Jump to content

bengateway

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

40 Excellent
  1. For what its worth, common sense is the crux here. Why would you pay £1500 in a lump some 4 years ago if it wasn't anything other than a full and final settlement. And even more important. Why would the DCA accept this payment, and then leave the remaining balance for 4 years without setting up a re payment programme with you to recover it. If it was supposed to be anything other than a full and final, the 4 years simply would not have elapsed with no further contact. Discounted full and finals are well known within the industry. You know it, They know it, And a district judge would know it. Stick to the facts, keep it simple. They have to prove its not a full and final settlement, not the other way around. I would be very surprised if a DJ would honestly see it any other way. Only my opinion, but as said common sense please.
  2. http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/6fdmd-ccj-held-record-years-date-entered.html
  3. But what about debts that are sold when subject to a ccj. The original agreement no longer applies. The dca have purchased a debt subject to the terms of the judgement not the cca. So where is the signed consent to view your credit report within that ccj ??? Just a thought guys.
  4. Sorry for jumping in here guys. Would this also be true for a ccj, ie 6 years and it falls off your credit file regardless of if its been satisfied or still being paid off. I was under the impression that once it falls off your credit file after the 6 year period it should never re appear. The following links seem to confirm this ie http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/6fdmd-ccj-held-record-years-date-entered.html http://www.debtquestions.co.uk/debt_forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30668&p=224184 Thanks for any advice and sorry for jumping in on the thread.
  5. Or in legal terms, It is trite law in England that once a judgement is obtained under a loan agreement for a principal sum and judgement is entered, the contract merges in the judgement and the principal becomes owed under the judgement and not under the contract.
  6. It appears that the original creditor can rely on the terms and conditions of the CCA and request a claim against those terms in his particulars. Those claims then have to be granted in the judgement order. Once the judgement order is in place, the order is in essence the new agreement. when a DCA purchase debts in bulk, they need to be aware that they are purchasing a debt subject to a judgement order and not a CCA. As a third party purchaser, they have no legal right to any of the terms of the CCA because at time of purchase it no longer exists. Its as simple as that.
  7. Hi guys, an interesting development on this one. The old boy received a reply not from the OC he had written to but from the DCA. It looks like the OC didnt want to know, and have simply passed the corespondents directly to the DCA. He has received Notice of assignment. A copy of the CCA. And a statement showing payments made and received, and it looks like the OC have been passing the payments to the DCA. Now here is the interesting bit. The old chap managed to contact an old friend who is a retired barrister. The barrister is also friends with a retired DJ. They had this to say about the situation, and in particular picked up on the issuing of a CCA by the DCA. To quote, Should a debt subject to a judgement order be assigned to a third party interloper after judgement is in place. They are obliged to conform to the terms of that judgement. They cannot rely on the original credit agreement because it no longer exists. In essence the cca was between the original creditor and the debtor. The original creditor sought county court intervention to secure payment of that debt. An arrangement is made and the terms are set within a ccj. These terms now supercede the cca Once a ccj is in place, the rights and duties relating to the ccj are the only rights that can be assigned to the DCA And for them to make a claim for direct payment, that assignment would need to be absolute. How that helps I'm not 100% sure, but I am sure that he is now getting good advice and to be honest, I bow to there exprience and wisdom. I am very pleased for him because it looks like he is going to be aproaching the DCA with some very heavy weight help on board.
  8. Thanks Guys, From what I'm reading, and what I know of the situation I suspect the following. The OC probably has transferred under an assignment the account to the DCA (likely part of a bulk purchase). The couple have received a letter in 2004 from the DCA stating the debt had been assigned and future payments should be made to them. They ignored this and just continued making payments to the OC. The OC has probably been passing the payments to the DCA, and the DCA have accepted this situation for nine years. The problem is the OC has said it is closing the account and will no longer be accepting payments. This presumeably means that the DCA will no longer receive those payments. If both the DCA and the OC say the DCA have owned the debt from 2004 then there is no real reason to think its not true. And if the debt is subject to a ccj then the terms will still be in place and need to be complied with. If they stop payments, The DCA will think Christmas as come early and go for the kill (my opinion) The grey area is not one of debt ownership, but to whom the payments should be made. As I see it, if the OC say (in writing) they must now pay the DCA directly, then I would imagine that would not be a problem. After all, the debt is still being paid under a judgement order, its just that the owner of the debt has changed. Yes its important to get the account balance and confirmation in writing from the OC that the DCA should receive any future payments directly. But I feel that if the OC confirms that these payments have been passed to the DCA anyway, then little as actually changed. Surely they could just send (for example) a postal order payable to the DCA with the account number every month, and simply leave it at that. Nine years after the DCA took assignment of the debt, why rattle cages when your there age ?? They dont need the hassle guys, and there a lovely old couple.
  9. I agree Brigg, I feel they should take the court staffs comments on board with regards to paying the claiment on the ccj. And at the moment thats the OC. As said nine years have passed since the DCA's assignment. Thats what the OC told them. They said it was assigned to the DCA in 2004. I said get that in writing from them. A possible SAR to the OC could be on the cards. The main thing is to maintain payments and proof of payments as per the ccj arrangement terms. I hope thats good advice at the moment. It mirrors your thoughts Brigg, and the court staffs, so cant be far wrong
  10. The court staff said the ccj is not on there immediate system because its so old. Hence they need to search archives. They did say it looks highly unlikely that the original ccj has been ammended. If this is the case, They have an OC who is saying stop paying us we arent interested anymore, please contact the DCA and pay them direct. And a DCA who has no legal right to payment in the first place. How crazy is that Brigg, An OC who is entitled to payment but dont want it. A DCA who presumably have been receiving payment passed on from the OC and content with that arrangement for the past nine years, But arent entitled to the payments if the OC stops being the middle man ???
  11. Good Evening Brigg, In 1997 they said the claim was for £3500. The judge ordered monthly payments of £2-00 a nd the OC's claim for costs was dis allowed. I'm unsure of an accurate figure at this time but considering they have been paying from then until now we are probably looking at 16 years x 12 months = 192 x £2-00 = £384-00 aprox. So should be about £3116 outstanding (should be??) He said they offered more than that to start ie £10-00, but the judge looked at an income and expenditure and said NO you cant afford that you will pay £2. He said to the OC's solicitor, you know how much they can afford, they have been quite transparent, and offered you a payment proposal, and yet your client chooses to escalate this matter, and you willingly oblige. The courts have serious matters to attend to. Please refrain from waisting court time in this way in the future. He said I felt the Judge was on our side bless em. I said it certainly sounds like it. They are both pensioners, which is why I am trying to help, and as said they dont own a computer.
  12. Surely even if the DCA was substituted as the claiment the terms of the ccj would still apply. Would not a re determination order or variation be needed to alter the terms of the ccj. And only a DJ could do that ??
  13. The courts said carry on paying the OC until the CCJ is traced and see if the OC is still the claiment. As long as they have a receipt for payments ie the counterfoil from the payment slips. They can prove they have continued making payments in good faith as per the terms of the ccj. Dont forget the DCA sent a hello the devil now owns your soul letter back in 2004. They have obviously found the payments via the OC acceptable so far, otherwise they would have taken them to task by now. Surely if the debt has been assigned the DCA would need to explain why this method of payment has been continuing for 9 years without issue. And I would suspect that if the OC have been servicing the payments this way, they would need to explain why (after 9 years) they have suddenly decided to slam the preverbial door in there faces. Crazy is it not. A creditor takes a debtor to court, gets a judgement order that both parties and a distict Judge agree to. And then write the whole darn thing off for a fraction of the original debt, so that a DCA can hound the debtor for a nice fat profit. Is that the way it is, or am I missing something. Be nice to know if it went back to court, how the Judge would see the whole scenario ??
  14. Many thanks for your advice. I spoke to them today and passed this on. They have contacted the issuing court who are going to dig up the ccj from there files. I also suggested that because they have been paying the OC all along, they would be the best ones to aproach for the current balance on the account. So for now. See what the court has to say, and see what the OC come back with. Once again thankyou for all your help.
×
×
  • Create New...