Lowell Portfolio- another odd letter

RAS

Actually, that is another breach of the guidelines - confusing the putative debtor by using multiple identities.

righter

my son had a letter from lowells recently...i took advice from here,as it should have been statute barred and so far,nothing further.
perhaps because of (alleged) looming recession,they are trying to squeeze everyone. besides it costs them very little to chance it with people. thank god for sites like this.
onwards and upwards!!

Claz_2

Hiya all!

I too have been the lucky recipient of a lowell portfolio letter, regarding a debt with Barclay card debt of £300. The last I heard about this was about 14 years ago, and I'm convinced I paid this off with some of my student loan, but I have naff all to prove this!

Anyway, if this debt is indeed outstanding, I'm sure it should be statute barred, but what if there is a ccj against this debt? I've looked at http://www.registry-trust.org.uk/ to try and assess whether a ccj may exist, but I read on the site that details remain on there for 6 years from the date of judgement! So if there is a ccj, and the judgement was made more than 6 years ago, I'm assuming I won't be able to find out about it.

I want to check all my facts before I tackle Lowell about this, so any advice about checking for the existance of a ccj would be really appreciated.

P.S. sorry to jump on someone else's post!

RAS

Hi in the middle of another big job but the database can take time to update so...

Nicked this from rog elsewhere.

This will work for Claz and righter



If it is over six years, then it is most likely covered by the Limitation Act and will be 'statute barred'. In simple language, this means that providing the debtor has made no payment towards, nor acknowledged, in writing, a debt for a period of six years (five in Scotland) then that debt is 'statute barred'. Once the debtor has informed the creditor, or dca, that he will no longer make any payments, because the debt is statute barred (the only reason he need give) then that 'debt' can no longer be pursued through the courts.
Have a look at the following link:

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/en...limitation_act

There is a template letter that you can send to Lowell.

Even if the 'alleged debt' is not statute barred, Lowell are legally obliged to supply you with a true copy of the original signed consumer credit agreement, plus deeds of assignment and a fully up-to-date statement of the account, on your request.

Trying_really_hard

Phew. Just seen how many Lowell related threads there are! You fab people do well to keep up with us all. :beer:

So, as Lowell/Red debt have now breached all these OFT guidance notes, do i need to resend the CCA letter to Red Debt as I sent the original to Lowell? If so, will that mean that the 12 + 2 has to start again? Or do I just leave the whole thing alone as they have not sent me the details I requested (a bit hard as the debt doesn't exist)? I hope that it doesn't have to start again as it finishes this week.

Thanks and apologies, I have read the other threads but I'm just seeking further clarification. Sorry, I'm just trying to sort it out to keep the peace in my house as its causing untold amounts of damage here! Stupid company.

Trying_really_hard

Another quick question, sorry.

When both Barclaycard and Lowell default in sending me the info I requested, who is it that I actually complain to? Is it the CSA, OFT or FOS? Or all three? I know it won't get them shut down or anything but i want my concerns lodged.

Plus, does it matter who defaults? I'm a bit confused as I sent the CCA letter to Lowell who first sent us the letter, then Red Debt got back in contact with us. As they are one and the same company (with the same PO Box address) will it matter that the original letter went to the umbrella company of Lowell?

Thanks in advance.

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

BIN IT , forget about it they can ask but ignore do not waste your phone bill etc

maureen0000

Further to my posting re lowell/barclaycard have had two letters from lowell re supposed £188 debt outstanding from 1993 to Barclaycard, have sent the statute barred letter and have today had a letter from Red Debt with no ref to my letter which I sent recorded to themselves,Lowell at 1 Apex View and the PO box address, the letter today from Red Debt is just requesting me to ring and make payment arrangement,which I have no intention of doing as I really do not beieve this debt exsists and even if it did it would be statute barred. However what do I do now, I have written to Red Debt today enclosing copy of the letter that I sent on the 16th Jan. I am so worried that they will send someone round, or try to enter it on my credit record, can they do this even though they say it relates to 1993? What should I do if I get another letter. Please help

rog2

maureen0000 wrote: »

However what do I do now, I have written to Red Debt today enclosing copy of the letter that I sent on the 16th Jan. I am so worried that they will send someone round, or try to enter it on my credit record, can they do this even though they say it relates to 1993? What should I do if I get another letter. Please help

First of all, don't worry - there really is nothing that they can, legally, do. They are now acting so far outside of the OFT Debt Collection Guidlines that their credit licence is seriously in danger. You should report them to your local trading standards office, without delay.
IF someone called, at your house (extremely unlikely) simply ask them to leave immediately - if they don't, then call the Police.
And NO, they can not put anything on your credit file for a 'debt' that is 25 years old.
If you receive another letter - do not bin it - just ignore it and keep it as evidence of their illegal harrassment.

RAS

Maureen,

They have 6 years after you stopped paying into the account or acknowledged the debt to take action against you.

If they were daft enought to enter anything on your credit record you can challenge it and get it removed. Younwould also be eligible for compensation under the data protection Act, as they would have entered false information on a public file

As fo sending someone round, the fine would be more than they could collct from you. Added to which the person concerned would have all the rights of a paperboy.