lowell chasing OH for JD William debt she knows nowt about.

[quill1959]

My partner too has now received two letters from Lowell, the first from "Lowell Portfolio 1" and the second from "Lowell Financial".

 

 

They are citing a debt they have purchased from JD Williams, the original account having been opened in 2002.

My partner has never heard of JD Williams, let alone purchased anything from them.

 

They said that they had used a credit reference agency to find her address (we have lived at our current address for over 20 years),

but having paid for a £2 Experian report (a company they advertise on their letters),

there is no reference to a search by anyone other than the Identification Generic Check by Experian themselves.

 

 

Interestingly Lowells have addressed her as Mrs, when all mentions of her in the credit check are Ms.

 

She subsequently sent them a letter (electronically signed) stating that she has no knowledge of any debt owed to JD Williams

and that unless they could provide evidence of liability for the debt in question, they should make no further contact.

 

 

This letter was sent by recorded delivery and delivered on 7th October 2015, the date of the second letter from Lowells.

 

I am interested that the wisdom of the replies is that this is a fishing attempt and that it should be ignored.

Unfortunately this situation is causing my partner some anguish and telling her to ignore it is proving difficult.

 

My intention is to ignore this second letter and should further correspondence be received, send a letter based on the CAG

"You know nothing of the Debt / Prove It" template, but I would appreciate advice as to this being the best course of action.

 

Best regards,

squill

[Bazooka Boo]

You will do better starting your own thread on this as it will go missed.

 

However, IGNORE is the tried & tested method in these cases.

 

Writing too them only encourages them and they will mark their files as 'mug awaits fleecing', with all the best will in the world, corresponding with them

when there is no mark on your CRF, even if it is to just tell them to sling their hook, will ensure more deforestation through your door.

 

If your OH hasn't ever ordered anything from JD Williams, then she has zero to worry about.

 

Lowlifes are a tin pot powerless DCA, they are NOT bailiffs, nor will they ever be, you can laugh at them all day long, because they can do absolutely zero.

Less for sending out pointless letters with big words on that even they don't understand, there is zero to worry about.

 

Shame you wasted time and money on them, there is no need to send a prove it via recorded delivery, 2nd class stamp and 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter is all that is needed.

[quill1959]

Thank you Bazooka Boo.

 

OH is mollified. A damn good ignoring will ensue.

 

regards,

squill

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you Bazooka Boo.

 

OH is mollified. A damn good ignoring will ensue.

 

regards,

squill

 

it is perfectly normal for this outfit to blanket bomb the entire country with puerile missives in an attempt at flushing out their intended target, if your OH has a common name then this will be the case, if her CRF is clear and she has never ordered anything from them, then fret not.

 

This will be another of their 'admin errors'...

[quill1959]

In response to a prove it letter dated 5th October 2015, Lowells have replied to my OH with a "True Copy" of a credit agreement.

This contains no signature and refers to an address at which my OH has never lived..

 

I understand that the perceived wisdom is to ignore them, but further postings in the original thread mention that this is not necessarily wise.

 

I have drafted another letter from my OH quoted below,

but I would like to know if there is anything else I should add re reporting them to the ICO or others.

 

With reference to your correspondence dated 30 November 2015 containing a 'True Copy' of a credit agreement, I once again state that this credit agreement was not undertaken by myself. I have never lived at the address in Leicester mentioned in the documentation.

I put it to you that you are undertaking a fishing expedition to try to find a (name) that did take out the credit agreement, but it is not me.

I have entertained your lack of due diligence far enough and I will no longer be responding to any further correspondence on this matter.

Suggestions gratefully received.

Q

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'd go for something like this:

 

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxx.

 

I am aware that the Financial Conduct Authority, in its CONC handbook, states that: "A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid."

 

Further, the FCA is clear that: "Before pursuing a customer for the repayment of a debt, a firm must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy and adequacy of the available data so as to ensure that the true customer is pursued for the debt and that they are pursued for the correct amount."

 

You have signally failed to meet your obligations in both of these respects.

 

In my letter dated xxx I made clear that I was not the debtor you are pursuing. It is, therefore, unclear to me why you imagine that sending me a copy of an agreement relating to an address to which I have never had any connection would suddenly make me responsible for someone else's account, or demonstrate that you had carried out anything like due diligence in your tracing activity. I can only assume that this is some sort of asinine attempt to pressurise or harass me into paying money I do not owe.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, I repeat that I am not the debtor you are seeking, and no money will be forthcoming.

 

I require you to deal with this letter according to your complaint policy, a copy of which you should send to me without delay. My complaint is (1) that you have pursued me for a debt I do not owe, after I have made clear to you that I am not the debtor, and (2) that you have failed to meet your obligations under the FCA rules.

 

I require your response to my complaint, together with your proposals for resolution, within 7 days.

 

In the meantime, no further correspondence will be entered into.

[quill1959]

Thank you very much ScarletPimpernel, I will proceed as suggested.

Q

[Bazooka Boo]

I too can see the reason behind ignoring them, as it seems this is another of their 'tracing' methods, blanket bombing a post code or county with begging letters to anyone who has the same name or same initials.

 

Once you have sent that letter, await their response, if any, but expect more deforestation to hit your doormat.

[ericsbrother]

BB, I can see the logic of the dca,

send a begging letter to everyone with a similar name in the area and then cross off those who respond with evidence that they are not that person.

 

 

When you have one address left they MUST be the person you are after so harass them mercilessly.

 

Obviously this ignores the inconvenient facts like people change their names on marriage, drop dead, move away from the area

or the debt was erroneously recorded in the first place and it is Mr Cox they want, not Mrs Fox>

 

 

still, as they only have 1 address left it must be the right one

so the person there is telling lies when they deny being the Mrs Fox they are after.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think Lowell are chancers; they may be big players in the debt world, but it's still a grubby industry.

 

Remember, the drones who chase debts are usually driven by commission; if there is a better way to encourage poor practice I don't know it.

 

In my last dealings with them, they lied and tried to mislead me; not once, but several times. When I complained, they just cut all contact. So I think that this is their standard operating procedure; they only do the right thing when they've been caught out.

[citizenB]

I so agree with SP and would suggest sending the letter that has been drafted. This should stop them, but if it doesn't then I would be escalating to the Ombudsman and letting Lowells know you are going to do this.

[dx100uk]

old posts moved to your thread here..

[dx100uk]

sorry but I cant ever understand why you have bothered to reply to a no powers DCA

on a debt that's from 2002....

 

 

waste of time!!

 

 

dx