Old Loan Caught up With Me

[Deleted User]

Not even that - the original poster DOES owe cash to the DCA!

marmitedog

woody01 wrote: »

I NEVER agree with things that N-I-D says, but in this case, with the quote above, i actually think he is correct.

The Op doesn't owe the cash to the DCA so he shouldn't pay them.
If the company he owes the money to were that bothered, then they would chase the money themselves rather than sell it on.

What i cannot agree on though, is the fact that the OP borrowed the money, and decided not to pay it back.
Although i wouldn't pay a DCA, i do think the OP deserves all that is coming to them for effective STEALING the cash in the first place.

You could at least read some of the posts before posting.

Lowells are not acting as an agency. They have legal title as they have purchased the asset. Regardless of how much Lowells paid for it, the OP is a debtor for the full contracted amount.

aldredd

A few of the comments were a little personal, but that's to be expected I guess.

I'm not trying to dodge the debt all together, I'm just wary of getting in touch with this company when I know that at this point I can't make the repayment they are likely to want.

Here is what I think I'm going to do.
Having read everything (here and elsewhere) it's obvious this wont just go away, and they've clearly found me, which will only be strengthened when my name appears on the electoral register in the coming weeks.

I will firstly ask them to produce the CCA - I'm well within my rights to do so, and if they can't - lucky me (if they can use underhand tactics, why can't I?)

Assuming they come up with it, I'll offer a token monthly payment, which I will increase as I pay a few other bits off, and will also ask them to reduce the overall balance as well (I can try can't I?). It will take years to re-pay, but at least the default will be wiped in about 4 years (been on there about 2.5 so far).

does this sound reasonable / doable?

Thanks for all your input - both +tive & -tive - I do take all of it on board and appreciate it, but please try not to make it too personal - it's a stressful process dealing with these people as it is, and come on here for a bit of moral support, as well as advice. (

thanks

never-in-doubt

magpiecottage wrote: »

Not if you want to timebar it you won't - if they can prove you deceived them then the clock will be put on hold.

Nah, think you'll struggle to prove that! Ok, better idea, bin any letters they send. Problem solved.

never-in-doubt

marmitedog wrote: »

You could at least read some of the posts before posting.

Lowells are not acting as an agency. They have legal title as they have purchased the asset. Regardless of how much Lowells paid for it, the OP is a debtor for the full contracted amount.

Actually, before going off on a 'I know it all rant' let me enlighten you.

1st point; you do presume that Lowells have legal entitlement assuming they followed NoA procedures - right? Lets assume, knowing Lowells and their methods that this process was not followed! It rarely is!

Without the correct procedure of assignment being followed by the OC (otherwise known as NoA - Notice of Assignment) then technically the OP does not have to pay anything, legally, to Lowells. Therefore if he is categorically adamant that he never received the official NoA documents from the OC with a copy to the DCA (or vice versa) then trust me, he should not pay the third party as they can only act as a collection agent - they will not legally own the debt (this also means they cannot add a default etc).

I'll also bet that the OC never sent out a Formal Default Notice (Action before default - 14 day limit).... all in all I would hazard a guess that this debt will be entirely unenforceable and at the very least, several procedures will have been omitted thus rendering any default registered as unlawful and under right to be removed prior to Libel action being taken against the CRA.

Need me to go on....

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

Literally the most useless post on this thread. Coming from someone who DID study law (at university) - and as someone with at least an ounce of understanding about how the world actually works, I can tell you that #2 is complete and utter bo**ocks.

This unfortunately does not relate to how the world actually works - it is regards to the processes followed by an OC/DCA/OP.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Have you never heard of the concept of debt factoring? Or CMBS? Perhaps Collateralized Debt Obligations rings a bell? Debts are assets that can be freely sold between bidders.

Yep heard of these but chances are the debt was sold to Lowells for around 12p in the pound. If not, then the OP does not legally have to speak or acknowledge Lowells unless proper NoA processes were followed (going on past history of Lowells, it's hardly likely)...

Deleted_User wrote: »

It doesn't mean that Lowells has paid your debt for you. It means that they have paid the original lender for the right to manage that debt and they then assume the role the original lender had in the original contract.

No, it means they have paid the OC for the rights of the debt, therefore assuming they followed NoA process this would be fine, technically speaking the OP would never deal with the OC again due to them releasing their obligation to manage the account (once sold to the DCA).

However, you make it seem so black and white - going on the past history of Lowells (more than anyone else) the chances of NoA being properly followed is slim. So, the OP can actually demand a copy of all NoA correspondence and if he is happy then the debt can be sold. You are aware for NoA all three parties must agree to the assignment - not just the lender and DCA? In laymans terms this simply means the customer must be notified.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Debts can be freely assigned and you confirmed this in the small print of the contract you signed.

Not true - you do not give authority to assign a debt, they do it upon default or sale of assets and legally only have to notify the customer. There is a difference between selling a debt internally and to a DCA (like my mortgage used to be with Gmac RFC and was sold to MAS #5 or whatever - perfectly legal as it was at no detriment to me) - this case is at a detriment to the OP so he should have been notified and given time to pay or refuse the NoA.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lowells isn't the bailiff. It's the debt-owning company. They might engage a bailiff to chase you, but they are not the bailiff.

Lowells is the DCA (Debt Collection Agency) and they purport to own the debt, in which case legal and legible Assignment papers must have been served to the OP.

Deleted_User wrote: »

So, to answer the OP's question factually, without moral bias:

Ok, should be good!

Deleted_User wrote: »

If you did nothing, then all they can do is shred your credit report, but not much more than that. They could default you in the first instance (which they've done), apply for a CCJ, obtain a charging order (if relevant, which it's not) and then apply for bankruptcy against you if it really went that far. Will they do that? Probably not. But your credit report is going to be FUBAR for the next six years so any thoughts about obtaining any sort of credit should disappear now.

Not forgetting of course if the OP decided to simply ignore them, then the default will also disappear after 6 years of date of last payment. I would bet that Lowells bought the debt in 2007 thus the OP states a default has been registered with this date. I would, if I was the OP, be demanding proof of assignment paperwork or ignoring it cos it will be gone in around 2 years - not 6. If he contacts Lowells then it would be 6 years from acknowledgement (2015)or 6 years from date of default so in 2013. In both cases, not 6 years is it? So if he ignores them then it'd drop off sometime before 2011 and if he doesn't acknowledge it then 6 years from default date of 2007 i.e 2013 - so the best advice is to ignore it and in 2011 it will be gone from his credit file.

Deleted_User wrote: »

As an aside, that is what might happen if you just ignore the debt. If you actually send the letter back to sender, you're then firmly in the realms of fraud by obtaining a pecuniary advantage (e.g. not paying back) by deception. And if you want a legal opinion on it, grab a cup of tea and have a good read of the Fraud Act:

Oh, the lender or DCA is never going to try and obtain a conviction for fraud over non payment! Most people avoid debts by doing the exact same and they do not get charged - it is not in the DCA's interest to act this way, they will perform a monthly check for you after buying the debt; they will then do 3 monthly checks for a year and in year 3 they perform a 6 monthly trace check.

That's it. If you avoid the radar you're home and dry - not fraudulent is it, not applying for any credit therefore being omitted from the CRA's data....

Its all very well being into law, but you have to apportion the relevant law to the relevant context which you clearly fail to do. :rolleyes:

aldredd

If it helps clarify anything, the orginal creditor shows the debt as settled on my file, and showing a default with Lowell.

If I came to an agreement with lowell re payments, would the default remain until 6 years after the debt was fully paid, or is it still 6 years from when it was created - or indeed 6 years from when I start re-paying?

Thanks again

never-in-doubt

aldredd wrote: »

If it helps clarify anything, the orginal creditor shows the debt as settled on my file, and showing a default with Lowell.

If I came to an agreement with lowell re payments, would the default remain until 6 years after the debt was fully paid, or is it still 6 years from when it was created - or indeed 6 years from when I start re-paying?

Thanks again

Yes it will do cos the OC sold the debt to Lowells therefore only Lowells can record data. The fact it is settled is correct. The Lowells entry should be the same amount as the settled amount and show a D (Default)?

Look at last payment date - the limitation (statute barred) would kick in 6 years from this date. Otherwise it is 6 years from date of default, so whatever date Lowell have stipulated the Default.

If you start paying (you'll be nuts) then forget statute barred, the default would still go after 6 years so assuming Lowell added it in 2007, it will go in 2013. If the Default has been registered by the OC, then it will be wiped forever as they cannot legally add it being they do not own the debt.

So, to clarify I assume that Lowell added a default sometime in 2007? If so and if you commence repayments (mad) then the default will drop off in 2013 regardless of whether you've paid the debt. Where this gets silly is that in 2013 when the default drops off, Lowells could then apply for a CCJ for the balance and the CCJ would remain for 6 years, albeit probably settled, but still - it could be there!

Thus, the best action is to ignore them - then in 2011 (assuming you last paid in 2005) the debt will be statute barred meaning no1 can add a default/CCJ etc ever again!

[Deleted User]

never-in-doubt wrote: »

This unfortunately does not relate to how the world actually works - it is regards to the processes followed by an OC/DCA/OP.



Yep heard of these but chances are the debt was sold to Lowells for around 12p in the pound. If not, then the OP does not legally have to speak or acknowledge Lowells unless proper NoA processes were followed (going on past history of Lowells, it's hardly likely)...



No, it means they have paid the OC for the rights of the debt, therefore assuming they followed NoA process this would be fine, technically speaking the OP would never deal with the OC again due to them releasing their obligation to manage the account (once sold to the DCA).

However, you make it seem so black and white - going on the past history of Lowells (more than anyone else) the chances of NoA being properly followed is slim. So, the OP can actually demand a copy of all NoA correspondence and if he is happy then the debt can be sold. You are aware for NoA all three parties must agree to the assignment - not just the lender and DCA? In laymans terms this simply means the customer must be notified.



Not true - you do not give authority to assign a debt, they do it upon default or sale of assets and legally only have to notify the customer. There is a difference between selling a debt internally and to a DCA (like my mortgage used to be with Gmac RFC and was sold to MAS #5 or whatever - perfectly legal as it was at no detriment to me) - this case is at a detriment to the OP so he should have been notified and given time to pay or refuse the NoA.



Lowells is the DCA (Debt Collection Agency) and they purport to own the debt, in which case legal and legible Assignment papers must have been served to the OP.



Ok, should be good!



Not forgetting of course if the OP decided to simply ignore them, then the default will also disappear after 6 years of date of last payment. I would bet that Lowells bought the debt in 2007 thus the OP states a default has been registered with this date. I would, if I was the OP, be demanding proof of assignment paperwork or ignoring it cos it will be gone in around 2 years - not 6. If he contacts Lowells then it would be 6 years from acknowledgement (2015)or 6 years from date of default so in 2013. In both cases, not 6 years is it? So if he ignores them then it'd drop off sometime before 2011 and if he doesn't acknowledge it then 6 years from default date of 2007 i.e 2013 - so the best advice is to ignore it and in 2011 it will be gone from his credit file.



Oh, the lender or DCA is never going to try and obtain a conviction for fraud over non payment! Most people avoid debts by doing the exact same and they do not get charged - it is not in the DCA's interest to act this way, they will perform a monthly check for you after buying the debt; they will then do 3 monthly checks for a year and in year 3 they perform a 6 monthly trace check.

That's it. If you avoid the radar you're home and dry - not fraudulent is it, not applying for any credit therefore being omitted from the CRA's data....

Its all very well being into law, but you have to apportion the relevant law to the relevant context which you clearly fail to do. :rolleyes:

So, just to confirm: you agree that you are advocating this person avoids their debts by avoiding the radar and using technicalities (which may not even be valid) to renege on their debts obligations?

You're happy for them to do that? In fact, you're encouraging them to do that?

What the hell has this world turned into...? Very sad.

In response to your points:

How is this transfer of debt to the detriment of the OP? It makes no different in this situation whether it's an internal/external transfer - the rates/terms remain the same. The fact that the external agency is actually trying to enforce it would not be accepted as 'to the detriment' by a court, as it's simply exercising the right that the customer would have expected the lender (original) to have in the first instance.

Otherwise, you end up with a perverse situation where you take out a loan, avoid paying it and then when the debt is sold on could claim that you have suffered loss because you're now being chased for a debt whereas before you were not. This is clearly ludicrous.

Secondly, there is no evidence (yet) that Lovells haven't followed the correct procedures. This is just speculation from you. Given that the OP 'dodged' his loan for a few years and disappeared overseas, it's quite likely that they were notified but either missed the correspondence or just ignored it.

I - like many others - am sick of people on these forums who don't realise that this sort of advice is actually damaging the chances of the very people who do need MSE and are in financial trouble. Advocating the avoidance of debt on technicalities in morally wrong and destroys any sympathy people have for those who have found themselves in problem debt through little or no fault of their own.

OP - how about this for a groundbreaking solution to your problem: how about you phone Lovells and start paying what you owe rather than letting everyone else take the hit for you?

golden_eagle

aldredd wrote: »

I will firstly ask them to produce the CCA - I'm well within my rights to do so, and if they can't - lucky me (if they can use underhand tactics, why can't I?)

There seems to be a little inconsistency in your statements. On one hand you keep on repeating how you are not trying to get out of your obligations whilst on the other you are prepared to try to have the CCA declared unenforceable.
Anyway, beside that I thought that the test cases re enforceability of CCAs are still going through the courts? Or have I missed the ruling?