vanquis/lowell financial ltd/fredrickson

chaz301975

when i first got advice from the cccs i was told i didnt qualify but i will look in to it but i can still only phone land line non pay for numbers as it is part of my phine package

chaz301975

just looked up a D R O and i dont think i will qualify as i will have over £50 left after normal house hold costs

chaz301975

hi i was thinking would i be able to right a letter to bryan carter and make them prove they have the right to case me for the money as every time i have tryed to set up payment plans and talk about the amout i owe it get s bounced around another part of the lowell group as all companys i have had any contact with are all part of the lowell group even bryan carter he is employed directy by fredrickson internationl i found this out on the law society web site and as such is employed by lowell group

sourcrates

chaz301975 wrote: »

hi i was thinking would i be able to right a letter to bryan carter and make them prove they have the right to case me for the money as every time i have tryed to set up payment plans and talk about the amout i owe it get s bounced around another part of the lowell group as all companys i have had any contact with are all part of the lowell group even bryan carter he is employed directy by fredrickson internationl i found this out on the law society web site and as such is employed by lowell group

Hi,
You could ask them to prove the debt is yours by sending a provit letter, but this would just be a stop gap measure which may take them a month or so to address, a DCA refusing money is a new one on me, your best option, if a DRO is not possible, is go to Frederickson's website, (I`m assuming they are the ones who chasing you ?) enter your ref number on there website, and you can make offers of payment etc on there, there should be no need to play letter tennis with them.

chaz301975

i was just looking at my paper work and it looks like they may have messed up and cant inforce the dept.
the first letter from bryan carter is dated 13 sept quoteing
" we have been instucted by fredrickson internationl limited to write to you" sounds good right but letters from lowell tell me.
that lucas credit services had my contract from 16/11/2012 untill the next letter.
dated 21st of november 2013 pasted it to scotcall.
fredrickson was not passed the dept until 29th of july 2014. dose this mean that lowell group had more than one agency handling it at once and if so is that not i breach of fca guidelines
help this is getting me deppresed again

ps the first letters from fredrickson i have is dated 29th august 2014

chaz301975

i have tryed to make payment plans online with all of them come up the same the amount offered is not high enough to set up a payment plan on line phone this 08********** number

chaz301975

hear is what im thinking of sending first thing monday with a check for £1 what do you think
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Dear sir/madam[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Account or Reference No.:[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I hereby formally request a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to s.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974).I require you to provide me with a true copy, or reconstituted copy of the credit agreement relating to any account you deem to be mine, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide. I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit (12 + 2 days).[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]In line with recent OFT Guidance (issued Oct 2010) surrounding Unenforceability, I presume you're aware that the OFT has stipulated that 'sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 outline the information creditors must provide to debtors under fixed-term, running account & Hire Agreements'. This simply means that under these sections a debtor can pay £1 to get:[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]a copy of their agreement[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]copies of some of the other documents mentioned in their agreement[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]a statement of account [/FONT]




[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]If this information is not provided within 12 working days the debt becomes unenforceable. This means a creditor cannot:[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]make the debtor pay the debt before they're supposed to[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]get a court judgment against the debtor [/FONT]




[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]So, in line with the OFT Guidance, and the Consumer Credit Act, please find attached my £1 payment, which is the statutory fee - note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose. If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee and then remove the incorrect entry from your systems.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I do, expect the main actions to be dealt with, as matter of course, and look forward to hearing from you within the prescribed time-scales quoted however, in the meantime, I require that you clarify your position on this point as failure to do so, even by omission or lack of a response, will be regarded as an attempt to deliberately misrepresent or conceal the legal position regarding this matter to which an appropriate complaint will be made to the OFT.[/FONT]


[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Yours faithfully, [/FONT]



[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]7.3.10: A firm must not pressurise a customer:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](1) to pay a debt in one single or very few repayments or in[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]unreasonably large amounts, when to do so would have an[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]adverse impact on the customer's financial circumstances;[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](2) to pay a debt within an unreasonably short period of time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]7.3.18: A firm must not threaten to commence court action, including an[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]application for a charging order or (in Scotland) an inhibition or an order[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]for sale, in order to pressurise a customer in default or arrears difficulties[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]to pay more than they can reasonably afford.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]7.11.6: A firm must not suggest or state that action can or will be taken when[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]legally it cannot be taken.[See previous rule/regulation].[/FONT]

sourcrates

The debt will only be unenforceable until such time as they respond with the correct paperwork.
As your debt is from 2009, a re-constituted agreement is perfectly ok, this does not have to have your signature on it, and it can be cobbled together from any information the creditor holds on you, that would be sufficient to fulfil your section 78 request, however, if the creditor wanted to take court action against you, they would need the original, or be able to prove to a court, that on balance, it did/would have, existed, if it is not available.


It usually takes around a month to comply, so don't expect it within 14 days, the account will be put on hold while they attempt to get the paperwork from the original creditor, if they don't hold the original any longer, some creditors can still be put off court action because of the extra bother involved, so it is always worth doing.

chaz301975

well account from 2010 but defult was march 10/02/2011 and sold to lowell 21/02/2012 so my best bett is plaing cat and mouse with them for a few years then

happy_bunny_2

I would make sure you take screen shots of the messages stating that they won't accept payment. May come in handy in court, should they try that route.

Why not complain to them, in writing, stating you want to pay what you can afford but won't let you. Signed for or proof of posting.

You should drop the OFT stuff from your letter, as they are no longer in existence. It's the FCA. Just leave the first paragraph.

HB