The Lowell Group... yet again (I seem to hear a lot of bad stuff)

[Really Rob]

I've recently managed to solve a matter with mobile phone network provider as to some outstanding and invalid debt. They of course did not admit to any wrong doing; they did allow me a resolution without further penalty, but that was it. I'd been contacted regarding this invalid debt of mine before by SRJ Debt Recoveries and now and more recently by Fredericksen International... all connected to the Lowell Group, as it appears.

I refuse to deal with either of these companies, as they only provide me with toll numbers by which to contact them. I'd moved a little while back and got a canvasing letter from SRJ and now one from Freds. I am wondering whether to send them a 'prove-it' letter if they decide to break data protection and mail me account details or just to continue to ignore them. I could do with that and any other wise advice.

I've dealt with small debt collectors before and had to do a lot of negotiating (which actually resulted in more of an endurance trial in biting my tongue) but I am intent not to negotiate on this matter, as this debt has been generated by human error, and that error was not my own. In light of this, is there anything in particular, as concerns advice, that I need to know?

PS, is it legal for debt recovery or collection companies to set up Direct Debits, now? SRJ so nobly make that an option on their site, it appears. :P

[FlamingParrot]

Re: The Lowell Group... yet again (I seem to hear a lot of bad stuff)

Welcome to LB

I've recently managed to solve a matter with mobile phone network provider as to some outstanding and invalid debt. They of course did not admit to any wrong doing; they did allow me a resolution without further penalty, but that was it. I'd been contacted regarding this invalid debt of mine before by SRJ Debt Recoveries and now and more recently by Fredericksen International... all connected to the Lowell Group, as it appears.

You say you managed to solve the matter with the mobile company, does that mean you no longer owe them the money or have you agreed on repayment of the debt? I

I refuse to deal with either of these companies, as they only provide me with toll numbers by which to contact them.

Even if they were free numbers, you still shouldn't ring them. Keep everything in writing. :typing:

I'd moved a little while back and got a canvasing letter from SRJ and now one from Freds. I am wondering whether to send them a 'prove-it' letter if they decide to break data protection and mail me account details or just to continue to ignore them. I could do with that and any other wise advice.

They wouldn't be breaking the DPA if they are contacting you about your own account, it would be a breach if they contacted someone else about your account or passed your details to a third party without a valid reason (they are allowed to pass your details in certain cases, for example, to a DCA or firm of solicitors acting for them).

The prove it letter is more for cases when you're not sure what the debt is for. In this case, if you have sorted it all out with the mobile company, that's what you'd have to say.

I've dealt with small debt collectors before and had to do a lot of negotiating (which actually resulted in more of an endurance trial in biting my tongue) but I am intent not to negotiate on this matter, as this debt has been generated by human error, and that error was not my own. In light of this, is there anything in particular, as concerns advice, that I need to know?

PS, is it legal for debt recovery or collection companies to set up Direct Debits, now? SRJ so nobly make that an option on their site, it appears. :P

Lowell are hardly small, nor are they debt collectors as such, they buy debts themselves rather than collecting on behalf of their clients. If you don't owe the money, just explain to them that. :typing:

[Really Rob]

Re: The Lowell Group... yet again (I seem to hear a lot of bad stuff)

Well, 'settled' is a round about way of putting it. It could have been something as simple as a book keeping error of which the mobile company made no real attempt to sort the matter, I was just allowed to back out of the contract I had with no further penalties. The other direct debit actually shouldn't have been set up in the first place, as I rejected delivery of a phone a telephone representative of theirs was badgering me to take, called them about this (as instructed) and as a result I did not receive the SIM card in the post a week later, so there was never going to be any chance of my activating the account.

Didn't stop me from finding this direct debit on my account a few months later. I spent about 6 months chasing up the mobile company and even talked to the Ombudsman Services and my bank. In the end I emailed someone more senior in the company, it just ended up being an opt out allowed me. Of course, it could well be more down to the actions of one negligent employee and no more than that... the company certainly didn't seem like they even wanted to admit liability by so much as issuing me a letter of apology, which to be honest would have been good enough for me.

As it seems, they certainly didn't bother to clear this matter of invalid debt. As such, I am somewhat unsure how to proceed with this matter of SRJ and Freds. The reason I'm thinking some kind of 'prove-it' style letter would be in order is because I'm thinking that if they do have to look into it they either (a) won't bother for such a small amount of money or (b) will actually look into it and will find that it is in fact invalid debt. The situation remains somewhat difficult, but at the moment the worst I've got is a couple of fishing/canvasing letters and one very old letter making outlandish claims while offering no insight into why and not even so much as citing the legislation they might base this action on.

[wales01man]

Re: The Lowell Group... yet again (I seem to hear a lot of bad stuff)

Ignore them until a Letter before action or a CCJ claim come if its not your debt why bother with dealing with any of them.

[Really Rob]

Re: The Lowell Group... yet again (I seem to hear a lot of bad stuff)

Ignore them until a Letter before action or a CCJ claim come if its not your debt why bother with dealing with any of them.

Well, yeah, that's my point... just not sure how it works on this level, in some ways. I've dealt with CDUK twice before and repaid them after much very, very tricky negotiation. I wouldn't mind in the first place if the first company who contacted me (SRJ) were a registered DCA at all. The only contact I've had from the next company up that chain was from Frederickson international, and that was just a canvasing/fishing letter to follow up the one from SRJ after I moved some time ago. I'm going to double check, but I bet both fishing letters at least ask me to call the same toll number. I'd be surprised if the reference number and the PO Box both letters use as their return address wasn't exactly the same.

I'd tried emailed a CEO from SRJ about it, resulted in them sending me the one and only letter about this matter that I've ever had from them. All I'd known SRJ to do was make a lot of automated phone calls and texts imploring me call their toll number quoting a reference number. Had a look at their 'pay' site, too, it appears they allow you to set up direct debits. Unless the legislation has recently changed, I've never heard of a debt collection or 'recovery' company being allowed to set up a DD for small debt.

I've noticed that Freds (who actually are registered as a DCA) won't set up a DD but SRJ seem to pride themselves on being registered legally for this. To me it's all chicanery, or 'legal trickery', which might be 'legal' but it's still 'trickery'. But without further digression, if I get a letter from any company who is a DCA then I might think about writing them back... as for phone calls, any DCA may f*** o** but I happen to believe that if this were not highly questionable 'debt' which is in fact not legally valid debt, I'd have been contacted by a company who were actually slightly reputable in the first place.

And on a personal note and to be quite frank, it pisses me off that collectors of small debt take so many short cuts to doing it. In the end, we all get tarred with the same brush. Doesn't matter if you take small debts and contracts seriously or not, and I do take them seriously, but I'm willing to bet that even the people who don't are just foolish rather than doing it maliciously. As soon as companies like Amazon, for instance, actually encourage people to read their Terms & Conditions rather than just providing a link and tick box, I may again think something of eCommerce.

Seems to me a lot of companies that work for small amounts of money take a lot of shortcuts to ensure that people are more likely to make impulse purchases and when it backfires on them, they actually don't care because there'll be someone like the Lowell Group to cover their shortfall... and operate close to the border of criminal harassment. So, yeah, chock up another win for large conglomerate corporations and the American way! :P