Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Couple of typo's and grammatical errors to be corrected, I know :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

If it was me I'd keep the two issues completely separate, i.e. one thing is SBd which has nothing to do with credit reporting, the other is when the default should have been recorded. In this case you start referring to SBd, then move on to credit reporting and the last paragraph goes back to the SBd issue.

I also have to disagree with the following:

Unless you can provide evidence of written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. I suggest that you are no longer able to take any legal action against me to recover the amount claimed.

Written contact from you does not reset the clock, not unless the contact acknowledged the debt, for example, by making a repayment offer. If you'd just replied to a letter, sent a CCA request, a prove it letter, etc. that wouldn't acknowledge the debt or reset the clock, so I'd leave that out.

[judgemental24]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Is it just Just me or do people think that letter is a bit long winded?? No offence intended

Lowell will take one look at that and think, Blah, Blah, Blah

Do you not think it better to reduce it to no more than two paragraphs telling Lowell you stand by it being statute barred, will enter into no more communication with Lowell and to put up or shut up

But that's me

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

If it was me I'd keep the two issues completely separate, i.e. one thing is SBd which has nothing to do with credit reporting, the other is when the default should have been recorded. In this case you start referring to SBd, then move on to credit reporting and the last paragraph goes back to the SBd issue.

I was struggling with this as I knew I was doing it. I'll take a look again. Also I agree with you Flaming Parrot about that, I did mean acknowledgement.

Is it just Just me or do people think that letter is a bit long winded?? No offence intended

No offence taken, it's all constructive criticism, it's only a draft with EVERY fact, got a bit carried away and going to trim it down a bit now.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Is it just Just me or do people think that letter is a bit long winded?? No offence intended

Lowell will take one look at that and think, Blah, Blah, Blah

Do you not think it better to reduce it to no more than two paragraphs telling Lowell you stand by it being statute barred, will enter into no more communication with Lowell and to put up or shut up

But that's me

Not just you, I also thought it was a bit confusing, hence my comments about keeping SBd and default dates, separate. :grin:

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Not just you, I also thought it was a bit confusing, hence my comments about keeping SBd and default dates, separate. :grin:

Should I remove the bold text referring to the limitations act in the first paragraph? They already have this information and "should" know it well

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Should I remove the bold text referring to the limitations act in the first paragraph? They already have this information and "should" know it well

No, I think it should be there, certainly on the letter where you state the debt is SBd. Lowell *should* know a lot of things well but they like to play silly buggers.

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Thanks! Going to revise tonight because 'Lowell' behold the second letter in a week dropped on my door step threatening to pass to collections if I don't phone them. Tell you what how about I pay zero for the rest of my and their lives

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

As short and as blunt as I could get it I think? Decided to leave the incorrect default date until another time or should I briefly mention this as this is their argument??

Here goes;-

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter dated 04/09/15 inviting me to call to arrange payment of the above account which you claim is owed by myself. Unfortunately your organisation has failed to provide any credible evidence that the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply to this debt and therefore my position still stands.
I would like to refer you to the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5;

“An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from that date on which the cause of action accrued.”
The Consumer Credit Sourcebook produced by the financial conduct authority states the following rules;
“…a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period.” 7.15.4
In your correspondence dated 27/07/15 you state that the Limitation Act does not apply because you consider the default date to be 30/11/11, which in your opinion, was when a default notice was issued by the original creditor making the full balance due.
Referring to your letter dated 18/08/15 containing the statement of account for this alleged debt for the period 27/01/05 to 05/08/15. The statement provided by you shows evidence that no payment has been made on this debt since 27/05/2008.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidelines for Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies, Section 4 state;
“If you fall into arrears on your account, or you do not keep to the revised terms of an arrangement, a default may be recorded to show that the relationship has broken down. As a general guide, this may occur when you are 3 months in arrears, and normally by the time you are 6 months in arrears.”

Using the ICO’s guidelines the latest this debt would have been considered to be in default would have been 28^th November 2008. I have in the form of a credit file statement dated 03/02/10 evidence which shows a delinquent date of 19/02/2009 on this debt.
I would like to remind you that the “cause of action” for simple contract debts is when the agreement says the creditor is able to take court action because the debtor has fallen behind with payments. This is usually one or two missed payments. A simple contract debt will normally be statute barred if;

• The creditor has not already obtained a county court judgement on the debt.
• No payment has been made towards the debt during the last six years.
• No acknowledgement of the debt has been made during the last six years.

Section 5, Paragraph 1, “When we may end the agreement early” of the terms and conditions of the original credit agreement for this debt for which I have evidence states that they may end the agreement early if you fail to pay a monthly payment within 21 days of its due date. For this debt this can be considered to be the “cause of action”.
Unless you can provide written and signed evidence of acknowledgement in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. I suggest that you are no longer able to take any legal action against me to recover the amount claimed.

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Well it's been a few weeks, mainly because Lowell have been strangely quiet. I sent them a slight variation of the above letter. Received a standard computer generated letter a couple of days after sending the above (we might do this, we might do this, CCJ etc....), must have been a cross over with the post as they send on the lowest postage possible.

Anyway something finally plopped on the door mat today, they have passed my issue onto complaints resolution under an official complaint and have put the account on hold. I consider this a slight win at this stage (not getting my hopes up) as I was expecting them to ignore the facts I stated and having to spend another evening drafting a complaint letter. Perhaps mentioning that I have more information on this account than they do might have helped things along a little...we shall see!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Well it's been a few weeks, mainly because Lowell have been strangely quiet. I sent them a slight variation of the above letter. Received a standard computer generated letter a couple of days after sending the above (we might do this, we might do this, CCJ etc....), must have been a cross over with the post as they send on the lowest postage possible.

Anyway something finally plopped on the door mat today, they have passed my issue onto complaints resolution under an official complaint and have put the account on hold. I consider this a slight win at this stage (not getting my hopes up) as I was expecting them to ignore the facts I stated and having to spend another evening drafting a complaint letter. Perhaps mentioning that I have more information on this account than they do might have helped things along a little...we shall see!

That has to be good news. :grin:

If I read this correctly, this debt is SBd and you are trying to get the default on the CRA files amended back to the correct date so it drops off as it should have been recorded over six years ago.

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Yup that's pretty much the story. Had a letter from Noddle arrive yesterday and they confirm that they gave contacted Lowells who are now investigating.

If anyone's interested a Robert Sherman is now head of compliance there.

[kidney69uk]

**WON** Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Well it's been a while since I updated this post. Lowell were really dragging their heels with the complaint. Received a reply today and it turns out I have won!!! :first:

To cut the story short, Lowell have no information and can't prove whether the limitation act applies or now and the evidence is in my favour. Full copy of the letter below;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT:

You are unhappy because we have failed to provide you with evidence that the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply to your former HFC Bank Ltd account. In our correspondence dated 27th July 2015, we mistakenly asset that the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply because we consider the default date to be the 30th November 2011. A statement of account provided by us on the 18th August 2015 evidences no payment has been made on the account since 27th May 2008. You also hold a copy of your credit file dated 3rd February 2010, which reflects a delinquent date of the 19th February 2009. This date remained unchanged until we purchased the account from HFC Bank Ltd.

MY FINDINGS:

I appreciate your concern in respect to this matter and have carried out a full investigation into your concerns raised.

Further to investigation I can confirm that the default date we hold on file is 30 November 2011, was provided to us by HFC Bank Ltd after sale of the account to Lowell. Without seeking further verification from HFC Bank Ltd to clarify the information provided to us is correct, I am unable to confirm this is the case.

I am unable to evidence a date of 19th February 2009 reporting on your default relating to the above account. All information reporting on the default is in accordance with what has been provided by HFC bank.

Based on the default date provided to us by HFC Bank the above account is not statute barred and subject to the limitations act 1980. However, based on your comments regarding the last payment made in June 2008 and the lack of information from HFC Bank regarding this matter it is inconclusive whether the account is not statute barred.

Based on the information available to me, I have taken the decision to close the account and confirm we will no longer pursue you for the balance. My decision has been made without seeking further clarification from HFC bank ltd in relation to the default date. I can also confirm that any information being reported by Lowell to the credit reference agencies in relation to the above account has been removed from your credit file. This process can take up to 50 days. I trust you will approve of the action that I have taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it goes on about the financial ombudsman and making a complaint etc...... No defaults left on my credit file now as that was the last one. Feel very relieved Thank you for all your help and hope this post helps others in a similar situation

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Great news.

[judgemental24]

Re: Lowell - Statute Barred and Default Date

Lowell and their Administrative errors again excuse

That is now wearing a bit thin

Good result anyway