Contracts, Contracts, Contracts !. we operate in the sea of commerce, under contracts, that's the way forward!

i mean ..challenge the Contract as in ...Show me the Contract

Moorcroft quite like receiving this ......

Name:

Address

xxxxxxxxx

Date , 2009

Re: XXXXXX, dated 09/07/2009.

Notice of Request To Cease Harrassment.

To:

A n other debt collector

addess

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

I refer to your letter dated xx/xx/xx.

As you are a third party intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. I do not have a contract with you and any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. And I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail, and you will be in breach of these acts, and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

I am well aware of Section 40, sub-section (3) which you may consider entitles you to proceed. However upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury you will need to supply the following Proofs of Claims:

1. Proof of Claim that your actions are reasonable.

2. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is due, or believed by you to be due to you, and not to some other party.

3a. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is to yourself by providing sight of the appropriate contract, or

3b. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part to persons for whom you act by providing sight of the appropriate contract.

4. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part protects you from any future loss.

5. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is enforcement of a legal process on a Human Being under Common Law jurisdiction, who cannot possibly have such liability under said jurisdiction.

You would of course need to provide these Proofs, including showing the full and audited accounting, if you chose to go to law.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. And take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

Do not contact me again.

your name

( sign with a digital signiture if you have one , or diagonally across a 1p/2p/5p etc stamp if you don't , so that no-one can lift your signiture)

I've got alleged debts, please provide proof of claim!!!!!!!!!!

Contracts, Contracts, Contracts !. we operate in the sea of commerce, under contracts, that's the way forward!

I'm shocked to be honest, that they are allowed to flaunt the law like this. They do because no-one takes them to task over it

I've been reading this excellent forum for months now and thought I'd learned the major points but this is news to me, so I'm glad I stumbled on this thread.

Good!

So, if we are going through the CCA route, and they look like they dont have one (which appears to be the case with cards I have with Barclaycard and MBNA), chances are they will sell on to a DCA, and that should be the end of it? Obviously, its in our interests that they do sell on. Correct a mundo!

 

BF

please don't tell Sybil this !

Should I bother sending MBNA a letter in response to their dodgy DN account number now that it seems they have sold it on to a DCA - is this advisable bearing in mind they sold the 'wrong' account or will they just send another 'correct' one ans sell my proper account. If they have sold incorrect account then that surely means they actually have not sold mine does it not?

 

I'm now getting confused due to this issue just when I thought I'd got myself clear on the issues....

No, why help them with their administration ?

of course you could always send them a NOTICE of FEE SCHEDULE informing them that any correspondence you are asked to send them would be charged at say £250 per document!

well just checked the paperwork and the so-called DN that MBNA sent (details in another thread) did indeed have incorrect account number (have they sent same incorrect account number to everybody?) and this is the account number El Crudito are also using.

 

So I guess my account hasn't been sold if they've bought one with incorrect account number??? Or has it been sold even if account number incorrect? Puzzle.

Well if they have not even got a valid account number then you cant owe anyone anything under that invalid account number now can you!!!

I'm shocked to be honest, that they are allowed to flaunt the law like this.

I've been reading this excellent forum for months now and thought I'd learned the major points but this is news to me, so I'm glad I stumbled on this thread.

 

So, if we are going through the CCA route, and they look like they dont have one (which appears to be the case with cards I have with Barclaycard and MBNA), chances are they will sell on to a DCA, and that should be the end of it? Obviously, its in our interests that they do sell on.

 

BF

Should be the end of it yes, but dont forget that the DCA's dont look at it like that, they think .. i purchased for pennies i want pounds back! its all a game really......... SO DONT PLAY!

I'm just a natural cynic when it comes to these things

me too!

Exactly B F, the tone of their letters and the jargon they use can, and does, sometimes frighten people into making arrangements with them, when 9 times out of 10, they havent actually got a legal leg to stand on.

jed

correct a mundo , fear & intimidation is their only weapon

Thanks again. It seems this contract aspect is not something mentioned much on CAG but seems ever so important and obvious so many thanks for the enlightenment.

 

I now have two letters sorted and will post on MOnday by special delivery. THe letter you suggested (thanks) and a SAR to them also.

 

Am also contemplating sending another SAR to MBNA and a letter to them asking for NOA in particular. Any links to letter template or suggestions for this document from MBNA? Sorry, i dont have a template for asking for the NOA, maybe there is one kicking around on these forums though Shoulf I paste some fo the legal jargon above? MBNA have one hell of a reputation for not replying or admitting receipt of letters even after being sent by cpecial delivery.

in my humble opinion the Contract route is the correct way to thwart these bandits

Sorry for asking, I'm quite new to all this at the moment and am going the CCA route with MBNA, but why would a DCA buy a debt knowing full well they cant legally enforce it because of no contract with the debtor? Is it purely just to try it on and frighten people into paying when they shouldnt be?

 

BF

most people have no clue about all of this and it is this ignorance that they prey on , its very profitable for them! plus remember the DCA tries to make a contract with the alleged debtor, thats why they call you on the phone etc

ok so its Licence Number:014809, thanks

thanks

 

I have not received any notice of assignment from MBNA so I think I probably have to respond to the DCA (your letter) first as I basically do not have any evidence other than their letter that they bought it do I? The OC will take a while to get back to me so best I send something off to DCA in meantime? yes i would, send my notice

 

Have also copy/pasted some information on NOA from elsewhere on CAG - seems MBNA should send the NOA registered? yes they should if they have sold it Somebody was asking if there should be prescribed layout and got no response - good question. Also would like to know if the DCA is allowed to communicate /ask for payment / process my personal data etc IF the OC has not sent me the NOA. The DCA is "Allowed" to do what ever they want, after all it is their business that they are running... but dont focus on trying to haul them over the coals for their bad biz practices, they all do that ..just keep your focus on whether you have a Contract with them or not Should I not get NOA first or is this just wishful thinking on my part? yes you should but in reality the DCA do not do any due dilligence of debts they purchase , they just want to come after you and create a contract between the parties

 

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—

 

21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

 

23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

 

 

25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

 

see above for answers

what should I do if I think they have bought the alleged debt then??

First: Establish via the OC if & when they have sold the debt, if they provide evidence that they have sold the alleged debt then do the second below

Second: When the DCA contacts you claiming money, put the DCA to proof of claim of a contract between you & the DCA

How do I get the notice or deed of assignment and off whom? Should I SAR this DCA then for more detail? The OC would have to provide the evidence that they have sold the alleged debt on, so yes you would have to obtain this info from them, via a SAR if they wont play ball

 

I think there's obviously been a mass sell-off by MBNA in last dew days as it seems a few people who had the strange default letter which wasn't a default letter also got this letter from the DCA. its possible of course

 

Perhaps I should ask to merge this thread now with my MBNA one... mods anywhere think this a good idea but with title change to MBNA sold debt to DCA or something like that?

ok see above

SC84131 came up as their Co Reg Number when i searched Companies House

see below

The WebCHeck service is available 24 hours 7 days a week

Name & Registered Office:

WESCOT CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED

KYLESHILL HOUSE

GLENCAIRN STREET

SALTCOATS

AYRSHIRE

SCOTLAND

KA21 5JT

Company No. SC084131

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 28/07/1983

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7487 - Other business activities

Accounting Reference Date: 28/02

Last Accounts Made Up To: 29/02/2008 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 28/12/2009

Last Return Made Up To: 10/09/2009

Next Return Due: 08/10/2010

Last Members List: 10/09/2009

Previous Names:

Date of change Previous Name

22/11/1988 WESCOT CREDIT SERVICES (SCOTLAND) LIMITED

thanks again.

 

So if I don't believe they have bought the debt I send the letter.... in fact I'd be daft to believe they did buy the debt wouldn't I? I think I am understanding your logic.

If you dont believe they have purchased an alleged debt... then send the Notice, correct , thats what i would do

why would you be daft? if you went down the CCA route with the OC, they know that they prob dont have a valid CCA agreement and therefore can't enforce it, so quite often they do sell on blocks of alleged debt en-mass

thats how the DCA's make their hugh profits, buying "debt" for pennies in the pound & Then scaring people into contracting with them to pay them money

am I right then to believe that the OC selling to a DCA a 'debt' is never valid / legitimate unless you somehow agree to it once it has happened?? Yes, read my earlier posts, if the OC HAS sold the alleged debt on then you owe the OC nothing, You do not have to agree nor do you care that they have sold it on ( actually it is in your interest that they have) BUt what you have not/should never agree to is a Contract with who else has purchased it to pay them any money !

 

IF the OC did have a legit. CCA then permission to sell debt would be in terms and conditions? again, You do not have to agree nor do you care that they have sold it on ( actually it is in your interest that they have)

 

I notice how FOS and ICO constantly make reference to the fact that it is 'likely' that this or that is in T+Cs (usually the power to process data). again see reply above

 

Nuke'em - thanks very much. Is that latter the first one to be sent off do you think? I note your comments regarding cca being a handy stalling tactic. Get used to sending "Notices", they send you Notices, you send them Notices back. The Notice above should be sent to them if you believe that they have not purchased the alleged debt. If on the other hand they provide proof that they have purchased the debt, then a Notice would need to be sent requiring Proof of Evidence of Contract etc between the two parties ie You and the DCA

 

Also regarding the OC - should I be making reference to the DCA that the OC should not have sold debt because of dispute or is all that in the past now? again, another blind alley, remember if they have really sold the debt that is great news for you as you can't owe the OC anything as someone else, in this case a DCA (say 8%) and the Inland Revenue, via Tax relief granted to the OC ( say the balance of 92%) have cleared it for you

Thanks for that but SC84131 is their Co Reg number, no mention of a Consumer credit license No, correct ?

Whats confusing though, nuke em, is when you get a letter from the dca after you CCA'd them, they allways say something like 'We have requested the document you require from the original lender, once we receive the document we expect to be paid in full'. If they have bought the alleged debt, and the agreement was with somebody else, how can they expect any money when their name is not on the document? jed

I think the CCA route is a bit of a blind alley, its a good way of stalling them from the enforcement point of view, ( as i dont believe there any ANY valid Credit Card agreements , from a Contract law point of view) but doesn't make an alleged debt go away. it just mean they cant enforce it through the courts.. thats why the OC's keep appointing different DCA... and thats why different DCA peddle their own particular brand of "pay up or else" crap!

as regards "We have requested the document you require from the original lender, once we receive the document we expect to be paid in full'. Who cares what their expectations are! They DO NOT have an contract with you, therefore YOU do not have to pay them a bean! and if they think they do have, again , let them provide proof of their claim.

remember DCA's are always trying to trick you into a Contract because they know that without it they have squat!

Remember: Agreement of the parties = Contract

REmember: Agreement of only one of the two parties = No Contract

Thats interesting nuke em, so, does that mean that even if the dca comes up with a legitimate credit agreement, they cant enforce it through the courts because the original agreement was made with the original lender? Or is this where 'absolute assignment' etc comes in? jed

"Legitimate" & "credit card agreement" is an oxymoron surely!

"They" can assign, sell, give away or do what they like, but YOU have not at any any time entered into a contract with with the "receiving" DCA . Therefore if you have no contract with a DCA, YOU can not be made to pay them any money. Of course if they phone & harrass you and you agree on the phone " er .. oh yes i'll pay a fiver a week, then bingo you just created a contract with them to pay !!!!! , thats also why they phone you and will record the calls, if you agree.. its evidence of CONTRACT between you and the DCA

Thats also the reason for 'orible IVA, payment plans etc, to get you into Contract to AGREE to pay them something per week/month!

of course if they cant prove they have purchased the debt then they only are acting as agents of the OC in which case a go forth and multiply Notice is in order , something like this will surfice

Name:

Address

xxxxxxxxx

Date , 2009

Re: XXXXXX, dated 09/07/2009.

To:

A n other debt collector

addess

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

I refer to your letter dated xx/xx/xx.

As you are a third party intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. I do not have a contract with you and any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. And I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail, and you will be in breach of these acts, and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

I am well aware of Section 40, sub-section (3) which you may consider entitles you to proceed. However upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury you will need to supply the following Proofs of Claims:

1. Proof of Claim that your actions are reasonable.

2. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is due, or believed by you to be due to you, and not to some other party.

3a. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is to yourself by providing sight of the appropriate contract, or

3b. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part to persons for whom you act by providing sight of the appropriate contract.

4. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part protects you from any future loss.

5. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is enforcement of a legal process on a Human Being under Common Law jurisdiction, who cannot possibly have such liability under said jurisdiction.

You would of course need to provide these Proofs, including showing the full and audited accounting, if you chose to go to law.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. And take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

Do not contact me again.

your name

( sign with a digital signiture if you have one , or diagonally across a 1p/2p/5p etc stamp if you don't , so that no-one can lift your signiture)

anyone know Wescot's current Consumer credit license no, when i look it up on the Gov website it comes up as expired in 2002 ? or are they now part of a larger banking group?

You can ask for a copy of the Deed of Assignment to prove MBNA have sold the alleged debt on. However if MBNA have sold the debt on ( even if they accepted a reduced amount from a third-party DCA) then that alleged debt is now settled in full as far as account ledgering is concerned for MBNA & yourself. ( ie lets say they accepted 8% from the third-party DCA then the other 92% will be taken as “bad-debt relief” on their books, all legit under inland revenue accounting rules) All comes to the same thing – your account at MBNA is now at Zero! – therefore you have no liability to MBNA.

Now if a third-party interloper has purchased an alleged debt for pennies in the pound and is coming after you, then they are only trying it on.

Simply put the DCA to Proof of their Claim… because you have no contract with them, period. And if they think you have, ask them to prove it in writing! By the way if you enter into any telephone discussions with them and agree to pay them anything you will have created a contract with them, so don’t talk to them on the phone, also don’t offer them any payment in a letter. Put the burden of proof on them always!