low tricksby Lowell

[MisterBuster]

11 years ago I had a loan through Lloyds which, due to a catalogue of disasters fell into default in year 2.

 

 

Upshot, it has been 9 years since any payment has been made on this account and the sme amount of time since any communication .

 

Fast forward to January 2015 ,

a letter arrives from Lowells claiming the debt is still active because I made a payment on the account in 2013, this is not true.

 

 

i asked them to provide proof of this and tell me the account from which it was made;

the clot on the other end of the phone blatantly lied and I told him he was.

 

 

Funnily enough the phone call was terminated his end.

 

 

Recently I have started to monitor my credit file and all is good apart from this 9 year old debt,

which I believe Lowell are trying to deliberately refresh so they can pursue it.

Clearly it is subject to the statute of limitation ruling ( 6 years).

 

how do I stop Lowell from playing tricks like this and

 

 

how do I get this removed from my credit file ?

 

 

Any advice would be really

 

 

appreciated

[SabreSheep]

first of all communicate only in writing

[dx100uk]

you enter into letter tennis after getting a phishing letter

and do it by phone too

no wonder they keep pestering you.

 

 

so there is no default date on your credit file?

 

 

dx

[fkofilee]

I have a feeling that this account SHOULDN'T even be on your CRA... If LLoyds defaulted it back way then, I would imagine the Default Date would be well before the 6 year period.

SAR Lloyds to see if they any information. And Tell Lowell to **** Off..

 

Deal with this now and eventually they will cave in and remove everything. Emails below...

 

Customer_Relations2@lowellgroup.co.uk

Sara.DeTute@lowellgroup.co.uk

[Stigman]

It does not matter about the phantom payment anyway because 6 years had already elapsed when Lowell claim the phantom payment was made.

 

So if this is the usual Lowell's attempt to play the phantom payment scenario then it has backfired.

 

Stigman

[thunderballs]

Well over six years, then it's well and truly statute barred.

 

So, I'd be inclined to report Lowell to the FCA on that basis alone.

 

That was one of the main reasons why Mackenzie Hall were warned (by the then-OFT) in 2009, with the then-owner now doing porridge.

[renegadeimp]

Report lowell. They are on the very fine line before they commit fraud. If they try and claim it as an admin error make sure to point out that this isnt a one off occurance.