Red for Lowell OHs old t mobile debt

[Guileshill]

Hey guys, I have appreciated the advice given to others on this forum and now need to ask a question or two myself.

 

At the end of November last year a letter was sent by Lowell claiming money for a mobile phone contract allegedly entered into in December 2003.

 

This was addressed to my then fiance, now my wife. When she opened the letter on her return to the UK (she lived in Germany) early in December, she called them to find out what this was about. She was told that T mobile had been trying to recover money owed since 2003.

 

The problem is that she never took out a contract with T mobile. At the beginning of December 2003 she returned to Germany after being in the UK for a couple of years. Just before she left her purse was stolen. She notified her bank, of course, and got an emergency identity card issued at the German Embassy. Two days later someone used her ID to take out this phone agreement.

 

The letter from Lowell was the first she knew of the matter.

 

She called them to ask for evidence of the debt, they guy said this was not possible. Eventually he agreed to send information, but instead and immediately put the matter into the hands of Red. (Both companies well known on this forum apparently)

 

So we replied in writing to both companies, sending the required fee, and following guidance given here.

 

We have now had a reply from Red (on our wedding day of all things) claiming that this type of agreement is not regulated by the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act and that therefore their client (Lowell) has no obligation to supply any information.

 

So, we have a certain case of identity theft from five years ago, a letter from a company we had never heard of about a debt that we know nothing about. They have been told these things but are pursuing nonetheless. It is likely that we could provide evidence of the theft (the notification of the bank, the record of the emergency id card at the embassy and possibly statements from those who were witness to my wife's actions when the purse was stolen (her employer and the family with whom she lived at the time). She can also show that she was living in Germany from that date. (Why they think anyone in Germany would want a T Mobile phone in the UK I have no idea).

 

The questions are....

 

Is it possible that they can proceed without providing any evidence that the debt exists, that they own it, in the face of rigorous denials?

 

Should we take any other action now?

 

Oh, and incidentally, a matter of detail, the name details on the letters are presumably the details used by the person who stole the purse. The surname is misspelled and letters have been sent to a Mrs Mispelled, although she has never been married before. So the only bits of information that were not on the ID card and other information in her purse are incorrect.

 

Any knowledgeable responses would be greatly appreciated.

[saintly_1]

Hi and welcome to cag

 

As the onus is on them to prove that the debt is owed I suggest that you send the 'prove it' letter

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account no:

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

(Your Name) Print do not sign

 

 

Saint

[cerberusalert]

If those idiots at Lowell have passed it on to those even bigger idiots in Kilmarnock, they know that they can't enforce it.

[ODC]

Lowells are a bunch of Cretins. The mobile phone agreement is not covered by the CCA. However the still must provide proof that the debt actually exists and that they have a legal right to collect it. They will not be able to do this so I wouldnt lose any sleep iover the Leeds Losers. Just ignore them they will eventually disappear up their own rear orriffices

[Guileshill]

Thanks for these comments.

They echo my instinct.

What a tiresome bunch they are.

 

It worries me though, about the people who work there.

Either it is sould destroying work or some people actually enjoy putting people through this nonsense, in which case there are more people with personality disorders than I had thought possible.

[Guileshill]

Further to this, and any advice would be appreciated.

 

We have just discovered that Lowell have issued a default credit report which is now showing up on my wife's credit record.

 

I was under the impression that companies like them, who purchase second hand debts, were not allowed to add these to the formal credit ref agencies. But to issue this when the debt is seriously disputed has to be wrong.

 

Any advice on what we should do?

[cerberusalert]

Send the Lowlifes this.

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I have discovered that you are illegally processing my data without proving any debt exists between your company & myself.

 

Please note you may consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I therefore request a copy of your official complaints procedure which you are obliged to supply.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

[mr.ton]

The DCA's love putting defaults on people's files just to be vindictive & the credit ref agencies are only too willing to assist them as they are both best buddies with each other.

There's 1 of two things you can do.

Kick up a big fuss/get all the authorities involved & even get compensation?

Or just leave the thing there to rot away on the file as it will make no difference to weather credit is obtained in the future or not (contery to popular UK myth)