Lowell portfolio1.

Several years ago,I took out a contract with 3 for a mobile phone at £25.00 per month.Around 3 months later,maybe less, the phone started experiencing problems.The phone would not get a connection where I worked, yet up to this point,I had no previous problems.The phone,if I did eventually get a connection,would cut me off mid way through a phone call.The phone would only send around 15%-20% of text messages.I took it into the 3 shop in Nottingham, and explained the problems.I was asked to take it next door to Carphone Warehouse for a software upgrade as Carphone Warehouse did all 3's inhouse repairs/upgrades etc.I obliged and got the phone back 2 days later only to be met with the same problems.I went back into the 3 shop and told them and was asked to take it to Carphone Warehouse again as there might be a new software update.I did that and got the phone back the next day.However,I was still experiencing the same problems so I went back into the 3 shop and was asked to take it back to Carphone Warehouse for a thorough test and repair.I got the phone back several days later but was told the PCB board was warped and that it was not covered under the warranty, and that if I wanted it repairing, I would have to pay.You can imagine I wasn't very happy with the fact I was told I had to pay for a repair to a relatively new phone that was nothing to do with me.I went back into the 3 shop and told them what Carphone Warehouse said.I was told by the 3 assistant that they stood by the decision from Carphone Warehouse, and 3 would refuse to repair the fault or replace the phone, much to my disgust.I went home, looked at some legislation on the internet, and came to the conclusion that 3 had contravened the Sale of Goods Act 1979 by not repairing,or replacing the phone whilst it was still under warranty.On top of that,they also contravened the Misrepresentation Act 1967 by charging me £25.00 a month for a service they could not provide to my phone, as well as giving me a phone that did not do what they were claiming it would do.I sent the phone back recorded delivery,which was signed for 2 days later,with a letter stating that 3 are wrong, and quoted the 2 pieces of legislastion above and stated that 3 have broken the terms of the contract as they cannot fulfill their promise.I never broke the terms because my money was always in the bank as and when 3 took it by direct debit.Needless to say, in the letter,I stated that my contract was now null and void, and I duly cancelled the direct debit..Suddenly, I am being bombarded with letters demanding payments for my mobile phone contract which 3 alleged I still had.I was also bombarded with letters from debt collection agencies demanding money or be taken to court.2 debt collection agencies have tried without success to get me to pay.The last was Moorcroft, who upon me giving them the information,investigated the matter, and replied back to me around 2 weeks later saying that no further action will be taken.That was probably around 2-3 years ago............fast forward to this week,when I received a demand for £322.34 from Lowell portfolio1 over an alleged debt I owe 3.Lowell allege they bought the debt from 3 and I now owe the alleged sum of money to Lowell.I contacted Lowell and asked for a copy of my agreement with them as i cannot recall signing and dating any agreement or contract with Lowell.I also asked for their CCA. Today I received a reply from Lowell saying that they sent me a letter dated 16th Feb.2015 advising that Lowell Financial Ltd were now the account holders.......I never gave Lowell permission to buy the alleged debt from 3, so where do I stand with this?.Can I request proof that Lowell did actually purchase the alleged debt from 3?.And what law would Lowell likely use to say that they can purchase a debt and demand money? .Incidentally,I emailed David Dyson , who I think is the chairman of 3.I quoted all that I have included above and am awaiting his reply.

Lowell portfolio1.