly sent following poor advice from elsewhere - hopefully they are not too detrimental to my position should things carry on!

Thanks again.