Shamen vs Lowell

[The Debt Star]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Hi. I just wrote giving them 10 working days extra and stating that I would complain to the ICO if they didn't respond. I also told them to make a copy of my letter available to their internal Data Compliance Manager and also their Consumer Credit Compliance Officer, to whom I wrote separately saying that I would be involving Trading Standards and the OFT.

You gotta remember u r dealing with LowLifes here. They are bottomfeeders and in DCA terms are what sewer rats are to cockroaches.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Lowells have ignored my DPA section 10 notice (sent recorded delivery, signed for). Anyone got a template letter for following up an ignored S10 notice?

Naughty!
they should have responded within 28 days.

Report them to the ICO.

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

I thought it was 28 days too, but seems not They actually only have 21 days to respond to a section 10 notice (see ICO booklet four page 10), however they have to have reasonable time to action the notice. The ICO allows you to stipulate this yourself, but it must be 'reasonable' which the ICO put at 28 days for a smaller organisation. Its a common misconception with some data controllers that they have at least 28 days (or more if they are a larger company) to respond to a Section 10 due to the 'reasonable timeframe,' however they actually only have 21 days to respond to you in writing to notify you of their intentions. Then then have up to the 'reasonable' time period to perform any action should they intend to comply.

The data controller must give you written notice either that he has complied with your notice or intends to comply with it, or, he must state the extent to which he intends to comply (if at all) and explain which parts of the notice he considers to be unjustified, if any, and why. This information must be given to you within 21 days of receiving the data subject notice.

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Id really appreciate your adive here beagles

Hokey dokey, my SAR is in from the creditor lowells said (via the CRA dispute) that the accounts relate to. There are two loans in the paperwork dating back to 2003, last payments made by 'customer' to the account were April 2005, though they used some transfer right to take several hundred pounds out of my savings account and used that to pay the loans for a few months, which takes last payment to september 2005. Wonder if that means they are SB in april 2011 or september 2011?

Strangely, theres no mention of the letter I sent barclays telling them of my new address in the states and asking them to shut down the current account.

Accounts are zeroed out and closed as of a certain date, with a credit for the full amount specified as 'collection' . This date does not correlate to the date lowells started marking my credit file from (read: by several years). So im guessing lowells bought it a long time after. There is no notice of assignment in the SAR.

Creditor X carried on trying to direct debit my current account for several months after it had no funds in (up till Jan 2006), racking up both charges on the current account for bounced DD's of £30 a pop and also charges on the loan accounts for each returned DD at £30 a pop per account. So nearly £100 a month.

There are two default notices which appear to be OK, some niggles like bold using instead of capitalization but nothing thats not a really petty technicality. There are, however some things that stand out very starkly

1) After (29 days) the default notice for account #2 was issued, they took the last £90 from my savings automatically. (Jan 06)
2) No termination notices
3) No CCA's - not even 'blank' or 'reconstituted'. Nada.
4) A letter in Feb 06 'Final warning - legal action pending'
5) A letter in Mar 06 'I am currently reviewing your accounts and believe we can work together to improve the situation. I would like to work with you to prevent further recovery action on your accounts'

Then Nothing. thats the last thing in their SAR. No court action for the £1600 outstanding, no reference to debt collectors. There isnt even anything relating to lowells picking up the accounts. Lowells didnt start registering the defaults until two years later.

Methinks that they made a boo boo. What do you make of this beagles?

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Righto, Lowells have ignored both of my DPA s.10 notices. Ive filled in the N1 as im going to try to enforce their response via the courts. I had hoped it wouldnt come to this.

Whats the changes of them trying to frustrate this case? How about them trying to get the claim on the fast track instead of small claims to get costs bumped up if they counter claim for the alleged debt?

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Won!!

Lowells did not respond to my Section 10 notices, however recently when I asked the CRA's to verify the validity of the default entries, Lowells told them to go ahead and remove them! My guess is they adhered to my notices but didnt bother telling me, when approached by the CRA's they told them to go ahead and remove. Was going to go to court after christmas but seems i dont need to now

As of today my credit file is now 100% debt free and has no negative entries, defaults or late payments - a full 16 months ahead of schedule.

[Curlyben]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Nicely done

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

Nicely done

Cheers! I hope my incoherent ramblings in this thread will help others.

Of a bootnote, the removal of the two defaults with experian actually lowered my credit score by 100 points. Rather odd that - any ideas why?

[Curlyben]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

They have probably removed the entire entry and so any credit history associated with it.
So it looks like you have used LESS credit then you actually have.

TBH who really knows how the CRA's calculate their scores.

[shamen]

Re: Shamen vs Lowell

They have probably removed the entire entry and so any credit history associated with it.
So it looks like you have used LESS credit then you actually have.

TBH who really knows how the CRA's calculate their scores.

That actually makes perfect sense - the old accounts were years old whereas accounts on there now are all less than a year. Either way ill take having no defaults over a slightly higher BS score anyways

Cheers again!