Lowell Financial refusing CCA request.

[Switch]

I sent Lowell Financial the usual CCA request.

 

Lowell Financial have kindly returned my 1.00 PO and replied saying.

 

'While this account is a regulated agreement I would refer you to Section 74(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 whereby any requirements to supply a copy of the agreement is exempt for current bank accounts'.

 

I have searched for the CCA but can only find the Consumer Credit Act 2006 in which there is not a 74(b).

 

This has to be wrong, surley Lowell Financial are required to supply the documents.

[creditcardmug]

I think this is what you are looking for,

 

74. Exclusion of certain agreements from Part V.

— (1) This Part (except section 56) does not apply to— (a)

a non-commercial agreement, or

 

(b)

a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, or

 

©

a debtor-creditor agreement to finance the making of such payments arising on, or connected with, the death of a person as may be prescribed.

 

 

(2) This Part (except sections 55 and 56) does not apply to a small debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for restricted-use credit.

[F1 (2A) In the case of an agreement to which the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987 apply the reference in subsection (2) to a small agreement shall be construed as if in section 17(1)(a) and (b) “£35 ” were substituted for “£50 ”.]

(3) Subsection (1)(b) or © applies only where the Director so determines, and such a determination— (a)

may be made subject to such conditions as the Director thinks fit, and

 

(b)

shall be made only if the Director is of the opinion that it is not against the interests of debtors.

 

 

[F2 (3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3)(b) above, in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is the Bank of England or a bank within the meaning of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, the Director shall make a determination that subsection (1)(b) above applies unless he considers that it would be against the public interest to do so]

(4) If any term of an agreement falling within subsection [F3 (1)©] or (2) is expressed in writing, regulations under section 60(1) shall apply to that term (subject to section 60(3)) as if the agreement were a regulated agreement not falling within subsection [F3 (1)©] or (2).Annotations:

[palomino]

I think what creditcardmug is trying to say is that Lowells are correct.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply to bank current accounts.

 

You can of course obtain the information another way - by using a subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. This costs £10 and the bank is required to respond within 40 calendar days.

You can request all sorts of things provided they relate to your account -

agreements, statements, notices, filenotes and memoranda, telephone call logs etc. etc. The template letter on CAG needs modification as it only asks for statements (it was desgned for those who wanted to reclaim unlawful bank charges).

[Switch]

I think what creditcardmug is trying to say is that Lowells are correct.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply to bank current accounts.

 

You can of course obtain the information another way - by using a subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. This costs £10 and the bank is required to respond within 40 calendar days.

You can request all sorts of things provided they relate to your account -

agreements, statements, notices, filenotes and memoranda, telephone call logs etc. etc. The template letter on CAG needs modification as it only asks for statements (it was desgned for those who wanted to reclaim unlawful bank charges).

 

Lowells have been sent an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), so the CCA should be in with the bundle of documents that Lowells send.

 

The frustrating thing is the sum is totally made up of charges, but will Lowells listen to me, NO.

[Switch]

Lowells have been sent an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), so the CCA should be in with the bundle of documents that Lowells send.

 

The frustrating thing is the sum is totally made up of charges, but will Lowells listen to me, NO.

 

Actually is there anything I can do to stop Lowells in there tracks and force them to transfer the account back to the original creditor. It would make the process for me a whole lot easier in being able submit my claim for charges directly with the original Creditor without this lot on my back for the money.

[ODC]

Lowells have been sent an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), so the CCA should be in with the bundle of documents that Lowells send.

 

The frustrating thing is the sum is totally made up of charges, but will Lowells listen to me, NO.

It was a waste of time and money sending an SAR to Lowells. When they bought the debt they would not have bothered getting all the paperwork belonging to it.

 

I think you picked Palamino up wrongly. You should have sent the SAR to the ORIGINAL CREDITOR i.e. The Bank.

 

Regardless of the fact that this account is not subject to a CCA agreement Lowells must prove that you actually owe the money and that they have a legal right to chase it. Is it possible that there could be unlawful bank charges on this alleged debt

[Switch]

It was a waste of time and money sending an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to Lowells. When they bought the debt they would not have bothered getting all the paperwork belonging to it.

 

I think you picked Palamino up wrongly. You should have sent the SAR to the ORIGINAL CREDITOR i.e. The Bank.

 

Regardless of the fact that this account is not subject to a CCA agreement Lowells must prove that you actually owe the money and that they have a legal right to chase it. Is it possible that there could be unlawful bank charges on this alleged debt

 

Point taken, thanks ODC.

 

I will send the original Creditor an SAR today.

 

My concern is though that in the interim whilst I am waiting for the SAR from the original creditor this will not stop Lowells from taking further action even though the full amount is made up of charges.

 

It appears Lowells can continue to chase without the need to prove they have any legal right, a letter from them saying that they can surley is not sufficient.

[ODC]

If Lowells send you any more begging letters then write to them saying as the Debt is in dispute due to Unlawful Charges can they confirm they own the account and if they do tell them you will be claiming the charges from them. That should shut them up.

[Switch]

Well despite sending Lowells a DPA request which they have not even acknowleged, let alone sent any documents, I now have a letter from Hamptons Legal who are a division of Lowells threatening me with court action.

 

Not to sure how to play this but I am tempted to write to Hamptons and tell them how Lowells have not complied with my DPA request, which i'm sure they already know as as they are an internal part of Lowells; ask the question how can they process my data to the CRAs without any proof that they are entiitled to, and as the outstanding balance is made up of bank charges then I shall submit the charges claim directly against them rather than the original creditor. If Hamptons still wish to issue proceedings against me then I will welcome this action.

 

Any thoughts on the best way to play this one would be appreciated.

[42man]

What you MUST do is start the reclaim process...otherwise there will be no dispute, this however does not give Lowells an excuse NOT to reply to your Subject Access Request (did they ever respond - if not then send them a LETTER BEFORE ACTION and give them 7 days to provide your Subject Access Request)

 

And

 

Send recorded

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the above referenced letter,although I am totally bemused as to why I have received it.

 

The author of the letter seems to have taken no notice of the present state of the account as it stands,for the following reasons :-

 

1) Last year,in the High Court banks applied for and were granted, ‘stays’, to my claim for ‘penalty charges ‘.Part of the High Court Order states that NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN BY THE BANK TO RECOVER any supposed charges made by them ,until the OFT Test Case has been resolved.AND in addition should any action be taken by the Bank,then the ‘stay’will be lifted,and no doubt ,judgement would be awarded in my favour..

 

2) I am sure that (name of bank) conform to The Banking Code,and as such I will draw your attention to s13.6, reference information you may NOT pass on,IF an account is in dispute.The High Court Order I would suggest is reasonable evidence to assume that this account is in dispute.

 

3) I am also sure that (bank and DCA name) are fully au fait with the, Office of Fair Tradings code for

Debt Collection Guidance,and I draw your attention to the latest information from their publication,July 2003(updated December 2006);-

 

The following are deemed to be at the very least UNFAIR practices.

 

a) Section 2,2 b,Leaving out or presenting information ,in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression .or exploits debtors’ lack of knowledge.

HOW you could miss the ‘stay’on the accounts is beyond me.

 

b)Psychological harassment,as described in Section 2.6 g,making threatening statements or gestures ,or taking actions suggesting harm.

Your last paragraph of your letter threatening court etc.

 

c) Section 2.6 h,Ignoring or disregarding claims ,that debts are settled or disputed ,and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment.

 

d) Section 2.6 I,Disclosing or threatening to disclose,debt details to third parties ,unless legally entitled to do so.

 

e) Section 2.6 k,Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt

 

I can only assume that based on the above,that this letter must have been sent in error,as I am certain you would not wish it to be seen as VEXATIOUS.

 

Your letter has obviously caused me a great deal of unnecessary concern,and worry,resulting in me having to take third party advice,undergo law and internet research,and take time out from my employment,as well as postage costs,to reply to your letter.As you are a Bank,and regularly make charges to customers,I have taken the liberty of charging you the sum of £35,which I will add to my costs against yourselves.

 

I further feel,that as a show of good faith by the Bank, that any further fees and/or interest should be frozen,pending the outcome of the OFT Test Case.

 

I would also point out that I intend to maintain my legal rights,and if necassary, file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.including the High Court.

 

I trust you will give this due diligence,and look forward to your reply within the next 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

[Switch]

Thanks 42man. cracking letter.