(Lowell's Group) This'll sound bad. . . .

VeryNaughtyBoy

.............................

Apples2

With a bit of luck they will get a CCJ prior to the SB date.

You have a shocking attitude toward your past decisions.

Derivative

1. Someone lends you money
2. You don't give them it back
3. ???
4. That person is apparently 'scum' for trying to get their money back

Tixy

For a £5k debt its likely they will take you to court before it becomes statute barred. They can do this whether or not they have your new/current address.

Going on the electoral roll may make it easier for them to find you, and if they have your address you can expect them to harrass you yes. They may send out DCAs to your property, but they cannot send bailiffs until they have taken you to court, obtained a CCJ and then you haven't paid the CCJ.

Assuming you might want to avoid a CCJ (which will mean you have to pay the full debt and court costs) you might want to do yourself a favour an negotiate a reduced full & final settlement with lowells - who you do owe money to despite what you claim.

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

.(and I maintain I owe Lowell's sweet FA)

Tixy

You could already have a CCJ yes. I wouldn't say probably, but certainly possibly.
All a creditor (or DCA) has to do is send court papers to your last known address - if you don't respond to them then they will get a forthwith judgement (an automatic judgement in their favour - no chance for you to dispute it or anything).

You can find out if you have a CCJ using the registery trust online website. It costs £8 to search each address you have lived at to see if you have any CCJs registered against that address.

With 2 years to go until its SB I think its unlikely they will let it get SB.
To answer your question delibrately avoiding them doesn't prevent a debt becoming SB.

intranicity

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

As I'm willing to have a horrendous credit report I'm confident I can avoid any contact with them by moving house again if need be. . . however morally corrupt my methods may seem to some. I just wonder how the game changes with a CCJ.

I'm not going to comment on morals, as thats not what you're asking.

Doing a runner will I think just delay the inevitable I fear. If and I expect that they have or certainly will have gained a CCJ against you, 6 years means nothing as they are exempt from being Statute Barred.

They will almost certainly find you now that you are on the electoral Roll, so you might be better off talking to them, and even though they didn't lend you the money, they do now own the debt.

Not sure what your circumstance's are now, but as you've cleared your other debts, maybe you'll be in a better situation to get this debt payed off too.

Good luck, I think you might need it :cool:

asharon

If Lowells were stupid and greedy to buy your debt, what does it say if someone takes out a loan they cannot afford then use any justification they can grasp to avoid it.

Either this is a troll or you were dropped on the head as a baby too many times.

SurreyBear

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

Thanks, Intranicity.

Interesting. I didn't really think it'd be worth Lowell's going through the process of getting a CCJ against me due to the fees involved for them doing so?

Sorry to burst the bubble. I've been dealing with Lowells for several years (and actually have found them flexible and helpful) but they did secure a CCJ against me 5 years ago - for a debt of £1100

SurreyBear

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure I have ever spoken to Lowell's on the telephone. I've certainly never responded to a letter.

Rule of thumb is to never deal with these companies by phone, only by registered mail.

I don't quite get your perspective though. These companies are providing a legitimate service by buying risk from other organisations. They pay less than what the original debt was because they are accepting the risk that they will never get some of the money back. The ones to take issue with are those that aggressively pursue debts that are statute barred.

asharon

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

I'd imagine you were too ugly to be picked up and therefore to be dropped by anyone as a baby.

Go read earlier posts about what I've said about holier than though comments on this thread. I'm not interested or bothered!

You don't own this thread you merely rent it so people are free to offer their opinions whether you want to hear them or not.

Like most thieves you merely want to hear what you want to hear and not that you might actually have to repay money you have already spent.

Aww didums

intranicity

VeryNaughtyBoy wrote: »

Well, my perspective is that I don't agree with the whole practice and I resent the fact that the initial loan company chose this route instead of working with me like my other creditors did and who, I suspect, recieved higher amounts in repayment than they would have by selling to a DCA.

Sadly though, agreeing with or not, they are acting within the law.

For your own interest, and despite as you say having no morals, your mum's piece of mind, I would get in contact, and try to come up with an amicable solution. I'm sure that they would prefer to work with you rather than fight you and I suspect it will be easier and cheaper for you in the long run