I don't have a thread of my own open which could relate to this, and it would be unfair of me to hi-jack someone else's.

The Law of Property Act 1925, Section 136, is relied upon by DCA's in trying to enforce their possession of a debt. I was reading something else, unrelated, in which I found an interesting paragraph that is maybe worthy of discussion here.

The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, 1964 CHAPTER 55, as published on 16th July 1964 and reproduced at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1964/cukpga_19640055_en_1

(also referred to at Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20) - Statute Law Database)

An Act to modify the law of England and Wales relating to the avoidance of future interests in property on grounds of remoteness and governing accumulations of income from property.

Scroll down to section 4 (6). This reads: Section 163 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (which saves a disposition from remoteness arising out of a condition requiring the attainment of an age exceeding twenty-one years) is herby repealed.

It was repealed?

There's more in that particular Act that could work for or against various cases, but if section 163 was repealed in 1964, does that mean DCA's do not have a case in law?

Just curious, as I can't find any other discussion on this to help clarify. 8)

I thought DCA's relied on S136 Law of Property Act 1925??

136. Legal assignments of things in action. —

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and

© the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

(2) This section does not affect the provisions of the M2Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

(3) The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed.

AH - Apologies if I have the wrong section number. I saw 163, thought it rang a bell, checked a couple of threads here and...

Sorry if that got people going, not intended. That's why we have a forum, to get to the bottom of these things.

(I have edited the first post to correct the error - Steven4064)

haha no worries.... I thought we'd been missing something all these years lol

Always worthwhile having open forum discussions on any new or potential weapon to tackle these issues.

Cheers

UF

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1274894.html

M1