Hi everyone. Please sign this petition, #share it, #retweet it everywhere. I appreciate for a petition to be valid, you need to give your personal details to be counted, but that should remain restricted viewing. This is a properly set up Govt. E-Petition to try to get them to look at the Law Of Property Act, where Debt purchasing relies upon this loophole to take your data, your unsecured debts, pay a small price for the info and chase you for the full amount, it is pure greed and the very fact it CAN stand up in a courtroom, assuming they have enough data (re. your debt/paperwork etc) and they CAN take your homes and property, it is about time this was stopped.

Can't guarantee this will succeed...it needs 100,000 valid and true signatures to get this to be looked at. It has been tried before and if people won't sign, it won't go anywhere....but hey, let's try again!

Some of you will likely prefer your debts to be bought cheap by these greedy grabbing DCAs, but the point is, they are heavy handed, they make people more stressed, more ill and the original banks/creditors as yet don't maliciously go after people's homes simply because they can. Obviously if there is a CCJ and that is not paid, there is that chance of losing home, property, becoming bankrupt, but we need to take away the one Law or loophole that makes it so easy for debt buying companies to manipulate say 900% profit or more (where applicable), if they succeed, but more so we need to STOP them bullying people that are in a financial mess and already unable to cope with the pressure, let alone the harassment.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/60324

I'll sign it, but it wont make a blind bit of difference.

Thank you, I know we are up against the odds, but tax and banks are in the limelight with Govt. so if they can't see the other angle that one is claiming tax relief (as I understand it) then the same matter is technically being claimed by the DCAs that don't pay the amounts claimed (by far), yet the legal court service goes along with it all.

But the biggy is taking alleged unsecured terminated debts and abusing Stat Demand/Bankruptcy despite other bodies stating not to be used for chasing debts, only as last resort....well we all know it is wrong, we can't sit back and let it continue. I don't expect for one minute to get this overturned, I do feel a little alone in taking on a big battle...LOL..but nothing to lose, at the least, if the target is met ie 100,000 signatures....EEK... then whomever at Govt. office will read it and if they put two and two together, their eyes might light up and think....hmmm tax loophole...

Now I know the other side of the argument, as if all banks started chasing via Stat Demands/Bankruptcy etc that the present IF and BUT of (if a DCA buys it) is the paperwork up to scratch...is there more of a chance of freedom from the alleged debt if a DCA doesn't have all the correct paperwork...or if they don't take to court....or if they won't win...some people prefer DCAs to try their luck, but too many people are feeling the brunt of this heavy handed mob, too many people, who never agreed to deal with these mobs via credit agreement being forced to pay up lump sums or face losing homes.

It is simply a Law that needs scrapping, I wrongly said 90% profit per individual as a rough guide (only where they win) but what I should have said was 900%, my figures are terrible... example paying up to £10 for say a £100 or paying up to £100 for a £1000, not factoring costs and all the ones they lose....we don't know their actual profits, but clearly

the legal system needs to work out that any person going to court, that paid that £10 or £100 (example only) could only potentially be owed that.

Someone clever will correct me, but I think this spells it out to those that aren't aware of what these companies stand to gain and put in relation to losing your home, say they paid £75 for that minimum threshold alleged debt £750, that they can make persons lose their home and as far as I have read on cases, the judge doesn't say to the DCAs, "well you only paid £75"...and so on

This is my disclaimer to them that won't like the idea of stopping banks selling cheap to DCAs, in that the extra complexity stalls or sometimes gets them in a better position

This has been going on for almost 100 years. It was designed, and implemented by the government, so dont get your hopes up that it will change. What you should have asked for is to make the guidance into regulation, so the creditors are FORCED to follow it.

Signed and tweeted

Thank you, very much appreciated. At the end of the day, this is to help so many people. It's as good a time as any, with the OFT due to close and a few DCAs licences being revoked, if they lose appeal, can't expect miracles but we can try

I think there was a lot more that could have been mentioned, you are right there, but at the back of my mind, I figured, if it ever does get heard then there should be a complete consideration, so along with reviews of banks and the change in OFT to new bodies (we know there is a lot of back scratching going on) but if they do look at the particular aspect of the old Law Of Property Act and DCAs buying cheap, Banks claiming Tax/Insurance, misuse of Stat Demand/Bankruptcy process and courts going along with it, they will have to delve into whole process of what replaces and what present and new rules they should apply/enforce, as you say.

If everyone viewing this post can PLEASE GO AND SIGN THE PETITION and help make change for everybody, go on, be bold.

2 more signatures added..

I think there have been many petitions to prevent turning unsecured debts into secured debts in this way. What I find reprehensible is that the original creditor would have factored in "risk" in the original interest rates.

They then offload the debt when the borrower hits a financial hiccup, writes the debt off their books and into the hands of a Debt purchaser who then manages to secure the debt.

Please also note that this only applies to home owners ! Who have been hit with a double whammy in that mostly the value of their property would have dropped like a lead balloon.

Thanks CitizenB

I have been reading for quite some time and as some people indicate a £15000 debt bought for £95 or in my own example the minimum bankruptcy level was £750 so if DCAs pay £75 (highly likely not that if the previous sum is correct) then it is extortion and fraud really, the whole thing about courts allowing this and tax relief to the original creditor, it is something needing successful change. I have just had a really ignorant person on another site shoot it down in flames, wants it to fail ( there are too many trolls about), which reminds me not to venture away from here Most grateful, long way to go.... haha

2 more signatures added..

 

I think there have been many petitions to prevent turning unsecured debts into secured debts in this way. What I find reprehensible is that the original creditor would have factored in "risk" in the original interest rates.

 

They then offload the debt when the borrower hits a financial hiccup, writes the debt off their books and into the hands of a Debt purchaser who then manages to secure the debt.

 

Please also note that this only applies to home owners ! Who have been hit with a double whammy in that mostly the value of their property would have dropped like a lead balloon.

Takes a long while for them to update their petitions doesnt it ?

It sure does, mind you, I think it is only a handful signed so far, but it was stuck on one for ages haha.

Just to confirm to anyone who is worried, their personal details are NOT viewable, I don't have access, so feel assured

Takes a long while for them to update their petitions doesnt it ?

Two threads merged and tidied.

No need to post the same thing anywhere else, please just keep this one thread for this petition.

Thanks CitizenB

 

 

I have been reading for quite some time and as some people indicate a £15000 debt bought for £95 or in my own example the minimum bankruptcy level was £750 so if DCAs pay £75 (highly likely not that if the previous sum is correct) then it is extortion and fraud really, the whole thing about courts allowing this and tax relief to the original creditor, it is something needing successful change. I have just had a really ignorant person on another site shoot it down in flames, wants it to fail ( there are too many trolls about), which reminds me not to venture away from here Most grateful, long way to go.... haha

I see where you're coming from but I cannot see how this practice can be regarded as extortion or fraud. It can, of course, operate in a very harsh fashion - and generally does. The key issue, for me, isn't this practice per se - but more so the actions of the DCAs once they've had the debt absolutely assigned. Their abilities to flout the rules, processes and regulations is incredibly frustrating. I'm hoping that the FCA will be able to act in a tougher manner than the OFT have done.

Hi ims21 Please can you assist boost visibility to enable the required numbers (assuming others may want to sign) , by whatever ideas in placing you have, thanks

Two threads merged and tidied.

 

No need to post the same thing anywhere else, please just keep this one thread for this petition.

Hi sequence, you are spot on re. the various elements and for sure I would have loved to add all of those to the petition, but I believe it was maxed out in description. I thought if they change that law, it helps the main issue where the whole involvement should be looked at and if the records of the OFT were anything to go by, they need to listen to people, I am sure many complaints will guide them, we know they have looked at three DCAs albeit grouped with their treatment, maybe they will look into all....a bit like they started looking at payday loans companies and added a few more after the original investigation.

But my point is draw attention to one 'underhand' misuse and they should look at alternatives.... gawd help us! I call it fraud or extortion as in physically, the DCAs can stand in court after paying out pennies in pound (as a guide only) and make out you physically took hundreds or thousands of pounds and the law as is, lets them. You take off the tax relief or insured amount the banks claimed and I know this is hard to explain, but it already makes the figure inaccurate. I am NOT saying we are entitled, I am demonstrating that in any other business, where solid goods are dumped, binned, claimed on via tax relief, they have totally NOT been allowed to take goods out of the bin and re-sell. Digging into the actual Law Of Property Act, it doesn't really say credit card debt is property, that is why we refer to DCAs buying your data, it is personal detail they buy, the agreement is terminated after default, more so when banks claim losses on it. My view is that is how wrong this law and loophole is, yet nobody ie Govt. has changed this.

If someone is made bankrupt (minimum £750 debt) yet the DCA only paid example say £75, for one it is below the threshold and two, this is how I am saying the Judge/court/law needs to look at the actual amount paid out, some have glimpsed it but it is not normally part of the consideration, so in laymans terms...they stand in court and say person owes them said amount, ONLY because someone has missed the bit in the law that says a new contract must be formed (they twist that to say only applies to mortgages)...I wouldn't mind thinking the law was more intended for solid property, than a computer record.... haha didn't have them in 1925!

I see where you're coming from but I cannot see how this practice can be regarded as extortion or fraud. It can, of course, operate in a very harsh fashion - and generally does. The key issue, for me, isn't this practice per se - but more so the actions of the DCAs once they've had the debt absolutely assigned. Their abilities to flout the rules, processes and regulations is incredibly frustrating. I'm hoping that the FCA will be able to act in a tougher manner than the OFT have done.

Digging into the actual Law Of Property Act, it doesn't really say credit card debt is property

It's a 'chose' - or a 'thing' as modern law likes to call it.

that is why we refer to DCAs buying your data, it is personal detail they buy, the agreement is terminated after default, more so when banks claim losses on it. My view is that is how wrong this law and loophole is, yet nobody ie Govt. has changed this.

I have a big issue with how data is assigned, that mechanism is built in to the contracts - and with things like regulated credit agreements, the rights and duties of the creditor pass with the assignment. I'm not saying that's right, of course, as when someone contracts with a high street loan firm they expect a reasonable standard of care and integrity - which may not be the same level provided by your average DCA.

If someone is made bankrupt (minimum £750 debt) yet the DCA only paid example say £75, for one it is below the threshold and two, this is how I am saying the Judge/court/law needs to look at the actual amount paid out, some have glimpsed it but it is not normally part of the consideration, so in laymans terms...they stand in court and say person owes them said amount, ONLY because someone has missed the bit in the law that says a new contract must be formed (they twist that to say only applies to mortgages)...I wouldn't mind thinking the law was more intended for solid property, than a computer record.... haha didn't have them in 1925!

Sadly, the amount paid by the DCA isn't directly relevant (though I think it should be).

There really needs to be far greater rules. If I was in charge I would introduce the following:

1. Minimum debt for bankruptcy proceedings by a creditor: £5k

2. Minimum debt for a charging order to be possible: £10k

3. Minimum debt for an order for sale to be possible: £25k

4. Maximum debt for an Administration Order: £15k

5. Maximum debt for a Debt Relief Order: £25k

Sorry, slightly off tangent

It's not really off tangent, it is exactly what needs reviewing, we know it may not seem fair to lots of people that pay all their money, because they can and never get into a situ where they can't, but any of those you mention are so stressful and a bit vindictive really, where DCAs go after your home or car etc (I know banks could too). It is questionable really, I for one know a case where a Stat Demand was attempted and the mega loud harassment which disturbed the neighbours, yet they had no credit paperwork that said signed, agreed in smallprint that it could be assigned, so were clearly abusing the stat demand bankruptcy process and that is scary for many people. So debts are sold even if the agreement isn't up to scratch or even no lawful one at all, flouting the rules that say must be sure beforehand, must do the relevant checks and have the documents...and they simply carry on, as it is a threatening tool, although now they often carry it thru to next stage... if the banks go for bankruptcy, I can't argue the same thing, as you likely DID owe, I am disgusted at the audacity of DCAs, that's my main issue, the pain they inflict on millions of poor people! So yes, you on same lines bar I'd up the bankruptcy thing as it is pretty nasty ;-)

It's a 'chose' - or a 'thing' as modern law likes to call it.

 

I have a big issue with how data is assigned, that mechanism is built in to the contracts - and with things like regulated credit agreements, the rights and duties of the creditor pass with the assignment. I'm not saying that's right, of course, as when someone contracts with a high street loan firm they expect a reasonable standard of care and integrity - which may not be the same level provided by your average DCA.

 

Sadly, the amount paid by the DCA isn't directly relevant (though I think it should be).

 

There really needs to be far greater rules. If I was in charge I would introduce the following:

 

1. Minimum debt for bankruptcy proceedings by a creditor: £5k

2. Minimum debt for a charging order to be possible: £10k

3. Minimum debt for an order for sale to be possible: £25k

4. Maximum debt for an Administration Order: £15k

5. Maximum debt for a Debt Relief Order: £25k

 

Sorry, slightly off tangent

One thing, which I still cannot get my head around, is that from a legal perspective - all that's needed for the debtor to have is notice from the new debt owner that the debt has been assigned. Nothing is needed from the original creditor. Surely that is open to massive abuse?!

It is abused both are supposed to write and now part of the service is the new DCA makes a letter on behalf....LOL

One thing, which I still cannot get my head around, is that from a legal perspective - all that's needed for the debtor to have is notice from the new debt owner that the debt has been assigned. Nothing is needed from the original creditor. Surely that is open to massive abuse?!

The law is that only the new owner has to inform the debtor. That's just nuts.

[source: s82A CCA - Which is just bringing in to power a simialr rule from the 2008 Consumer Credit Directive]

I am reading two ways on this law of property act (I note you are reading CCA), as I see it that the debtor needs to agree....and a new contract is formed between buyer and debtor... which is where I said they say that only applies to mortgages, well they can't have their cake and eat it... it simply makes no sense, someone allowed it others followed and that's the end....ermm not if we can change it, frankly I think they should end sale of credit card debt and loans and bank account data....NO AGREEMENT AT ALL THERE...

I have not seen lately where a very old law said we could buy our own or sell our own for £1 in which case, I'll just pop along to the local DCAs and pay a quid....oh but they will say noooo won't they? LOL

The law is that only the new owner has to inform the debtor. That's just nuts.

 

[source: s82A CCA - Which is just bringing in to power a simialr rule from the 2008 Consumer Credit Directive]

Debtor's consent isn't needed for a transfer under s136 LOP 1925. It's not possible to sell your own debt. The Rankines found that out the hard way. Though they were warned countless times!

I'll have another look at the law you are mentioning here later, haha it was just a thought, (I recall the 'business to get people out of debt via Rankine).. I tend to read Laws as in literal sense, often they can read totally different or multi ways. If we had the access, there are likely plenty more that the elders wrote, that haven't been ridded, just not openly published. So anyway, yes.... OFT previously delved into unfairness of charges (same topic, honest)... so unfairness of any person setting up a debt collection or purchasing company purely to profit from the victims of the banking crisis...or recession...or any other misfortune, unfairness of DCAs buying for such little and bullying people.

Debtor's consent isn't needed for a transfer under s136 LOP 1925. It's not possible to sell your own debt. The Rankines found that out the hard way. Though they were warned countless times!

Over 1000 views so far, why aren't you signing people, LOL? If you are not sure what it means, read further on this site and on the internet. Yes, you may owe the bank or credit card company and you could be feeling the stress - a lot! But if you are or have been on the receiving end of 'heavy' debt collectors/buyers, you should know, this is a big attempt to try to change things and if this is to be taken seriously it needs numbers.

Maybe all the views are the opposition!

So - what MIGHT be alternatives, if this law change happened? Maybe the focus could be on Debt Management, for example, ie a friendly company, you choose can arrange that you pay as much as deemed available for a set period of time and then the rest is written off after that period, sure beats being harassed for the whole lot and losing your home or possessions. OR if the law change means the bank or credit card company still holds the outstanding debt, at least you know you MAY have borrowed that, as opposed to DCAs/buyers making 900% (estimate) profit out of you.

Here's the biggy.....you're all here because you are seeking help or like to help, whichever way....this is for YOU! Rid the bad apples, if this is successful (and it only might be, if everyone backs it), you MIGHT be able to raise enough awareness to STOP THE BULLYING, whatever happens to your debts after any law change is irrelevant, that isn't the issue. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and that ISN'T what SOME debt collectors are interested in. (Can't say all....but you know)...they are ONLY in it to take you for ALL THEY CAN GET!

For those people that might read into this, for the purposes of this e-petition (mission), it doesn't affect your 'statutory rights' shall we say. Even if you have unenforceable or statute barred debts, these heavy mobs, still put people through the harassment and annoyance, they DON'T care, so I hope you understand me here, purely - let's get this buy cheap and make people's lives hell be gone!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/60324