Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

[jon1965]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Really???

Sorry I was talking about me. I would love to be made BR but alas no one will because they won't get anything

[wales01man]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

If issuing a SD costs no more than a letter and a stamp its no wonder Lowlifes dish them out like confetti wpuld be interesting to know how many debts are paid before any further action is taken.
If we are all to be honest we would if we owned a DCA choose the cheapest most effective way to scare people into paying.All the time its legal they will do it.

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

They do not issue enough SD's if you ask me. I know a debt dodger from leicestershire that deserves a SD or even 2:tinysmile_grin_t:

Really???

[jon1965]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

They do not issue enough SD's if you ask me. I know a debt dodger from leicestershire that deserves a SD or even 2:tinysmile_grin_t:

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

You have to get used to Clogg-lish, a brand new lingo msl: msl:

Translation:

When 1st Crud were required by the OFT to improve their debt collection practices and stop using SDs as a debt collection tool back in 2009, the OFT didn't have the ability to suspend a consumer credit license with immediate effect. On Feb 19 2013, an amendment to the Consumer Credit Act gave the OFT the power to suspend them. That means what was not possible back then is possible now, not that it does much good, if Lowell's behaviour is anything to go by.



http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit.../#.UmlxsT_Tquk

Thanks FP, makes sense now, so how are lowlife getting away with it? There seems to be so many sd's issued by them and that's only what we see on here. What does it take? Do people need to report them, are they not doing that?

These scumbags need to be stopped from doing this. I don't own anything, and I mean literally nothing but my clothes and my son's clothes, everything else belongs to my oh so there would be no point issuing me with owt, but I'd still be terrified if they issued me with one.

Thank god for cel! I just read your post to a thread for the person who was issued a sd that was received 3 weeks after the issue date, isn't that reason enough for oft to sort them out?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Sorry I don't follow, (sometimes the point goes completely over my head)

You have to get used to Clogg-lish, a brand new lingo msl: msl:

Translation:

When 1st Crud were required by the OFT to improve their debt collection practices and stop using SDs as a debt collection tool back in 2009, the OFT didn't have the ability to suspend a consumer credit license with immediate effect. On Feb 19 2013, an amendment to the Consumer Credit Act gave the OFT the power to suspend them. That means what was not possible back then is possible now, not that it does much good, if Lowell's behaviour is anything to go by.

Suspending a consumer credit licence

An amendment to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 came into effect on 19 February 2013 and gave the OFT the power to suspend a consumer credit licence where it appears urgently necessary to do so for the protection of consumers.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit.../#.UmlxsT_Tquk

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

When 1st Crud was required by the Office of Faffing and Twaddling to agree to an "undertaking" - link, PDF link - the OFT did not have the ability to suspend a Consumer Credit Licence with immediate effect.

It does now.

Sorry I don't follow, (sometimes the point goes completely over my head)

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

That is exactly why you have to be careful, not that I advocate people shirking their debt responsibilities.
But, because I despise the Lowell Group, who do not play fair or abide by the OFT guidance on debt collection!
And, I have seen similar RE: 1st Credit/Connaught...

When 1st Crud was required by the Office of Faffing and Twaddling to agree to an "undertaking" - link, PDF link - the OFT did not have the ability to suspend a Consumer Credit Licence with immediate effect.

It does now.

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

After 11 years?

My point precisely!

Even more (or is it less) so! I've only ever sent SARs to banks (and other companies, but no DCAs), and it's rather unusual to SAR a debt purchaser because you're normally after statements and account notes that they simply don't have, do you think they'll have this on record? :noidea:

I doubt it, but for the sake of £10, go ahead and send the SAR. After all, it's been 11 years, what's another 40 days? :clock: :clock:

haha that made me laugh!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

FF, it is quite likely!
I had occasion to assist a vulnerable party who was being unfairly treated by 1st Credit;
after making a FULL SAR to same, discovered that they had the CCJ info in their, so called, legal dept. And checked with the County Court who had long since destroyed info Re: the case.
But, you must realise that these DCA firms will use any old CCJ obtained as a covert/strategy lever...

If my memory serves me well, 10 years had passed since that default CCJ had been obtained. After that period of time it would be an extremely unfair Judge who would allow enforcement, when no prior attempt had been made to enforce same!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

If, Lowell obtained a CCJ by default, then they will still have it on there system...!
And, details of should be provided within your SAR.

After 11 years?

In any event, it is extremely unlikely that any Judge would enforce same after all this time;
the question would be asked:
Why hasn't same been enforced earlier?

My point precisely!

FF, we are not talking about a Bank, we are talking a DCA: Lowell!

Even more (or is it less) so! I've only ever sent SARs to banks (and other companies, but no DCAs), and it's rather unusual to SAR a debt purchaser because you're normally after statements and account notes that they simply don't have, do you think they'll have this on record? :noidea:

Thank you all. I did check out all my previous address' with trustonline and no ccj registered. I even called the court in northampton and they told me they wouldn't have any details as it was so far back. She did tell me that a debt was bought by a new owner the new owner would have to apply for the ccj to be transferred into their name as the claimant and they could only do this if they had the original paperwork. Baring in mind equidebt had it and was the original claimant and then sold to lowell. I understand that ccj are never sb and this is hopeful thinking, if lowlife don't have original papers, not in their name, simply no record of this other than me. Technically the ccj never existed and therefore as the debt is 11 years old can it then be sb
After if only I have a record...which can be destroyed..mwahaha...then how can there be a ccj?
Of course this is in theory because they may well have all the paperwork! Lol

I doubt it, but for the sake of £10, go ahead and send the SAR. After all, it's been 11 years, what's another 40 days? :clock: :clock:

[Angry Cat]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

trying to fathom out what sex cc is

ha ha ha ha!

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Cloggy when you were young enough did you never fake anything:tinysmile_twink_t2:

Hermaphrodite, perhaps? LOL X

Eh?

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Cloggy when you were young enough did you never fake anything:tinysmile_twink_t2:

I've only ever feigned innocence. :grin:

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

FF, we are not talking about a Bank, we are talking a DCA: Lowell!

Yes.

And we should know how inept they are.