LOWELL CCJ

ATownson1

Staceylou85 said:

Well surprise surprise another letter this time we’re going to pass your details to another debt collectors etc if you do t make contact. So I’ve sent a letter advising the above and provide a whole list of documents and confirm why no one make contact for 23 years! I’ve also advised that if they continue with this I’ll make a claim against them and also report to fca and FOS so we’ll see what the next letter brings

Me too, still chasing and harassing. I'll write to FOS.

ATownson1

How do I make a claim against them?

fatbelly

Use FOS first, as they will bounce it back to you if you start a court claim.

If you don't think the FOS response is sufficient you can start a claim on the MCOL site. But the difficulty is putting a value against it. I have seen it done and may even have a copy somewhere. The courts do tend to have a low threshold for harassment and people should probably use that route more often.

Google found the thread i was thinking of but the internal links don't work now

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2670865/lowell-guilty-of-harassment

BadDebtor

ATownson1 said:

How do I make a claim against them?

What I have done for myself and friends is to write to companies saying that they are harassing me, causing me anxiety and distress, so from now on I will be charging them £10 to read a letter and £25 to reply denying the debt and asking them to cease and desist this unlawful behaviour which any reasonable person would deem as harassment.   

There is actually case law to charge reasonable admin fees of up to £85 for first letter and higher for more, but by being ultra reasonable you are more likely to get Judgement.

When one of my friends had 14 letters we sent a letter before action claiming the £10 and £25 (£490), we also sought  fixed costs of half a days pay, transport and lunch because they would not be able to have cheap food at home, plus the Court fee which was around £70 of the claim.

Of course it was ignored so he decided what the hell and filed the claim, once he fined they paid the claim amount, but not the Court fee so he carried on and got Judgement for all of it.

With these kind of Lowell cases I think it would be fine to say that you have reason to believe that the debt can't be enforced but if they contact you again you will be forced to seek professional legal advice from a Solicitor and if they confirm the debt can't be enforced you will take them to Court to seek your costs and an admin charge for any future letters they write.

It only takes two events for it to be Harassment and it can be deemed a criminal offence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1 

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section or section 2A(2)(c), the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

It would not be too hard to find a reasonable person or persons who 

in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Maybe time to create a website to gather claimants against Lowell.

BadDebtor

Turns out that they have been in Court before

https://web.archive.org/web/20110709102910/http://e-sue.co.uk/docs/lowell_judgment.pdf

This template was prepared to sue them

https://web.archive.org/web/20170206195248/http://e-sue.co.uk/docs/Lowell_Claim.pdf

There is some irony that a number of Lowell Employees took action action against them for Discrimination and Breach of Contract. One claimant lost because they were out of time to bring a claim.

42. The Tribunal having concluded that the claimant was not misinformed about the primary limitation period, the claimant cannot pray in aid this reason to establish it was not reasonably practicable to issue her claim in time. The Tribunal notes that the claimant had the support of her legally qualified sister and assistance from her brother’s friend. Furthermore, the alleged lack of documentation from the respondent did not make it not reasonably feasible to have issued her claim in time. In respect of the increase in the claimant’s medication and her mental well-being, the Tribunal finds that the claimant tended to have good and bad days (as she told the Tribunal) in respect of her health throughout March to July 2020.  There is no direct medical evidence that establishes the claimant could not have engaged in the Tribunal process or that issuing a claim in this period was not reasonably feasible. The Tribunal notes the increase in medication for this discrete period but also notes that in June the claimant was considering coming off medication.  

43. The Tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have issued her claim in time. The Tribunal notes that the claimant asserted that her family did not want her to issue her claim because of the effect it may have on her mental health. On the balance of probabilities the tribunal finds that the claimant changed her mind to issue a claim and did so out of time. This would most likely fit with the revelation to inform her trade union adviser in the absence of any other disclosed communication with him in August. she had issued the claim. This scenario does not support a finding that it was not reasonably practicable. 

Miss C Whiteley v Lowell Financial Ltd (England and Wales : Breach of Contract) [2020] UKET 1807635/2019 (4 September 2020) (View without highlighting) [137%]

([2020] UKET 1807635/2019; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

The rest dropped their cases which seems to suggest some sort of settlement was reached.

Ms S Majeed v Lowell Financial Ltd (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination) [2018] UKET 1806232/2017 (10 January 2018) (View without highlighting) [144%]

([2018] UKET 1806232/2017; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

Mrs A Solanki v Lowell Financial Ltd (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination) [2018] UKET 1807207/2017 (5 March 2018) (View without highlighting) [144%]

([2018] UKET 1807207/2017; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

Mr A Mehboob v Lowell Solicitors Ltd (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination) [2019] UKET 1800799/2019 (20 June 2019) (View without highlighting) [144%]

([2019] UKET 1800799/2019; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

Ms R Mehta v Lowell Financial Ltd (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination) [2021] UKET 1804284/2020 (1 March 2021) (View without highlighting) [144%]

([2021] UKET 1804284/2020; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

Mr S Ryatt v Lowell Financial Ltd (England and Wales : Breach of Contract) [2018] UKET 1809815/2018 (4 October 2018) (View without highlighting) [137%]

([2018] UKET 1809815/2018; From United Kingdom Employment Tribunal; 0 KB)

ATownson1

@BadDebtor @fatbelly thank you for such a detailed response. I will write to the FSO, but was also thinking of a website or signatures on a legal petition to see justice served. The problem is that Lowell pay taxes, so as long as the government keep getting money they're not bothered how! Trying to fight these off on top of working full time and having to do the research when it's an unknown area off expertise is exhausting. Thanks again, I'd be lost without this forum and the people who contribute .

ATownson1 said:

How do I make a claim against them?

What I have done for myself and friends is to write to companies saying that they are harassing me, causing me anxiety and distress, so from now on I will be charging them £10 to read a letter and £25 to reply denying the debt and asking them to cease and desist this unlawful behaviour which any reasonable person would deem as harassment.   

There is actually case law to charge reasonable admin fees of up to £85 for first letter and higher for more, but by being ultra reasonable you are more likely to get Judgement.

When one of my friends had 14 letters we sent a letter before action claiming the £10 and £25 (£490), we also sought  fixed costs of half a days pay, transport and lunch because they would not be able to have cheap food at home, plus the Court fee which was around £70 of the claim.

Of course it was ignored so he decided what the hell and filed the claim, once he fined they paid the claim amount, but not the Court fee so he carried on and got Judgement for all of it.

With these kind of Lowell cases I think it would be fine to say that you have reason to believe that the debt can't be enforced but if they contact you again you will be forced to seek professional legal advice from a Solicitor and if they confirm the debt can't be enforced you will take them to Court to seek your costs and an admin charge for any future letters they write.

It only takes two events for it to be Harassment and it can be deemed a criminal offence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1 

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section or section 2A(2)(c), the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

It would not be too hard to find a reasonable person or persons who 

in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Maybe time to create a website to gather claimants against Lowell.

ATownson1

I've spat my dummy out today. I've written to FCA, FOS, MD Lowell Mary Morgan and my MP. Lowell have changed their address and haven't bought anything from Hoist - they were Hoist. Same MD and same premises. How does that work?

BadDebtor

They are probably the same now because they bought it, Hoist were previously part of a Scandinavian company

Look at filings.

Lowell are in Leeds while Hoist were in Salford

https://joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk/hoist-finance-uk/

fatbelly

Yes, Debt Camel wrote about it at the time

https://debtcamel.co.uk/hoist-debt-sold-to-lowell/

ATownson1

I've had a response back from FCA. Quite surprised. I was fobbed off with generic reply my first time of writing. This time it's being passed to the team that handle Lowell. What I don't understand is they've given me different address than that on companies House? They also said to pursue my complaint with FOS who have requested more information and I haven't had a letter from Lowell since I wrote to MD. Yet to hear from MP???? So, we'll see 😊.