Longish Story

[Bill-K]

Re: Longish story...

I'm inclined to agree with Ben - give them all the time they need, but make sure that you have acknowledgement (or proof of receipt) of anything you have sent them, so that they cannot later plead ignorance.

Meanwhile, I have recently been quoting that CPUTR letter which Militant has posted above. The 'sol-on-board' version is new to me, and has been put in my armoury. I have been giving the credit for this to Labman, from whom I first got it. Militant - can you tell me to whom I should really be crediting that missive ? Acknowledgement is an important part of these forums, I believe.

[legalese]

Re: Longish story...

Hence the original is sold, s61 1 a and s127 3 the original signed contract

[Bill-K]

Re: Longish story...

But the original contract is (in this case) between the OP (Crusty) and the OC (Shop Direct - or its subsidiary). So - by itself it is of no value to anyone other than the OC. Sure - it still needs to be produced in court to verify the existence of the debt - but the assignment of that debt is just as important, isn't it ? Or - do we take the stance (intriguingly suggested by Legalese elsewhere) that the debt has been bought by a bunch of twazzocks at an agreed price, and is thus now fully paid off ?

[legalese]

Re: Longish story...

SAV Credit which i think is a credit card company, they will probably send agreement which has only name and address which would confirm the agreement was made not signed crusty needs to ask for the original agreement signed which will show everything from interest payable etc and signature. It is important to clarify this to them, they will not have it as it is sold.

I think what the debt collector is saying in a nice way is they cannot find it as its not there but then say when they see it he must pay up, no crusty wants to see it.

[Bill-K]

Re: Longish story...

Agreed - but this is the limitation with using CCA requests, in that they do NOT have to supply a copy of the original agreement as (allegedly) held by themselves, and are only obliged to do so if a court so decrees. We can take it straight to court, and demand production of it - or we can take the more 'softly, softly' approach as suggested by CurlyBen. In my meagre experience, the 'softly, softly' approach is best. It may be slow, but it satisfies the need for 'Pre-Action Protocol.'

[Crusty]

Re: Longish story...

Many thanks for all the information above....

A further development has occurred which I will try to summarise. I have today received yet another letter in three parts from Lowell. The top letter apologises for referring to a debt with Shop Direct (which I have no knowledge of) and refers to a 'corrected' copy attached which is page 2. The top letter also refers to page 3 which they call a copy of the Letter of Assignment sent to me on 17th April 2009. However, the page 3 letter is dated 17th August 2012 and is addressed to me at my current address - not the address where I was living in 2009! The letter is headed "Introducing Lowell" and refers to a debt sold to them on 31/3/09.

It seems to me that they cannot lay their hands on the original CCA and are just stalling me. Having read the comments above I'm inclined to leave it for a while and see what happens but I will still have a default on my Credit File which I believe is incorrect. My original aim was to get the default removed and I would still like to do so. Is that a likely outcome or not?

[Crusty]

Re: Longish story...

The Shop Direct Group owned by the multi-billionaire Barclay Brothers includes:- Littlewoods, G.U.S., Empire Stores/La Redoubte, Homebase & Argos. Littlewoods runs the in-house credit/finance company in Bootle.

Have you purchased any goods (incl. catalogue purchases) from any of these companies?

No I have never had any dealings with Shop Direct or the subsidiaries you mention

[Crusty]

Re: Longish story...

Is there a way to post scans of the letters? Apologies for ignorance :-)

[Bill-K]

Re: Longish story...

Please don't apologise for ignorance, Crusty - we're all here to help each other. It sure looks as though Lowells have not only dropped a massive clanger here, but have now painted themselves into a corner by clearly fabricating evidence.

Defaults can be difficult to get removed, but it seems to me that you have every chance of being able to do this. My own personal strategy now would be to continue stringing them along, and giving them as much rope as they require. They may well dig themselves in even deeper into their hole, and supply you with even more damning evidence.

At some point later, you will have the choice of either taking the matter of the default straight to court, and leaving Lowells with the impression that they will win - in which case you THEN (and ONLY then) prove that their evidence is forged, and they get done for perverting the course of justice etc.

OR - you can confront Lowells directly with this, and not only insist that they remove the default, but that they compensate you for the libel of wrongfully placing it.

JMHO, though.

[Crusty]

Re: Longish story...

Having read all the valuable advice given, I have decided to do nothing until mid September just in case Lowells write to me again with more 'evidence'. In the meantime I will post copies of all correspondence in chronological order on this site so that you can all understand the detail. FYI I have also donated a modest sum by way of thanks for the help received so far - many thanks again.

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Longish story...

Hi Crusty
Read this with interest as your experiences are pretty much the same as mine and I am hoping to make monkeys out of them in November in the court of appeal. Long story.. I have been instructed Lowell to take legal action for two and a half years. Lowell told me they sent me a letter of assignment on 27 January 2009 in relation to a disputed mobile phone contract they say they bought in 2008. They sent me a copy of the letter. About six months later they changed their story and said they sent me a letter of assignment 26 January 2009. At that time they were dealing with my MP and Trading Standards. When they produced that one it was riddled with errors. The letter contained my current address, which Lowell say they traced in a search to Experian in October 2008. My local authority said that the new address was not showing on Experian's system until December 2008. So they could not have traced it as they stated. Lowell say I received two letters on 26 January 2009 one from 3 mobile telling me they were selling my account and one from Lowell Portfolio saying they had bought my account. Of course neither letter was sent and the mistakes occurred when they tried to fake them retrospectively. I asked 3 mobile for a copy of the letter, but they say they are computer generated and can not be reproduced. That turned out to be a complete lie. Lowell have since addmitted they produce both parts and are allowed to do so under the EU Consumer Directive. The EU Directive had not come into force at that point so I suspect even if Lowell had produced both parts of the letter then it would not satisfy Section 136(1) of the Property Act 1925. Lowells letter from 3 contained the 3 logo, it was signed by 3,s staff, but it had Lowell,s contact details cut and pasted at the bottom. I pointed out these discrepancies so Lowell produced another copy for the courts logos and Lowell contact details removed. In court Lowell could not reasonably explain why they would have a letter of assignment from 3 sent 26 January 2009 signed by the same person as another letter of assignment issued by 3 the very next day. They tried by telling the Judge that they outsource their letter writing to another in house department. Does not explain why the wording of the letters 26 and 27 would be completely different. It is very clear that Lowell are not at all troubled by the courts. They were directed by a District Judge to provide me with information needed to contruct my case, the failed to comply and had their case struck out. They also failed to pay the fee. I turned up on the day to present a counterclaim more than a little confused that the night before my case against Lowell was to be heard Lowell stuck 200-300 pages of information through my door. However the court confirmed in the morning that Lowell's case was not being heard. It was a complete surprise when they turned up complete with Barrister and paid their fee on arrival. The Judge did not seem interested in the false evidence, the fact that Lowell had failed to disclose information until the night before, wanted to submit new evidence on the day, had not paid their fee and had ignored directions from the courts. I felt that the matter had been predetermined before I entered the court room. Needless to say I complained about procedural error and thats why its in the court of appeal. It was the courts themselves that suggested I appeal to have the decision set asside. I am determined to expose Lowell's deception. Lowell have been given another direction by a Circuit Judge and they have ignore this too. Lowell can not provide a copy of my terms and conditions, and default letters and their assignment letters look very dodgy. There are also some emails between West Yorkshire Trading Standards and Lowell and the CSA and Lowell which suggest they are on the side of Lowell and they would ignore certain aspects of my complaint because it would show that Lowell had not followed the proper assignment process. All I need this time is an open minded Judge and Lowell will get their just desserts.

[Crusty]

Re: Longish story...

Latest update: I received yet another letter from Lowell Portfolio I today dated 24th August. I quote "I am afraid we have not received a copy of your credit agreement from SAV Credit Ltd yet. They are still trying to retrieve it from their archives. We have placed your account on hold until we receive further information. We will be in touch. When we have received it from them we will post it to you straightaway. We're here to help. We won't write to you again until we have the agreement, but if you have anymore questions in the meantime, please do phone us on 0113 308 6021. Andrew Bartle"

I feel that this constitutes a lack of evidence. Can any of the learned contributors suggest my next course of action please? Best regards, Crusty

[miliitant]

Re: Longish story...

just ignore them until the come back with A CERTIFIED COPY of the original agreement

if they come back with a reconstructed agreement then give us a shout as the agreement request was done under CPUTR and not a section 78 request

[Curlyben]

Re: Longish story...

All about par for the course really.
I would shortly expect a letter from Lowell saying they have passed this back and closed it on their systems.
Too much like hard work for them

[Roy Clayton]

Re: Longish story...

Hi guys
Still struggling with Lowell myself for three years, but it appears the Appeal Judge is tiring of Lowell's antics too. They have failed to comply with a court direction to disclose documents under CPR. The Judge has told them my appeal will be granted after this week and their documents will not be admissable including the deeds of assignment that I dont beleive they have. They pulled some pretty dirty tricks in court last time and got lucky with the Judge. Lowell got pretty miffed when I accused them of falsifying assignment letters retrospectively, but I got the proof so bring it on Lowell. Best part is I served them a DPA Section 7 and they have sent me their records with a years entries removed. This mising year is the year when they breached every part of the OFT Guidelines and CSA Code of Practice and the time they claim to have sent the dodgy looking NOA. If anyone out there wants to help any contributions gratefully received especially Curlyben on assignment.