Johnny vs Egg (Lovells)

[johnny131070]

What do you think i should do next? Do i go back to Lowells and tell them for a 3rd time that the agreement is unenforceable or do i just go back to Trading Standards and complain to them? Thanks for all the replies so far.

[johnny131070]

Bump...

[Toulose LeDebt]

What do you think i should do next? Do i go back to Lowells and tell them for a 3rd time that the agreement is unenforceable or do i just go back to Trading Standards and complain to them? Thanks for all the replies so far.

 

I would go straight back to the OC enclosing a copy of this latest lowells forgery and demand from them answers to the following:

 

Why have they sold on an account they know is unenforcable?

 

How have Lowells managed to find a copy of the agreement that EGG themselves could not?

 

Give them about 5 seconds to read this then kick 'em hard with the following line of attack.

 

Since you are not in receipt of a valid notice of assignment under LoP 1925 you believe title to this account still rests with Egg.

You have been contacted in a manner amounting to harassment by Lowells and supplied with a legal document which has been very crudely forged.

You have sought advice in the matter and have been advised to serve a notice upon Lowells under Sec. 10 DPA 1998 since you believe Lowells to be processing your data inaccurately and unlawfully contrary to principles 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of this Act.

Any failure by Lowells to comply with this Sec 10 will result in your seeking enforcement against them under a County Court order.

Obviously in the absence of any valid assignment under Sec 136 LoP 1925 you shall be required to enter Egg as co-defendant to your application against Lowells since title and status of Data Controller on this account rests with Egg.

 

In the event of litigation you shall enter into evidence such documentation as you feel neccesary to prove your case including but not restricted to the CCA provided you by Lowells.

You will make a CPR 31.14 request for disclosure of the original CCA from which this copy was made then you shall enter notice under CPR 32.19 that this document be put to proof at trial.

You will make representation to the fact that you believe this document to be forged, shall provide supporting evidence including but not restricted to a forensic examination report, and copies of earlier communications from Egg stating this document does not exist.

 

 

You will make an application for costs and unsubstantiated damages.

 

It is also likely that this document is in breach of Sec 17 (2) Theft Act 1968, an offence which carries a maximum tariff upon indictment of seven years imprisonment.

 

 

Explanation:

 

Without a valid assignment under LoP 1925 Egg still own the title to this account and are data controller. Without title Lowells have no lawful claim to the account in Court any litigation must be conducted jointly with Egg whether as co-claimant or co-defendant.

 

It's important you have not acknowledged receiving one of Lowells Notices of assignment on this account as failure to notify the debtor invalidates the assignment.

 

In honesty there has been no absolute assignment just a debt sale agreement (equitable assignment) but Lowells have been known to produce documentation pretending to be deeds of assignment when neccesary (Laughably poor forgeries I might add). The NOA is likely to be a 'letter from egg' but really from Lowells stating Lowells have bought the account and you must pay them now. This must be sent recorded/registered post and you can put them to proof in Court.

 

Let Egg know that Lowells are trampling all over the law and that you are prepared to litigate against Lowells to stop them. Without the absolute assignment Egg will find themselves in Court alongside Lowells and Egg will be held just as liable as the kid with crayons from Leeds when the Judge looks closely at that document.

 

IMO Egg will be pretty alarmed to find out what Lowells have done here. The legal implications are quite deep, it is after all a legal document not a letter (NOA) that has been forged.

 

No way will Egg want involved. I'm sure they will let Mr. Hunter (If he's still in his job) know this.

[ODC]

Bump...

 

You must start to make formal complaints

[johnny131070]

How about something like this. I am a little worried about stating that the document is forged as i have in found a very similiar document that was posted to me by Fredrickson in nov 2007. But i received a letter 3 months later stating that they had been instructed by EGG to take no further action on the account. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

The Customer Relations Office

Egg plc

Riverside Road

Pride Park

Derby

DE99 3GG

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re:− Egg PLC - Acc no :4627854018731112

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to Lowell Portfolio, as it is in dispute with the EGG and has been since July 2006.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from EGG was late 2006 and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved within 21 days of the letter, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As EGG are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Since I am not in receipt of a valid notice of assignment under LoP 1925 I believe title to this account still rests with Egg.

I have been contacted in a manner amounting to harassment by Lowells.

I have sought advice in the matter and have been advised to serve a notice upon Lowells under Sec. 10 Data Protection Act 1998 since I believe Lowells to be processing my data inaccurately and unlawfully contrary to principles 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of this Act.

Any failure by Lowells to comply with this Sec 10 will result in me seeking enforcement against them under a County Court order.

Obviously in the absence of any valid assignment under Sec 136 LoP 1925 i shall be required to enter Egg as co-defendant to my application against Lowells since title and status of Data Controller on this account rests with Egg.

 

In the event of litigation i shall enter into evidence such documentation as i feel neccesary to prove my case including but not restricted to the CCA provided me by Lowells.

I will make a CPR 31.14 request for disclosure of the original CCA from which this copy was made then I shall enter notice under CPR 32.19 that this document be put to proof at trial.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

:)

[johnny131070]

Bump..

[johnny131070]

Does the above letter look ok??

[johnny131070]

Bump please!!

[ODC]

How about something like this. I am a little worried about stating that the document is forged as i have in found a very similiar document that was posted to me by Fredrickson in nov 2007. But i received a letter 3 months later stating that they had been instructed by EGG to take no further action on the account. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

The Customer Relations Office

Egg plc

Riverside Road

Pride Park

Derby

DE99 3GG

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re:− - Acc no :4627854018731112

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to Lowell Portfolio, as it is in dispute with the EGG and has been since July 2006.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from EGG was late 2006 and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved within 21 days of the letter, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As EGG are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.Since I am not in receipt of a valid notice of assignment under S 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 I believe title to this account still rests with Egg.

I have been contacted in a manner amounting to harassment by Lowells.

I have sought advice in the matter and have been advised to serve a notice upon Lowells under Sec. 10 Data Protection Act 1998 since I believe Lowells to be processing my data inaccurately and unlawfully contrary to principles 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of this Act.

Any failure by Lowells to comply with this Sec 10 will result in me seeking enforcement against them under a County Court order.

Obviously in the absence of any valid assignment under Sec 136 LoP 1925 i shall be required to enter Egg as co-defendant to my application against Lowells since title and status of Data Controller on this account rests with Egg.

 

In the event of litigation i shall enter into evidence such documentation as i feel neccesary to prove my case including but not restricted to the CCA provided me by Lowells.

I will make a CPR 31.14 request for disclosure of the original CCA from which this copy was made then I shall enter notice under CPR 32.19 that this document be put to proof at trial.]

 

 

I would omit the bit in RED and just remind EGG that they are responsible for the actions of any DCA acting on their behalf. Also ask Egg for details of their complaints procedure.

[johnny131070]

Cheers ODC, do i need to contact Lowells?

[TheDebtWarrior]

I can't believe the nerve of these muppets.

 

This is clearly a mockup and not a particularly good one. I've got an Egg agreement from about this time and have never seen one with two lots of Egg logos athe top and overlaid information at the bottom (not straight either). The prescribed terms are missing and I bet there are no cancellation rights.

 

This is not enforceable but I'd go for them big time for forging documents - might be worth a call to the police along with the OFT and FSA.

 

Please don't let this opportunity pass to bury these clowns.

[ODC]

Cheers ODC, do i need to contact Lowells?

 

Yes

 

Dear Cretins,

 

As you are aware this alleged debt is in dispute with the original creditor EGG and as such should never have been passed to yourselves. Indeed it has not been assigned to you in accordance with S196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 so I suggest you pass it back to the original creditor.

 

Failure to do so will result in a formal complaint to the OFT and my MP.

 

yours etc