Hi asokn Re the Bills of Exchnge Act... if a debt is merely assigned, that surely means it does not change hands, as you explain above, they must be telling lies when they state quite clearly that 'we have purchased your debt'. Are they lying?

We have asked questions in previous threads but all that is in the past, irelevant. The problems now is simple really, our OC could not produce a legible agreement - we made four attempts to get one over a year - they were all copies of the same, all illegible, so we told them no agreement, no money. That was a long time ago. Finally, they issued a faulty DN, by 4 days. They made no attempt to issue a new and corrected DN, we having sent a letter of acceptance asking for the amount of any arrears (as per last year's discussions herein). Eventually they sold the debt to the DC whom we asked for proof of claim - all we got was a cocked up assignment letter and a mockery of a re-hashed default process that should be made a matter of law - we insisted in every letter that there was no debt, no contract. Finally we did an SAR to the DC that was a waste of money, same illegible app form and a bunch of statements - oh, and T&C's dated several years out of date - as were the T & C's we had from the OC. Eventually it went to lawyers who issued a Claim. During this period I was not well (I am 82 and semi infirm) and under the hospital for suspected nasties these last few weeks so I did not do as much as I might have in different circumstances... I did a CPR letter requesting CUPTR(2008) and pointed out certain laws, which I hesitate to mention here - 10 days before the 14 plus 14 days was up having earlier indicated an intention to defend. Our request was ignored so, in my ignorance, I wrote a letter to the court telling them that we could not submit a defense as material evidence was not forthcoming. In due course, a letter from the court arrived stating that a judgement may be made in which case, an app to set aside would need to be requested and paid for. We are still waiting. In essence that's about it. Reading over this it does seem to me that it might not be easy to discuss this matter on CAG because some of the tactics used are not used here and I would not want to cloud any ideas members may have of what CAG can do for them. I think what we need to do is to now get on track regarding court procedures with a view to putting a defense together. I have to say that I am aware of some elements of the 1882 Bills of Exchange Act which clearly states that when a debt is paid off, it is extinguished which links in with the advice given everywhere, DO NOT SPEAK WITH DC's - they try to get you to contract with them... the point being that unless they get you into contract, they have no claim - no contract so as an (alleged) debt is paid off by them, it cannot exist for them to claim from you unless there is an agreement. Now whether this can be used as defense, I do not know - it should be because the Act above is law. So here we are, hanging in space wondering what will happen next... we need to be prepared for the worst, hence this request for advice. Many thanks charlie

Well, for all that, due to circumstances, we did not put up a defense within 28 days following a CLaim from the courts. Instead we wrote a letter which was in their hands by 9.00am of the 28th day explaining a difficult situation and that we had requested certain information from the claimant inlcuding CPUTR that might have helped form a defense. Their reply, short and to the point acknowledged our letter and pointed out that we must have a defense in no later than 28 days following service of the Claim letter OR, judgement MAY be entered against us. (MAY ??) It it is, they continue, we would need to apply to set aside and pay a fee. £80. Having looked at one or two reports herein on defenses, I really don't know that I can handle this - too old, short term memory is shot. Anyway, any thoughts much appreciated. I thought I was being so smart, but, obviously not Thanks charlie*

I just don't believe this.... Before my granson left 6th form at 18 he was given a credit card with a limit of £3000... he was then earning $400 a month as a part time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's, long before he left college. Bit like Toad in Toad Hall, HE HAD TO HAVE A MOTOR CAR. Now he's earning £500 a month elsewhere - no thoughts of uni yet. This is the Abbey National (Santander). Now he's up tohis limit and he has an overdraft too. I don't yet know the full story, but he has been ringing around to see if anyone would give him a better deal like zero rate to start - BUT, on his income for £3000 + o/draft? NO CHANCE - none of them want to know £3000 to his income - never, maybe £1000. Santander say £3000 is the normal credit to start, any age. I ask myself WHY do they seem to be bucking the rest of the industry? Now, having been paying the minimum to Satander is well stuffed and they want him to take out a 5 year loan agreement to cover his two debts. Talk about 'churning'. Now, being a cynic and knowing the real truth about banks - and how the bank employee/bonus/income/to keep your job you must learn to lend system works, I believe he has been deliberately and cynically stuffed by one of the people in the local branch simply to make them look good - maybe they were even warned about a bad lending record. There are people in CAG who know about handling situations like these and I really do beg anyone who has any constructive ideas to come forward and express their thoughts. I know that he should do whatever it takes to keep his record clean - that would be to structure the debt, but, these people really do need shafting - at local level. I am aware that they were [EDIT] even before the spaniards took over. Could it be, I ask myself, all part of building up their structured debt asset (income) value prior to seeking a quotation - which the press reports they are proposing to do - [EDIT] Thanks charlie*

Hi ghost, Yes, I agree, these agreements are promissory notes - financial instruments, that are traded - just like those in America with the sub-prime mortgages - but there must be a reason for our own... Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) 1999 Section 1 sets out the circumstances by which a third party may seek to enforce the terms of a contract Section 2, sub sections 1 - 3 sets out the circiumstances by which a third party can become a third party Section 6, sub-section 1 confers no rights to a third party in the case of Bills of Exchange, Prommisory Notes and other negotiable instruments. It states quite clearly that in order to be a third party, you have to be named in the T & C's. If this counters anything else - CCA S.82A, Law of Property Act etc, then we need to know. Thanks for your input

oops, 'ere we go again... (said the earwig as he fell over the cliff) It would appear that 82A only kicks in on agreements old or new AFTER Feb 2011 What went before and how would it before and/or after tie in with Contracts(Rights of Third Parties) 1999 where third parties must be listed in an agreement/t&c's and cannot be involved in prommisory notes, financial instruments or bills of exchange. Any comments chaps? (all inclusive term, lads and lasses)

Just a quick question for anyone who's passing and in relation to Cabot / Morgan... I see that the BofScotland quotes 16.1 (& 2) in their Terms & Conditions ... "Where any rights of a creditor under a consumer credit agreement (for example the right to be repaid the money) are sold or transferred to a third party, notice of that assignment must be given to the borrower as soon as reasonably possible, except in the circumstances described below. This requirement applies to all regulated consumer credit agreements other than agreements secured on land. New section 82A of the CCA43 - S16.1 etc. It does not indicate who or what third parties or any conditions under which they can buy... Whereas Contracts(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 indicates - If no third party is identified by name (in the agreement T&C's), thenas indicated under S1, sub-sections 1 - 3 of the above Act (eg: a dca) is not a third party to the contract and therefore has no rights in the matter? S6, sub-section 1 also of the above Act “confers no rights on a third party in the case of contracts on bills of exchange, promissory notes or other negotiable instruments”. (I am given to understand a credit agreement is a negotiable instrument). Can anyone make any sense of this - can a dca buy a debt if he is not listed as per ? Trouble is looming so any comment might also be helpful to Simongee above. “Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy." Lord Denning:

IMS21... I am very much obliged to you. Best wishes and thankyou charlie*

Item 16 - 16.1 and 2 - BofScot T & C's states they are free to sell a debt.... Then in brackets (Consumer Credit Act 1974) I will follow your suggestion, in the meantime if anyone has a copy or can point to a copy of the CCAct, that would be great - I used to have one - now I can' find one anywhere. Many thanks

... point to any information or references in the Act that specifically permits OR's to sell debts to third parties. If this is in the wrong place, my apologies. Thanks charlie*

No, done nothing yet - where is the legal forum? - I'll have a good look now see if I can find it ..................... FOUND IT Thanks

Hello all, Is there are particular letter to use to ask the Court to give more time to prepare a defense? Appreciate comments - suggestions. Thanks

If your 'credit agreement' is 2002 and the requirements of s.61 CCA 1974 and subsequent Regulations were not complied with, then the 'credit agreement' is irredeemably unenforceable under s.127 of the 1974 Act (repealed by the 2006 amendments). Based upon the details you have posted here and on your original thread, it appears that you applied for credit by way of Application form and that said s.61 applies, therefore, the 'credit agreement' is unenforceable. The Mould It would be very interesting to know if the above would / might be applicable to Sains 2004 apps/allegd agreements.

I read through the Brandon appeal and the way I see it, he lost - so I'm not sure what you mean - un less there has been something more recent ??

Well chaps, I'd really like to dig a little deeper into this - but I don't have much time left to come up with an answer. If I used the faulty DN (say 5 days short of 14 days) is there any history herein of a DCA challenging that in court? - 'cos if they did and the judge found for them, then the sh-item-toc would sure be flying in this house. Any thoughts - anyone? Many thanks,