I thought I'd better start a new thread in regards to this as it may help others find info on the same thing.

I asked Cabot finance for a copy CCA and a true copy of the Deed of Assigment. They got back to me saying that they have requested the CCA and it could take up to 40 days which I know is not allowed so sent them another letter in regards to this but my question is that in response to my request for a true copy of the Deed of Assignment they said that

"This document is confidential between the original lender and us and as such, is not available for disclosure. However, the Notice of Assignment was originally sent to your postal address on 18th Oct 2011, which is sufficient evidence to justify our ownership of this account."

Now I file everything and have no copy of this notice and also need to know if they are legally obliged to send me the original Deed of Assignment?

Please can anyone help?

Thx

No they are correct Allison...only a Court can force disclosure of the DoA...unlike the NoA.

Regards

Andy

They are correct the Deed of assignment is a ''commercially sensitive'' document and is the fianacial contract between the seller and purchaser of a portfolio of accounts so will hold data on more than just your debt, a judge can order its production but would view it privately.

No they are under no obligation legal or otherwise to produce the document.

Thankyou so much just wanted clarify

Hiya alison regards to post #1 a CCA is 12+2 days a SAR is 40 days

Just to muddy the waters on this one a little, I agree that in general the deed is a commercially sensitive doc, however when it is a piece of evidence on which their whole case hangs they will disclose it.

I had Cabot on my tail a while ago and contested their ownership of the account, accusing them of fraud by using another companies letterhead with the intent to deceive

- they provided me with a heavily redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment, this was used to form part of my defence as there was nothing in the deed which specifically identified my account and the dates did not match.

This was a blanket purchase agreement which covered numerous accounts which were allegedly identified in a spreadsheet which accompanied the deed

Which is why requesting a DoA is pointless!

Which is why requesting a DoA is pointless!

Although to be fair, a lot of the time even a NoA seems to be absent, despite DCAs' claims to have sent one previously. One almost wonders if this is a deliberate tactic for some of them, as otherwise it would provide prior alert to their potential victim, when sending any subsequent purposefully vague 'please ring us about an urgent matter' letters.

Which is why requesting a DoA is pointless!

We used the redaction as a part of the defence, which worked, if the deed doesn't show a real link between the assignee and assignor, then it can cast a doubt over their claims of ownership and as most NOA are created by the DCA themselves, there would be nothing from the OC to show any assignment actually occurred.

In some cases I have heard (anecdotally) of DCA's have dropped claims entirely rather than reveal the contents of a deed, so whilst I see your point, it's not entirely pointless,

Anything that makes them back off must at least deserve a shot

All quite true Spam but unless they accidentally disclose it by error only a Court can force disclosure as per my initial post.

Regards

Andy

All quite true Spam but unless they accidentally disclose it by error only a Court can force disclosure as per my initial post.

 

Regards

 

Andy

An interesting point must be what is meant by 'commercially sensitive' in terms of the DOA?, is this to do with witholding sensitive information from ones competitors?, or is more to do with disguising from the punters the tiny amount paid for debt from the OC?. Personally speaking I would have thought that at some time in the future there should be a relationship between the amount paid for the debt and the amount that is able to be recovered from the punter, some hope I know, but what does the OFT consider to be an acceptable profit margin?. Fair trading being the laughable definition!!

Commercially sensitive basically means company secrets. Or confidential company information not fit for the public domain.

Interesting but the meaning of 'commercially sensitive' I suspect is a minefield to define and is an excellent way of 'hiding' unpaletable information in favour of the lovely people concerned in the debt business.

Not really wooldra. Almost every single company has commercially sensitive documents.

100% agree about commercially sensitive documents. My point is more related to the 'gearing' between what is paid for a debt and what the punter is coerced , frightened, bullied into paying. I know that under current legislation you can buy for a pound and sell to the punter the principal that he should pay the original sum for it, as per law of property act 1925. Sure there is entitlement for all companies to make a profit but in this nasty business what should this be 500% 1000% more?, less? Especially as in the majority of cases the people receiving attention are in a distressed financial state, i.e. what is fair?

I agree. But its long been known that these documents would show that a £10,000 debt, usually unenforceable (example) would have been sold for 7-20% of its worth. The DCA then see's a massive profit in it and goes full pelt against the debtor. The sad thing is that a huge percentage of debtors think this debt is still legit, and accept a CCJ and enforcement orders or pay it outright through loans, or even remortgaging. The DCA doesnt care where the money comes from, as long as it goes into their account.

In the "good old days" most if not all of what goes on in the financial world would be classed as usury and would be illegal in any court of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

unfortunately the banks found a way round the usury laws and so began the vicious spiral of debt buying and selling whereby a "debt" worth say £1000 can be "bought" for £100 and then the buyer can make claim for the full £1000.

In a free market you can buy and sell at a profit on whatever the market will sustain but "debts" have no market value other than what the "debt buyer" can achieve from the debtor

hit the wrong key, ( you owe me £1000)

If the alleged debtor objects to the "debt" then the fun begins and the "owner of the debt" has to make financial decisions about the cost of pursuing the particular debt, especially if they have no proof of the alleged debt, just a spreadsheet of names and amounts.

Without getting into the FOTL arguments which are weak at best I still think that debt buying and selling is usury at its worst.

The document would be ''commercially sensitive'' because it will contain the details of other accounts bought in a portfolio of debts.

Brig, fully understand about not showing others personal data, but I do not believe that the appropriate data cannot be extracted for each case.

It would I think come down to ''reasonable'' costs and I don't think will ever do anyone a lot of good if the deed was produced, you most certainly wont find out what was paid for the debt, just that it was sold on a particular date and the namw of the purchaser. An NOA tells the debtor of the sale/ purchase of a debt.

Debt is sold in bulk at £xxxxxxxxxxx not as indivual accounts with each one separately priced.

I am throwing a spanner into the works now. as stated, A request for disclosure of the Deed of Assignment can be made at the CPR 31.14 stage if mentioned in the particulars of claim, though a judge will have to decide on it through objections, The usual routine of a commercially sensitive document means nothing as to case law, and is irrelevant

IF NEW CASE LAW IS now in existence to make the case law below redundant then please list it, but as far as i am aware, it still stands to allow the inspection of the Deed of Assignment

(Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824).

Creditors/DCs will simply refuse to comply or will produce a meaningless redacted document and leave to a judge to decide further in my experience o 2 occassions when a judge has oredered a view od a deed it has been seen only by the judge in any detail.

Things like any redaction of documents will be left up to legal arguments and directions of the court.

The point i am making is that the party to the claim has the right for disclosure as to the case law that has been listed. Commercial sensitivity as a defence not to disclose means nothing

But it will still come down to judicial interpretation as to disclosure