Lowell chasing me

[pt2537]

Re: Lowell chasing me

I see what ODC is saying, but i have to disagree atleast in part.

I would write to Lowells, and set out plainly what you have told us. That the debt arose in 1998, that no payment was made between 1998 and 2009 and therefore Limitation has expired. This would provide an absolute defence, IF you are right, but you need to be careful that you havent made an error in your dates.

I take the view that it would be far better getting the information on the table early, so that if they do issue a claim then you have a very good evidence trail and thus can show their conduct is unreasonable etc

[Carsey1974]

Re: Lowell chasing me

I am keeping all letters they are sending to me and they have not provided any evidence for this date. What I have wrote is the last two letters they have sent to me I am being told to ignore them and let them prove what they are saying in the letters?? As far as I'm aware I have made no payments but with it being such a long time ago I don't really remember. Do you have any ideas how to put it in words without incriminating myself???

thanks

[pt2537]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Its pretty straight forward

IF and you need to make sure its correct, but IF you did not make any payment between 1998 and 2009, then it is barred and that is the end of the matter.

I dont see how you are going to incriminate yourself telling them that

it need nothing more than a 2 line letter.

[Carsey1974]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Ok cheers

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Remind those jerks of the retort in Arkell v Pressdram - link

Also report them to the Trading Standards wallahs at your local town hall, as their foolish flim-flam about a mythical payment in 2009 - which could not have revived an alleged debt that was already SB - does need to be investigated even if the Leeds loonies are not prosecuted.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell chasing me

it need nothing more than a 2 line letter.

Two words should suffice. msl:

[PlanB]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Its pretty straight forward

IF and you need to make sure its correct, but IF you did not make any payment between 1998 and 2009, then it is barred and that is the end of the matter.

I dont see how you are going to incriminate yourself telling them that

it need nothing more than a 2 line letter.

Anything less than a 2 line letter could result in you being on the receiving end of a statutory demand which Lowell are currently dishing out like confetti and the probability of a bankruptcy petition to follow 21 days later :scared:

Debt purchasers and DCAs are not psychic and have no idea why you won't pay unless you tell them. Why would they? They buy bulk debt (and Lowell seems to have been on a shopping spree recently) where the OC simply gives them your name, contact details, amount (perceived to be) owed and off they go in pursuit of the money.

Silence is your own worst enemy right now. Read PT's *Golden Rules* on how to handle dealing with debts and pay attention to Item 2 "Don't ignore letters" and then send the appropriate 2 liner:

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...ng-with-debts/

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell chasing me

the mention of bailiffs makes me wonder....

If in 1998 you had a debt, but didnt pay, is it possible that the original creditor has sued you and holds a Judgment?

Its just reference to sending Bailiffs, they would need a County Court Judgment to do that, and of course if they had a Judgment within the limitation period then your limitation defence would fail

Would it?

Wouldn't section 24 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980 make it rather difficult for the Leeds lampreys to enforce any judgement, if such a judgement had ever existed?

[ODC]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Hi again


I have double checked and the original account was with Co-op bank and the account was opened on the 12/02/1998 and Lowell have bought this debt.


Please help thank you.


I have received another letter today saying: Your account remains unpaid, we have tried on a number of occasions to help you resolve this debt by offering affordable repayment solutions which you appear to have ignored. We informed you in our previous correspondence we would obtain information from the credit reference agency about you, which we have now done. We will be shortly assessing this information and sending your account to either; an agent who will arrange a time to visit you to discuss payment face to face, the court, where we will proceed with court action, or a process server who will serve you with a petition of insolvency, dependant on if your account meets insolvency criteria.


YOUR LAST CHANCE TO PAY THIS ACCOUNT IS ESCALATED
If you want to avoid what is described above then this is your last chance. If we do not receive payment in full, or, if you have not set up a payment plan on this account within 21 days from the date of this letteree will commence with action against you.


Again, in an attempt to demonstrate to you how flexible we are willing to be, we would like to offer you what we think is an affordable repayment plan. Pay us £15 per month, which is approximately £0.50 per day; alternatively complete the Direct Debit mandate with an amount you can afford; or call is to discuss alternative plans.

it does not say bailiffs my mistake SORRY all explained in letter they sent me above.

thanks

If the alleged debt is for £5400 I do not understanhd the Leeds Losers allowing you to pay £15 per week as it would take 30 yrs to pay it back

[UnitedFront]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Would it?

Wouldn't section 24 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980 make it rather difficult for the Leeds lampreys to enforce any judgement, if such a judgement had ever existed?

In terms of a judgment that is more than 6 years old, s.24 certainly doesn't prevent the creditor from taking action through the courts to enforce the debt such as petitioning for winding up or bankruptcy (see Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2871 for example).

So far as I understand it, s.24 only stops them getting a new judgment, it doesn't stop them enforcing the old one.

[pt2537]

Re: Lowell chasing me

I think we are looking 6 miles ahead of where we need to be.

We know from the OP 1998 to 2009 no payments, provided no payments were made, and of course payments were due and payable during that period, then they are screwed and thats that.


Lets see what lowells come back with, if they do produce a judgment then we take that next step

[gravytrain]

Re: Lowell chasing me

In terms of a judgment that is more than 6 years old, s.24 certainly doesn't prevent the creditor from taking action through the courts to enforce the debt such as petitioning for winding up or bankruptcy (see Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2871 for example).

So far as I understand it, s.24 only stops them getting a new judgment, it doesn't stop them enforcing the old one.

Unfortunately correct.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1998/34.html

[CleverClogs]

Re: Lowell chasing me

If the alleged debt is for £5400 I do not understanhd the Leeds Losers allowing you to pay £15 per week as it would take 30 yrs to pay it back

I can understand it...

They know they cannot enforce it.

[Carsey1974]

Re: Lowell chasing me

Hi guys, I sent a letter to Lowell dated 21/02/2013, I have cut it short and put the basics in, told them I did not acknowledge the debt and

"I do not acknowledge having made any payments to them at any time but specifically not in 2009".

"In any event, the alleged debt would have become statute barred in 2004 at the latest".

"Once a debt is statute barred, a later payment cannot restart the clock Limitation Act 1980, s.29(7).

The last correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I/We suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.

an update for you, I have today received a letter from Lowell today 02/03/2013 saying exactly the same thing they put in the letter dated to me on the 02/01/2013 which reads;

Dear sir/madam

Thank you for your letter, concerning the above account.

We confirm that your account remains legally enforceable by us and is not statute barred as suggested in your letter.

This is because you made a payment in relation to this account on the 4th August 2009 of £20.00.

Under the Limitation Act 1980, where we have the legal right to recover the outstanding debt and you make a payment towards the debt due, this has the effect of re-starting the period during which we are able to legally enforce a debt.

We trust this now resolves your query and look forward to hearing from you to discuss repayment. If we have not had contact in the next 14 days, your account will be transferred to our debt collection agent Lowell Financial who will contact you regarding this account.

???????????
mthanks for all your help guys I really appreciate it

Tony

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell chasing me

If it was statute barred before that payment was made, then it is still statute barred now.