LOWELL CCJ

DisabledDan

Staceylou85 said:

Well I know they have one person who is like a bull with a red rag. But like I said, this judgment was way back in 2000 and issued to the PG’s address, last payment 2009. Wasn’t till Lowell took over that this has now come up. As hoist didn’t contact for years, is t there something in GDPR about keeping details? I just want them to stop and ignoring them doesn’t work. Also, in relation to my complaint they’ve discontinued could I raise this with FOS as they haven’t address my complaint, just passed it to Overdale 

They are messing with you StaceyLou so now time to mess with them.

Overdales are Lowell are  Overdales 

First they used

LOWELL LEGAL LIMITED

Company number 08647091

Previous company names

Previous company names

Name	Period
LOWELL SOLICITORS LIMITED	23 Mar 2015 - 15 Apr 2024
OVERDALES LEGAL LIMITED	27 Jun 2014 - 23 Mar 2015
LOWELL PORTFOLIO V LIMITED	12 Aug 2013 - 27 Jun 2014

This company is now dormant

Then in 2021 they seem to have moved their so called legal activity to Overdales Legal Limited

OVERDALES LEGAL LIMITED

Company number 07407310

This company appears to have been founded in 2010 as 

LUCAS CREDIT SERVICES LTD

14 Oct 2010 - 03 Mar 2021

and Lowell appear to have been involved since 2019 in one form or another.

Looking at the officers, address and history it would be otiose and absurd for Lowells to suggest that they have no control of Overdales.

I am not clear if you asked Lowells for a copy the the Credit Agreement but If they can’t produce it they can’t enforce the debt, under FCA rules CONC 7.15.8.  ???

If they have confirmed they don't have CCA or CCJ,  here is how you mess with them, it starts with the lawful basis for them storing your data, this is something you can object to under GDPR on the basis that having exhausted all legal remedies for enforcement with no prospect of recovering the debt AND furthermore they are making a business practice of pursuing debt they know to be unenforceable.

I should make you aware that I have got the ICO interested in investigating the Lowell use of Hoist data, I have spoken to a caseworker and am collating evidence from a number of sites to show the pattern of their deliberate misuse of date and unlawful activity.

Behind all this this are CONC rules as regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/ 

If there is no CCJ then 

CONC 7.15.8 A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

At the same time you need to make a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about Overdales, on the basis that they are knowingly (having been informed by you) acting unlawfully against CONC rules

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/index/

There are only three possible options based on what you have said about the age of the debt:
1 The alleged debt cannot be enforced because Lowell cannot produce a CCA.
2.The debt became Statute Barred under Limitations Act with no CCJ obtained before the 6 years and so is unenforceable.
3. A CCJ was obtained but it is older than 6 years and so unenforceable (without permission from a Court) 

I had a Barrister friend look at the case law on Limitations Act and although I don't want to put detail here, their advice was that it would be extremely difficult for them to get permission for further enforcement time.  The Court would also take a dim view of the plethora of evidence shown far and wide online about Lowells practices, alleging CCJ's where there were none, alleging small payments where there were none, pursuing debts they have been informed are unenforceable.

As for the bull with red rag, their only power is you engaging with them as if you cared. 

You can use GDPR to limit their contact to only Royal Mail, if they fail to observe this it only adds to their trouble with the ICO.

I may well get a friend of mine to build a website around dealing with Lowell, sending them correspondence and charging them for every contact which will be deemed as harassment if they continue once each debtor has shown there is no lawful basis to continue.

I also have another idea to really hurt them, but I don't want to spoil the surprise for Lowell !!

Staceylou85

@DisabledDan wow thank you so much! The first letter I sent, it was basically a cca request which if there was a ccj, they don’t have to produce which they didn’t. They just gave me a claim number, a date and an address which wasn’t mine. Said they don’t have the claim form and after 6 years the court won’t either. What they’re doing is wrong. Hoist never contacted me at my address where I lived 17 years and now Lowell have which is an mis use of my data. I genuinely don’t understand how they can justify this! Honestly it’s laughable. 

In regards to debt camel, no I haven’t contact them but have thought about it. I’ve read the page though. 

DisabledDan

Staceylou85 said:

@DisabledDan wow thank you so much! The first letter I sent, it was basically a cca request which if there was a ccj, they don’t have to produce which they didn’t. They just gave me a claim number, a date and an address which wasn’t mine. Said they don’t have the claim form and after 6 years the court won’t either. What they’re doing is wrong. Hoist never contacted me at my address where I lived 17 years and now Lowell have which is an mis use of my data. I genuinely don’t understand how they can justify this! Honestly it’s laughable. 

In regards to debt camel, no I haven’t contact them but have thought about it. I’ve read the page though. 

I think it is time for you to make a Subject Access Request to all organisations involved in your case, including Registry Trust.

Word it along the lines of 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

Please supply copies of all documents, system notes, emails, letters, telephone calls, any and all related information you possess regarding myself in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (2018).  

My preferred format for these is PDF but I will accept any open format or industry standard file format, please make the data available on a secure cloud link, of which there are many free services with encryption.

Please confirm by return your receipt of this request

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If they don't provide the data within 30 days then you report them to the ICO and pressure them to sanction Lowell.

Lowell are quick enough to act on the data they acquired, there is no excuse that it could or should take longer.

I think it should be possible to determine if the the claim number, date and address they provided for the CCJ has any potential truth in it.  You can establish the Court from the address supplied, then call the Court to ask them their current case numbers, for example the first four characters in Clerkenwell & Shorditch in 2018 were E26Y, or the Claim number 418MC41x is one fro Online Civil Money Claims.

These are a matter of public record, you can go to the local Court and see the daily listings, you can ask for records and if you can find a friendly person who is not rushed off their feet they might signpost you to where you can get the data.

I have see no many false allegations reported by victims of Lowell that I would not be surprised if their staff made them up, the same goes for the allegations of small payments which they later cannot provide.

The problem is that is not laughable when it puts people under stress and anxiety at a time when so many are struggling with debt and the debt Lowell are chasing is unenforceable.

When I have the ICO casework I fully intend to take matters further with another organisation who have serious powers, on top of the 9% of turnover sanction that the ICO is capable of applying to Lowell.

Regarding Debt Camel, most of their posts simple end up saying go speak to National Debtline but still worth a trawl, note there is a page of earlier comments.

Don't let the $%£$%^$ get you down but also don't let them get away with it.

Staceylou85

The claim starts JJ07 

I’ll make a SAR
Be interesting to see what overdales come back woth

funny think is, I applied for a mortgage in 2004 and there was no CCJ, makes me think it’s being issued against the PG and not me as the address they gave was there’s 

DisabledDan

If you own a property then of course people will have a go at you, but that does not change the enforceable status of the debt.

They have produced no evidence of a CCJ until they produce one and so many people have been lied to by Lowells 

They still write to me but I don't respond, I could write and say that debt became statute barred years ago but why bother, let them spend money on letters, I know the cycle of letters and just laugh at them. 

So if you have no CCJ then it is likely your debt became statute barred,

CONC 7.15.8 A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

in any event they have failed to provide a CCA.

CONC 13.1.6:

Failure to comply

CONC 13.1.6G02/11/2015RP

1. (1)

   1. Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.

2. (2)

   In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.

3. (3)

   In particular, a firm should NOT in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

4. (4)

   The firm should, in any request for payment or communication relating to a payment (other than a statement issued in accordance with the CCA or regulations made under it which does not constitute or contain a request for payment) in such cases, make clear to the customer that although the debt remains outstanding it is unenforceable.

8 However, where a firm is aware that an agreement is unenforceable because of non-compliance with an information request under section 77, 78 or 79 of the CCA, a firm should make it clear when communicating to a customer about a debt that the debt is in fact unenforceable. Failure to do so, in that case, would in the FCA's view unfairly mislead the customer by omission. Any communication that implies expressly or otherwise that a debt is enforceable when it is known that it is not, would be misleading. One way to avoid this would be for the firm to explain to the customer the full meaning of 'unenforceable'.

Staceylou85

Well I’ve made an official SAR, also made reference to GPDR and the 7 principles about storing data. I’ve asked for the agreement, statement, default notice, claim form and judgment order. I’m also gonna take this up with the ICO and FOS because they shouldn’t have closed my complaint without dealing with it

DisabledDan

Go for it, Staceylou85 !!  Each small action will lead to their demise.

Staceylou85

Woohoo victory! Letter from overdales in relation to my letter of claim and they gave closed my case! Thank you all so much for your help! These people need a lesson. They shouldn’t be doing this after years. 

fatbelly

Well done. The lesson is that if you stand up to them, they often cave in

They are looking for a quick and easy judgement in default.

Make it as difficult as you can for them

RAS

Well done. All too often they win by default.