Cap 1- full and final offer?

[Hacked_Off]

Just had my noa from crap1. Time to get that ppi claim on the go

[oleg]

That noa "from C1" is - unless there has been a systems revolution in the last few weeks - from Lowell.

btw Some ppl prefer to delay reclaiming P P I in order to prevent C1 attempting unlawfully to pay it to Lowell.

[oleg]

Can someone in Mission Control kindly disentangle from this thread the stuff I posted this morning and create a new thread from it and the responses? Call it "Alternative ways of handling Lowell" .

 

I should have foreseen that it would disrupt hacked off's thread and hack him off still further.

 

Thx and apologies.

 

Oleg

[Hacked_Off]

Haha I'm hacked off but not hacked off for the reasons you state!

[monacool]

I too found noa from Cap1 on my doormat today, seems like they sent a lot of letters on the 1st of August. Is it really Lowell who fabricates them? Mine was signed by Michael Woodburn VP Risk Operations, strangely enough the signature looks very pixelated as if photocopied from another document. Usually all docs comming from Cap1 have nice and crispy signatures, so perhaps it's true that lowell makes them themselves or maybe I am being too susupicious in my desperation?

[molly13]

Hi

 

 

I too had a 'fake' NOA today.. Check the envelope.. posted from Lowlife in Huddersfield... I also scanned the barcode etc with my phone and.. yep.. Lowlife's reference numbers.

In fact I have decided that my dog chewed up the letter and I can only see the Crap1 logo and my address, so I'll write to Crap1 and ask them what they want and to send me a copy of their letter which they sent to me..he he.

 

 

I had loads of help here with this one, years ago now, and know that it is so not enforceable. So might as well have a bit of fun.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Molly

[oleg]

Almost all the major debt purchasers send pretend goodbye letters [good riddance actually] from the original creditor. One major exception being Arrow Global where it both the goodbye and hello letters usually come from a DCA, thus breaking the stipulation of the Law of Property Act 1925 that it may come from the seller or the buyer or both. DCAs are none of these.

It is only in the last couple of years that Lowell have begun to send the two letters in separate envelopes. This was meant to hoodwink us peasants. The extra expense of it must break their . . . I was going to say hearts.

 

Lowell . . . hearts? Silly me.

[oleg]

[deleted - no longer relevant]

[Old Cogger]

whos a silly billy then?

[oleg]

hehe

[Hacked_Off]

Hi

 

 

I too had a 'fake' NOA today.. Check the envelope.. posted from Lowlife in Huddersfield... I also scanned the barcode etc with my phone and.. yep.. Lowlife's reference numbers.

In fact I have decided that my dog chewed up the letter and I can only see the Crap1 logo and my address, so I'll write to Crap1 and ask them what they want and to send me a copy of their letter which they sent to me..he he.

 

 

I had loads of help here with this one, years ago now, and know that it is so not enforceable. So might as well have a bit of fun.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Molly

 

Same!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Same!

These are Not fake NOAs creditors often have standing arrangements with debt sellers to send NOAs on the their headed letters together with an NOA from the debt purchaser.

 

 

There is no mileage/benefit is challenging this, it will get you nowhere!

[Old Cogger]

These are Not fake NOAs creditors often have standing arrangements with debt sellers to send NOAs on the their headed letters together with an NOA from the debt purchaser.

 

 

There is no mileage/benefit is challenging this, it will get you nowhere!

 

as stated they are allowed to do this, some Debt buyers send two letters to-gether, a change to the effect happened a few years ago, therefore there is no challenge and that avenue would be a waste of time and show a DCA that the person they are dealing with has little knowledge, hence we stick to the main themes.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

as stated they are allowed to do this, some Debt buyers send two letters to-gether, a change to the effect happened a few years ago, therefore there is no challenge and that avenue would be a waste of time and show a DCA that the preson they are dealing with has little knowledge, hence we stick to the main themes.

 

 

 

 

This arises so many times it's a regular outgoing of indignation too many people seeing it as a point that can somehow help their case, quite simply it Cannot.

[oleg]

With respect , I think the ppl here had already deemed their C1 agreements to be unenforceable long before they had been sold to Lowell and the question of notices of assignment was just meant to be a bit of extra fun.

 

They are using the term "fake" only in the sense that Lowell pretend the C1 letter is from C1 when in fact it is both written and sent by Lowell. In that sense I think the term is quite apt.

 

However it is, as noted, pointless to challenge - unless / until F C A decide to sit up and take notice. I hardly think that's one of their priorities right now .

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

With respect , I think the ppl here had already deemed their C1 agreements to be unenforceable long before they had been sold to Lowell and the question of notices of assignment was just meant to be a bit of extra fun.

 

They are using the term "fake" only in the sense that Lowell pretend the C1 letter is from C1 when in fact it is both written and sent by Lowell. In that sense I think the term is quite apt.

 

However it is, as noted, pointless to challenge - unless / until F C A decide to sit up and take notice. I hardly think that's one of their priorities right now .

 

 

 

An authorised document in this cannot be termed "fake" implying that the original creditor and the debt purchaser are deliberately falsifying documents and records is nonsense and rather crass.

[oleg]

Yes. There are rolling agreements between buyers / sellers. Yes . The letters are legitimate and would be pointless to challenge. But in lay person's eyes, something written by entity x on letterhead of entity y can be called fake . . as long as they restrict to what molly called a bit of fun . "Going legal" has not been implied and would be ridiculous. As would writing to C1 saying their letter had been chewed up by the dog. What kind of dog would want to eat C1 mail - fake or genuine ?

[molly13]

I too found noa from Cap1 on my doormat today, seems like they sent a lot of letters on the 1st of August. Is it really Lowell who fabricates them? Mine was signed by Michael Woodburn VP Risk Operations, strangely enough the signature looks very pixelated as if photocopied from another document. Usually all docs comming from Cap1 have nice and crispy signatures, so perhaps it's true that lowell makes them themselves or maybe I am being too susupicious in my desperation?

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Well I'm sorry if I upset you Brigadier..didn't mean to. I know, and a lot of other people know now, that the buyer/seller assignment are usually sent by the buyer and that they are entitled to do so. However not everyone knows and, in my opinion, are being tricked into believing that the assignments have been sent by the OC. Also, in my experience, the two NOA usually arrive in the same envelope, but in this case we are getting them separately to make them look more authentic. Hence mona's post above.

Obviously I would not rely on this issue in court, and obviously I would not waste my money writing to crap1..

 

 

and oleg I totally agree.. my dog is very discerning in what he chews up..lol..

 

 

Apologies again brigadier.

 

 

Have a nice week-end everyone

[Hacked_Off]

Indeed, I for one was not aware of this and believed the letter to be from crap1 not Lowell. There was no comment as to relying on this as a means to justify a case. Merely clarifying the situation re the letters.

[goodatresearch]

The problem is are all NOA genuine. I've a NOA from a DCA, but the OC, although in one letter state they've sold to this particular DCA, are now saying that are going to chase me for payment. FOS appear to be confused about who owns the account also.

[oleg]

An O C has no right to pursue a debt they have already sold.

 

If by DCA you mean debt purchaser and if you are still being pursued by the original creditor , you need to start a new thread, flesh out some detail and name names - essential because ppl on here are familiar with most of the antics of most of the brigands.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The problem is are all NOA genuine. I've a NOA from a DCA, but the OC, although in one letter state they've sold to this particular DCA, are now saying that are going to chase me for payment. FOS appear to be confused about who owns the account also.

It may well be that the debt has been returned to the OC, there are circumstanced where this happens quite often.

 

 

It certainly does Not mean the NOA was not genuine.

[goodatresearch]

It may well be that the debt has been returned to the OC, there are circumstanced where this happens quite often.

 

 

It certainly does Not mean the NOA was not genuine.

According to FOS the DCA have claimed ownership during the same period the OC have claimed ownership. This calls in question the legitimacy of all NOA. I'm talking about MKDP and Barclaycard.

 

To be honest, I'm legally qualified with many years working legal experience, including advocacy but outside the debt industry (before losing my job) and I'm horrified at what financial institutions ate allowed to get away with.

[goodatresearch]

Oh and by the way. The DCA has sent contradictory letters stating they own the account or they are acting on the behalf of the. OC.

[oleg]

Could you please start your own thread? This one is about Lowell acquiring Capital One accounts.

 

Thx