Lowell and the Limitation Act 1980

[The212]

Hi there!

I received a letter from Lowell a few weeks ago asking for a debt that i owed from Three mobile £542 apparently.

Now im sure this debt was from over 6 years ago, so i sent them the standard letter.

Today i recieved the following reply

'you account is NOT legally unenforceable under the Limitation Act 1980 on the basis that a default notice was served by Three Mobile on the 1st December 2006'

'section 5 of the Act mentioned says that following the date when a cause of action arose for payment of the debt, any creditor such as Lowell LTD has a period of six years to enforce such a right to payment'

So, not sure where to go here, should I ask them to prove that a letter was sent? I honestly never received such a letter, and the default doesn't seem to show on my credit file!

Can anyone advise, i would be very greatful!

Does this mean I now have to offer payment, i really dont want a CCJ?

Kind Regards

Ash

[ODC]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Usual bull**** from the Leeds Losers. The fate for cause of action is usually when the first payment is missed which is generally 1 month after the date of the last payment. I suggest you write to the Leeds Losers and inform the that the last payment was made over 6 years ago and demand they prove otherwise. You may want to quote the following to them

a rather helpful case here is Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

it established that the cause of action accrues when the person can sue, that is the point when he can commence a claim for failing to meet a contractual obligation, not when the person serves a notice demanding payment

in this case, it would be when you missed your second payment most likely that the cause of action arose, if it was the case that the cause arises at the point when a default is served then the limitation period would never start because no lender would ever issue a default notice


I would also ask them for proof that the debt has been legally assigned to them in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925

[Caspar]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

I agree. It seems quite clear:

Limitation Act 1980

[The212]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Ok so here is round two!

They have just wrote back to me stating that the account IS LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE this is because I MADE A PAYMENT OF £314.13 IN DECEMBER 2005

now THIS IS CRAZY as i defo did NOT make any payment, bare in mind that this is for an old phone contract so the debt started at about £300, a payment of 314.13 would have cleared it all!

Is this like them to flat out LIE about it in writting?

Any ideas on what to do next, do they have to provide proof of my payment?

How should i challenge these idiots?

Regards

Ash

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Yes they are renowned for making up payments I would send a prove it letter.

[Curlyben]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

You have made clear your position and unless they can prove otherwise, you have noting further to say.

A letter saying you made a payment doesn't cover it.
they would need to supply an actual statement of account from the OC to prove your liability to this "debt".

[ODC]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Even for the Leeds Losers this one is a real cracker for St Paddys Day. You really couldn't over estimate the sheer stupidity of these fools.

I would put nothing past them regarding imaginary or their other favourite "attempted" payments. They have said you made a payment of more than was actually allegedly owed. They must PROVE YOU MADE THE PAYMENT. Until they do this you have nothing to discuss with them. You could have a bit of sport with them regarding the overpayment.

They made up imaginary payments for me when I wasn't even in the country. Needless to say when asked for proof crawled back under their stones.

[The212]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Classic, I still cant believe that these jokers can get away with this!

Are there any temp letters to send re prove it letters?

[Curlyben]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Post #4 in first link in my siggie.

[ODC]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Dear Cretins

Thank you for you letter in response to my informing you that this alleged debt was barred by Statute.

You have failed to PROVE that this alleged debt is NOT statute barred.

Until you can provide DOCUMENTARY PROOF that this alleged debt is not Statute Barred I will not be entering into any further correspondence with you or your any of your telephone threat monkeys.

I do note however that the alleged payment made is in excess of the amount owed and therefore the person who supposedly made this mysterious payment would be entitled to a refund.

Should you continue to breach the OFT Guidelines of the collection of Statute Barred Debt I will report your company to the relevant authorities.

So just to make it quite clear and so as you are in no doubt. I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR THOSE YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT AND NOW PAYMENT WILL BE FORTHCOMING FROM ME>

yours etc

[Curlyben]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Or the longer version

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY

Dear sir/madam,

Thank you for your letter of the DATE, the contents of which have been noted.

I refer you to my letter of DATE, in which my position was clearly described. To reiterate, you were informed that this alleged debt is Barred under Statute in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. I have included a copy of this original correspondence for your perusal and ease of reference.


As your letter contests that this is the case, it is now your legal obligation to substantiate your claims and to prove that this alleged debt is indeed enforceable and not barred by statute.

You should be aware that I am fully familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance, which states that it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations by falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred.


You should also be aware that if you are unable to substantiate your claims then your behaviour will be considered harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and may result in my choosing to pursue action against you.
As was stated in my last letter, any attempt to contact me by telephone regarding an alleged debt is an offence under section 127 of the Telecommunications Act 2003.


In addition, I hereby demand that you now supply me with information regarding your complaints procedure. Failure to comply will result in the complaint being escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will charge you for investigating my complaint.

Finally, I expect no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide clear evidence as to my liability for the debt in question, or your written confirmation that this matter is now closed.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Yours faithfully,

[Brian]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

GOOD ENUUF !!
Quite strong on the words CB and rightly so...

[The212]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Update - So they replied to my 'prove it letter' with an ALMOST exact replica of their first letter apart from now they state that i made a payment in DECEMBER THIS YEAR!!!!!

They have alos now recored a default on my credit file!!!!!

As you can understand im so anoyed ive worked really hard to get my credit file back to normal after my mistakes when younger, this has set me right back

is there anything i can do to get them to remove this as they DIDNT prove the payment and it is a debt i know nothin about from OVER SIX YEARS AGO

Thanks guys

[MIKE770]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Should not make a payment so far in advance December this year, got a time machine have we???

[ODC]

Re: Lowell and the Limitations Act 1980

Whay a bunch of Cupid Stunts. They used to make up imaginary payments that the claimed had been made in the past. Now they have even excelled their already high level of crass stupidity by inventing a payment 8 months into the future.

This would be hilarious if it was not so serious.

COMPLAIN COMPLAIN COMPLAIN

A formal complaint must be made to The Leeds Losers, your MP, The Credit Refernce Agency concerned, The Data protection Registrar, The Financial obudsman and the OFT.