spookstar, Pie and Beer commenced numerous court actions. Some people settled, some fought. The one's that fought won. The Financial Ombudsman Service, which Pie and Beer were a member of, dealt with these cases, including negotiating compensation for Pie and Beer's victims. Pie and Beer were not entitled to seek court enforcement of a contract covered by the UK CCA. It is also an offence under Australian Law for a DCA to threaten action that they are not entitled to take. ASIC is supposed to be tightening up it's licensing of DCAs so hopefully this will never happen again. CAG appears in many google searches for "UK Debt in Australia" and similar phrases so hopefully Australian DCAs have got the message.

CBeach and others, It's been quite the battle, and some of us have had more fun than others, but Pie & Beer have been soundly thrashed. All cases have been dropped, the Privacy Commissioner has refereed all its cases to ASIC who are investigating these fraudsters. Some of us are still finalising our compensation claims against Pie & Beer, others have already settled and received our cheques. Before all this started, nobody had tested whether UK credit agreements were still covered under CCA if the defendent was resident in Oz. Pie & Beer tried to claim that the debts were covered under Oz law. FAIL It is safe to say that UK debts will not be enforced in an Australian Court. Pie & Beer tried this. FAIL It is an offence under Australian Law for a creditor to threaten to take an action against a debtor that they are not entitled to take. If anyone is threatened by a DCA or creditor with court action for enforcement of a debt covered under UK CCA immediately file a written complaint with ASIC. If anyone has paid money to a DCA , especially Pie & Beer, as a result of threats of legal action where the debt is covered by the UK CCA, file a complaint with ASIC. Pie & Beer, along with other DCA rely on defendents being ignorant of their rights. Thanks to the CAG Forums, and others, ordinary people have come together to share knowledge and stand up to the thugs and conmen. Pie & Beer thought they could bully us but came away with a bloody nose (and a lighter wallet). The real damage will be inflicted by ASIC who now have enhanced powers to deal with rogue DCAs who choose to ignore the law.

It is important to identify which CreditCorp you are dealing with. There is a CreditCorp Ltd registered in London which is a UK company, and CreditCorp Pty Ltd registered in Australia. The Australian company is a member of the Australian Financial Ombudsman service (FOS), and isn't registered with the UK Financial Services Agency. wamosh, one letter you could send would be to clearly identify the creditor (if CreditCorp, which company) and whether the assignment is absolute or beneficial. A creditor can only seek court enforcement on their own if an assignment is absolute. If the assignment is beneficial, the creditor would need to sue jointly with the original creditor. For an assignment to be absolute a number of conditions need to be met. One of the most important is that any assignment must be received by the debtor. Proof of receipt is needed, NOT proof of sending. Sufficient proof is an afadavit from a process server or your signature when receiving a registered letter. Without proof of receipt of a valid Notice of Assignment, any assignment is not absolute, it is merely beneficial. To procede with court action where the assignment is merely beneficial, a creditor would need permission of the court for the original creditor to join in the court action. The original creditor would then have to agree to join the assignee in court action. More detail on assignment is contained in previous posts on a different thread. Just search my user name for info. This forum has helped a lot of people fight injustice. Please give back with any information you think may be helpful to others. I'm sure the people who have to pay for web hosting and bandwidth would appreciate a contribution too.

CreditCorp are not the original creditors. Before we can consider jurisdiction and entitlement to enforce a debt through the UK court system, we have to consider assignment. In summary, if CreditCorp bought the debt from the OC then they effectively become the OC. Once the debtor receives a correct Notice of Assignment, the assignment becomes "absolute". Once the assignment is absolute, the assignee can commence proceedings to recover the debt through the courts providing it meets all of the other requirements of court action, and the requirements of the OC. Assuming that CreditCorp has bought the debt and correctly delivered the Notice of Assignment, CreditCorp is now the original creditor. Now, assuming CreditCorp has provided all of the documentation to the debtor, and fulfilled all requirements under the the Australian UCCC and UK civil procedures it could sue the debtor and ask the appropriate County Court to enforce the debt under Australian Law. Alternatively, if CreditCorp failed to deliver a correctly worded Notice of Assignment then the assignment would only be a beneficial assignment and CreditCorp would not be the OC. CreditCorp would be entitled to request leave of the court for the OC to join in the action against the debtor. Check out my other posts for more details and case law on assignment. Alternatively, a debtor could simply dispute the debt with Credit Corp then file a dispute with the Australian FOS who would bar CredirCorp from any further collection activity until the dispute had been resolved. The Australian UCCC is not as comprehensive as the CCA but is similar in that if a creditor fails at even one hurdle, the case fails. I have a lawyer friend who used to work on the dark side. Over 90% of cases where a debtor defended the action, it failed because of insufficient or incomplete paperwork.

William, don't forget to file a complaint with ASIC for breaches of their Debt Collectors Guidelines http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=733222&nodeId=701ac447ba70f932e4deaeb83d6e0239&fn=Debt%20collection%20guideline%20reprint%202010.pdf Also, with the Privacy Commissioner for breaches of the NPP and Privacy Act. No English court is going to touch a case brought under Australian Law that is cleary in dispute. Credit Corp is a members of FOS and has agreed to be bound by FOS rules and decisions. FOS is one of only two ombudsman services recognised by ASIC, who issue credit licences. Any debt collector that loses its membership of both ombudsman services loses its credit licence: game over.

William, There is no template as such. Just write to Credit Corp at their head office requesting all information it holds on you including, but not limited to, any contracts, any credit agreements, any statements, any correspondence, any personal data, any transcripts of telephone conversations, any assignments, any diary entries, any internal or external communication or notes, and any computerised data. It is your right under National Privacy Principle 6 of the Privacy Act. National Privacy Principle 6 covers access by an individual to data held by an organisation. 6. Access and correction 6.1 If an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual Full information can be found at http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6583#npp6 Have a read through all of the NNPs then email the Privacy Commissioner with details of all of the NPPs Credit Corp has breached. It is unlikely Credit Corp will provide you with the data you request, but the Privacy Commissioner usually gets the info. However, it can take months.

The DCA are not trying to enforce an Australian Judgment they are trying to get a UK court to enforce a contract under Australian Law.

William. Credit Corp are a member of FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) the online dispute form effectively puts the debt in dispute preventing Credit Corp from enforcing judgement in any court. FOS will contact you in the next week or two for further details of the dispute so start reading up. ASIC (www.asic.gov.au) are now the sole regulator for credit card debt. Before Credit Corp can seek judgement it must have done the correct procedure. Your FOS dispute allows you to throw the kitchen sink at Credit Corp. Dispute jurisdiction, validity of the consumer credit agreement, write to Credit Corp for copies all information they hold on you then complain to FOS that it hasn't been provided, inform FOS that no letter of Assignment has ever been received (assignment is only effective from the date it is received by the debtor) this means that Credit Corp are not entitled to make a claim against you, inform FOS that no Section 80 letter has ever been received (which means Credit Corp can't take court action), and anything else you can think of. Until your dispute is resolved Credit Corp will be unable to progress any case against you. Unless Credit Corp has followed the correct procedure all action will be stayed. Be sure to download FOS Terms of Reference to see how Credit Corp will be bound. The icing on the cake is that Credit Corp will have to pay FOS to investigate it.

With regard to Jurisdiction, it is possible that an Australian contract can be enforced in a UK court if the UK court is deemed to be the appropriate forum to hear the case. Given that the debtor is a UK resident, it could be argued that a UK court is the appropriate forum. Regardless of Jurisdiction, any contract between an Australian financial institution and a (then) Australian resident, signed in Australia is subject to Australian Law. A creditor would have to sue in a UK under Australian Law, which is not the easiest, or cheapest option. As the alleged debt is covered under Australian Law, the creditor would need to be a member of an Australian financial ombudsman service (there are two: FOS and COSL). Simply disputing the debt with the ombudsman service is going to delay anything for months at least. There are a lot of things a creditor has to do under Australian Law to enforce a judgement in court, not least issue a Section 80 letter before commencing any actions. Anyone interested in reading up should google "ASIC debt collection", "Section 80", "UCCC". New laws brought in on 1st July 2010 make it even more difficult for Australian Debt Collectors.

With regard to Jurisdiction, it is possible that an Australian contract can be enforced in a UK court if the UK court is deemed to be the appropriate forum to hear the case. Given that the debtor is a UK resident, it could be argued that a UK court is the appropriate forum. Regardless of Jurisdiction, any contract between an Australian financial institution and a (then) Australian resident, signed in Australia is subject to Australian Law. A creditor would have to sue in a UK under Australian Law, which is not the easiest, or cheapest option. As the alleged debt is covered under Australian Law, the creditor would need to be a member of an Australian financial ombudsman service (there are two: FOS and COSL). Simply disputing the debt with the ombudsman service is going to delay anything for months at least. There are a lot of things a creditor has to do under Australian Law to enforce a judgement in court, not least issue a Section 80 letter before commencing any actions. Anyone interested in reading up should google "ASIC debt collection", "Section 80", "UCCC". New laws brought in on 1st July 2010 make it even more difficult for Australian Debt Collectors.

Hi The Mould, Your passion for helping people knows no bounds, and I have great respect for you. I sometimes imagine you wearing a cape! However, your post contains a couple of errors: I will say it again, in order for a Notice Of Assignment to be legal, effectual in law, it must be signed underhand in express notice by the assignor (MBNA in this case) and delivered by recorded post to the debtor (blackbear in this case), An assignee is allowed to issue the actual Notice of Assignment, which is usually written into the Deed of Assignment or Sale Agreement. Delivery by recorded post is only one of the methods allowed. The reason recorded post is allowed is that it proves receipt of the Notice, and a Statutory Assignment is not efective in law until received by the debtor. Blackbear has admitted receiving the Notice (albeit called a Default Notice) so it would be difficult to say that no notice of assignment was received. MBNA - the assignor in this case, must join the assignee - Arrow Global in this case, as a party to the action,BEFORE any action can be taken. With an equitable assignment of a legal chose the assignee may sue the debtor party in his own name but, as the legal title remains vested in the assignor, the company or trustee must be joined in the proceedings before the assignee can recover any damages (Weddell and Another [1988] 1 Ch 26). (reference post 20 on this thread). If an assignee commenced legal proceedings believing that it had Statutory Assignment but later discovered it only had Equitable Assignment it can apply for the assignor to join the assignee in the action after it had commenced, but before it was enforced. These are relatively small technical issues, but are important to some people lodging a technical defence.

pt2537, I stand corrected. "Must state absolute assignment." Should have read "The assignment must be absolute and not purporting to be by way of charge only." If Blackbear admitted receiving a notice (albeit a Default Notice) with the correct amount, where the date was correct, and the assignor and assignee were clearly stated, along with sufficient information to identify the account, it would be very difficult to argue that it was invalid under the LOPA 1925. I haven't seen the CCA but if it doesn't legibly contain the prescribed information it is a better route. Blackbear, I would really encourage you to seek an experienced lawyer given how far this has gone, and what is at risk. Also, have you contacted your local MP for help?

Here is the information on assignment. Hopefully it will be of help to some. Statutory Assignment The English Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 introduced a statutory assignment. S 25(6) of the 1873 Act has now been replaced by s 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In simple terms, an assignee of a valid statutory assignment could now sue the debtor in his own name. This is effectual in law to transfer to the assignee from the date of notice of assignment the legal right to a debt or chose in action, all legal and other remedies and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor. However, to create a statutory assignment, four conditions must first be satisfied, namely (1) the assignment is in respect of a debt or other legal chose in action; (2) the assignment must be in writing under the hand of the assignor; (3) express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or chose in action; and (4) the assignment must be absolute and not purporting to be by way of charge only. Such an assignment is subject to equities having priority over the assignee, that is, the assignee takes the assignment subject to any defects in the assignor’s title and all other claims the debtor may have against the assignor. The assignment takes effect from the date of receipt of the notice of assignment by the debtor, an exception to the postal rule that acceptance takes effect upon posting. (See Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 404.) As regards condition (1), the “debt or other chose in action” must be one that is existing at the time of assignment, albeit the debt is payable later. (Earle v Hemsworth [1928] All ER 602.) As respects condition (2), the assignment has to be in writing under the hand of the assignor. In other words, if an agent signs the assignment, then this will be ineffective. (Wilson v Wilson 1880 5 Ex D 155.) The assignment must still be one of absolute assignment and not by way of charge. Condition (3) requires an express notice of assignment in writing to be given to the debtor so that the debtor knows to whom he must now pay the debt. Consent from the debtor to the assignment is not necessary. The date of assignment must also be stated correctly, (Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839) albeit if no date is given at all, the notice is still not defective. (Van Lynn Development Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607) The notice will also be bad if the amount of debt has been stated incorrectly. (W F Harrison & Co v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169.) Upon receipt of the notice, the debtor must make all payments of the debt to the assignee and not the assignor and if he pays the assignor without the consent of the assignee, he may have to pay the assignee all over again. Condition (4) is perhaps the most important, that is, the assignment must be absolute and not by way of charge. Generally, the requirements of an absolute assignment are: (1) the assignment must be in respect of the whole and not part of the debt (Jones v Humphreys Ibid.); (2) the assignment must not be conditional and (3) the assignment must not be “by way of charge”. If the assignment fails to meet the above conditions, then the assignment will be an equitable assignment in which case the assignee has to join the assignor as a co-plaintiff but the assignor is entitled to sue direct.

Hi, Blackbear has PM'ed me to ask for my advice on Assignment. I have read all of the posts on this topic, some of which have become quite heated. Here is my 2 cents worth. There seems to be some confusion regarding the justice, law and the workings of the court system. The Law is not always the same as Justice. In Blackbear's case there is no real doubt that Assignment has taken place. The Default Notice even refers to it. The major question is whether statutory (or legal) assignment has taken place. For an assignment to be considered statutory (or legal) certain conditions must be met. A detailed posting including case law is contained on my previous thread. In summary the conditions are: Must be in writing. Must state absolute assignment. Date of notice must be correct. (although an undated notice is also correct). The amount owed must be correct. The Notice of Assignment becomes effective in law when received by the debtor. Proof of posting is insufficient. Unreturned registered post is ONE of the methods of delivery that is sufficient proof of receipt. If one or more of the above conditions is not met then the Assignment is not Statutory (or legal) but may be Equitable Assignment. The big difference is that an assignee is only able to enforce legal action in its own name if the assignment is Statutory (or legal). With Equitable Assignments the assignee can instigate legal actions in its own name, but must be joined by the assignor in order to have a court enforce the action. In Blackbear's case there is no way of knowing whether the assignment was Statutory (or legal) without seeing the Notice of Assignment and the proof of receipt. Making reference to assignment in a Default Notice does make the assignment Statutory, although failure to challenge the assignment MAY estop you from claiming this in the future. My advice is two-fold. Firstly write to the assignee asking for a copy of the Notice of Assignment and proof of receipt. The proof could be your signature on a registered letter receipt or a signed Stat. Dec. from a process server etc. The assignee has to prove you received a valid Notice of Assignment if you raise this as a defence. If you fail to raise this (as has happened previously) the assignee doesn't have to prove it. Secondly, you can chose whether to accept or reject any advice on this forum, but I urge you to engage legal council. These Debt Collection **** attend court preying they meet a defendant who represents himself. I studied Consumer and Business Law at university, and I know how to research a subject and present a case in court (I've never lost a single case), yet when it is important I employ a skilled and experienced lawyer who does this on a daily basis. Right now I have assembled a legal team that includes two barristers to take down a particularly nasty bunch of crooks masquerading as debt collectors. Blackbear, ask yourself: If you were the DCA going into court, who would you sooner face, a lay debtor, or an experienced and knowlegable lawyer? There is another truth that nobody speaks about. Some judges (not all) will look at you as just someone who has gone on a spending spree with someone else's money and is trying to use the court to get out of paying. The creditor's lawyers will present a well-practiced argument that his client is owed the money that was borrowed to you and that you have refused to repay it, forcing the court action. Without a reasoned argument backed by statute, and case law, you have very little chance of even being heard. Ranting on about justice to a judge will get you as far as I would get singing on Britains Got Talent.

Mandie94, Read up on Statute Barred. Each jurisdiction is slightly different. Mostly it's 6 years from last payment by you or written acknowledgement of debt. Some jurisdictions have less (Northern Territory is 3 years). Typically, once you have not made a payment, or acknowledged the debt in writing, for six years the debt is unenforceable. You still owe the debt but the creditor can't enforce it. NSW has a unique statute whereby the debt also disappears. If you were to make a payment or acknowledge the debt before the end of six years, the clock is reset. Some jurisdictions do not allow debts to be un-statute barred. So even if you make a payment on a statute barred debt it is still statute barred. Other jurisdictions such as WA allow statute barred debts to be enforceable should you ever acknowledge the debt in writing. The only way a creditor can stop a debt becoming statute barred is to take legal action to recover the debt. Commencing legal action before the six-year anniversary is enough if they win the case. Once a creditor obtains a judgement against you, the debt can't be statute barred. Check up whether having the wrong name on a claim form (is this a summons?) invalidates Creditcorp's case. You may be lucky if the wrong spelling of your name means the case is thrown out. Whatever happens, never acknowledge the debt. Write back to the court with your intention to defend. Try to string Creditcorp along by any legal method possible. Waiting until the last day to return paperwork, not being available for court until after July, having a mystery illness, having a sick relative in another part of the country, requesting extra time to prepare. Creditcorp may not be aware of their error and be taken off guard. In an ideal world, their case will be thrown out because the wrong defendent is named and their claim will then be statute barred. Don't take my word for the incorrect spelling. Check it out, and get the case law on it.

Here is the information on assignment. Hopefully it will be of help to some. Statutory Assignment The English Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 introduced a statutory assignment. S 25(6) of the 1873 Act has now been replaced by s 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In simple terms, an assignee of a valid statutory assignment could now sue the debtor in his own name. This is effectual in law to transfer to the assignee from the date of notice of assignment the legal right to a debt or chose in action, all legal and other remedies and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor. However, to create a statutory assignment, four conditions must first be satisfied, namely (1) the assignment is in respect of a debt or other legal chose in action; (2) the assignment must be in writing under the hand of the assignor; (3) express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or chose in action; and (4) the assignment must be absolute and not purporting to be by way of charge only. Such an assignment is subject to equities having priority over the assignee, that is, the assignee takes the assignment subject to any defects in the assignor’s title and all other claims the debtor may have against the assignor. The assignment takes effect from the date of receipt of the notice of assignment by the debtor, an exception to the postal rule that acceptance takes effect upon posting. (See Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 404.) As regards condition (1), the “debt or other chose in action” must be one that is existing at the time of assignment, albeit the debt is payable later. (Earle v Hemsworth [1928] All ER 602.) As respects condition (2), the assignment has to be in writing under the hand of the assignor. In other words, if an agent signs the assignment, then this will be ineffective. (Wilson v Wilson 1880 5 Ex D 155.) The assignment must still be one of absolute assignment and not by way of charge. Condition (3) requires an express notice of assignment in writing to be given to the debtor so that the debtor knows to whom he must now pay the debt. Consent from the debtor to the assignment is not necessary. The date of assignment must also be stated correctly, (Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839) albeit if no date is given at all, the notice is still not defective. (Van Lynn Development Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607) The notice will also be bad if the amount of debt has been stated incorrectly. (W F Harrison & Co v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169.) Upon receipt of the notice, the debtor must make all payments of the debt to the assignee and not the assignor and if he pays the assignor without the consent of the assignee, he may have to pay the assignee all over again. Condition (4) is perhaps the most important, that is, the assignment must be absolute and not by way of charge. Generally, the requirements of an absolute assignment are: (1) the assignment must be in respect of the whole and not part of the debt (Jones v Humphreys Ibid.); (2) the assignment must not be conditional and (3) the assignment must not be “by way of charge”. If the assignment fails to meet the above conditions, then the assignment will be an equitable assignment in which case the assignee has to join the assignor as a co-plaintiff but the assignor is entitled to sue direct.

I don't know too much about Court orders against non-residents but in civil cases a plaintif can apply for a court order, but the defendant can apply for a stay based on the fact that he is not resident in the court's jurisdiction. Check this up with a lawyer to find what the law says in your case. A cheap option is the Australian Law section of justanswer.com

Hi Pinky, Thanks for your help. Since my original post I have researched the subject a lot. I was amazed that so few people are aware of the law of assignment when so much is known here about the CCA and Default Notices. My subsequent posts were not critical of you, and I hope I don’t appear ungrateful for your help as Hefty implies. The reason for my subsequent posts is to try to inform CAGers of an extra weapon in their defence, and to increase the knowledge base here. An improperly drafted or delivered Notice of Assignment means that the assignment is not effective. Any assignment would be equitable rather than absolute, which is substantially different. I have sent you a PM with the case law if you wish to read it. In your earlier post there was a technical error. You wrote: Proof of an absolute assignment is in the Deed of Assignment. The fact you were not informed via a proper NOA will not affect a court ruling on ownership and enforceability. A more accurate statement would have been: Proof of assignment is in the Deed of Assignment. If the assignment is an absolute assignment it becomes effective once a valid Notice of Assignment is delivered to you. The fact you were not informed via a proper NOA will not affect a court ruling on ownership and enforceability. However, it will affect whether the assignee can commence legal proceedings without the assignor as co-plaintif. The agreements are also unenforceable in my case, but there are about a dozen of us so every possible defence is being considered.

Hefty, I normally would not have bothered replying to such an uninformed, opinionated personal attack such as yours, but there are people who here actually want to know the facts and are looking for some help. I originally asked for advice on a couple of technical issues that are critically important to a number of CAGers who have been working together for some time. I was hoping in my original post that someone would have had some case law to back up the section on Assignment in the Law of Property Act. When there was no immediate response I did some research and found two cases that have established the case law on assignment. My question was to the entire community not just the advisors. We have all been helped by the work of others on these forums, and I am very grateful for this forum and the people who contribute. I hope I have helped others in the past, and will continue to do so. I’m sorry if you feel that relative newbies shouldn’t know more than advisors who have been here for years. Unfortunately the courts pay more weight to proper research establishing precedent and case law. This isn’t about arguing over semantics. This is about legal precedent and case law. You may feel that I will have an unpleasant experience in court, but I can assure you that going into court with legal precedent and established case law to back up statute law is the most effective way to secure a positive outcome. Offering uninformed, inaccurate opinions is what usually leads to unpleasant experiences in court. It is irrelevant whether I feel that the paper trail is unsatisfactory. What is important is that I can prove in court that the DCA did not comply with the law. There are probably thousands of cases that have been thrown out of court because the defendant can prove that the DCA was in breach of the law. Equally, there are cases where a DCA was able to enforce a dodgy agreement because of lack of preparation on the part of the defendant. The whole point about my case and others I have been working on is that the DCA rushed to issue a summons to beat the statute of limitations which has since expired. The delay, and forcing them to issue a new summons, means that our debts would be statute barred. Quote “No where in the Sale of Property act does it say that a buyer cannot enforce the debt until the NOA arrives. In the above screnario, the debt wouldnt be enforceable” The act is the Law of Property Act 1925 and it states very clearly that: 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. If you research the subject you will find that any assignment that the debtor is not notified about is an equitable assignment, which is different than an absolute assignment.

Lealang, Your solicitor was right on one point: the Notice of Assignment. I understand that Creditcorp are the one's suing you. Creditcorp can only take action in their own name if they have an Absolute Assignment. However, for an assignment to be absolute there is a number of things that have to done. If the date of the assignment is stated on the Notice of Assignment, it must be correct. The amount owed on the Notice of Assignment must be correct. And the Notice must be received by the debtor (merely sending it to a previous address is not sufficient as the claimant must prove you have received it). The Notice of Assignment is effective from the date you receive it providing all other conditions are met. If there are errors in the Notice of Assignment, the assignment becomes an equitable assignment. The major difference between absolute and equitable assignment is that with an absolute assignment the assignee can take action in the courts in his own name. With an equitable assignment the assignor must join the assignee as co-plaintif. This will slow down the process as Creditcorp will have to go back to the assignor to have him join in a new action.

Heftyhippo, Essentially, what you say is very close. An ineffective Notice of Assignment simply means that there is no absolute assignment. Any assignment would be an equitable assignment. I was not proposing that the debt doesn't exist because of an ineffective absolute assignment, simply that without an effective Notice of Assignment there is no absolute assignment. The major difference between an absolute assignment and an effective assignment is that an assignee can't enforce an agreement through the courts without the original creditor being listed as co-plaintif. I found the case law after I posted my original question. I appreciate that for a number of CAGers there is no practical difference between an absolute assignment and an effective assignment. But for those of us who it does affect, it a huge difference.

How is that? I've researched several cases which have been thrown out because of an inaccurate Notice of Assignment. I know that the Deed is the vehicle for assignment but to make it effective a Notice of Assignment has to be given to the debtor. The assignment becomes effective when the notice is delivered. This is covered under the Law of Property Act and further clarified in case law.

My understanding is that for an absolute assignment to be effective the debtor needs to receive a Notice of Assignment. The assignment is effective from the date of receipt. Without receipt of the Notice of Assignment there is no absolute assignment.

I received a Notice of Assignment from a DCA #1. The DCA claimed it was an absolute assignment of a debt originally owed to Barclays. A Barclaycard account number was quoted along with an amount owed. Naturally I queried the debt but all I received was a notice of intention to summons followed by a summons. There are a number of technical queries but the two I really need assistance with are: 1. The Law of Property Act states that an assignment is valid on the date of receipt of the notice of assignment. Everything seemed fine until further research found out that Barclays hadn't assigned the debt to the DCA #1. Barclays had assigned the debt to DCA #2. DCA #2 assigned the debt to DCA #1. This has now been acknowledged by DCA #1. My understanding is: If I never received a Notice of Assignment following the assignment from Barclays to DCA #2 then that assignment isn't valid until I receive such notice, and the assignment is only valid from the date of receipt of the notice. Therefore, if there has not yet been a valid assignment from Barclays to DCA #2 then DCA #2 can't assign the debt to DCA #1 as it is not possible to to assign something you don't own. 2. The Notice of Assignment gave an account number (which was a credit card number) and an amount of 31K. However, statements from Barclays and the DCA's Statement of Claim to the court show that the amount claimed on that card is only a 12K. There are two other accounts, one for 10K and one for 9K. The three added together add up to $31K but only one account number is mentioned on the Notice of Assignment. My understanding is: If the amount on a Notice of Assignment is incorrect then the Notice of Assignment is invalid and a new Notice of Assignment must be issued. Furthermore, the summons following the Notice of Assignment must be withdrawn and a new one issued after the new Notice of Assignment. Also, if the Notice of Assignment failed to identify the other two accounts they can't be included on the Notice of Assignment, a new Notice of Assignment would need to be issued by the DCA. Is my understanding of these two matters correct? If so I would really appreciate some case law references as this is almost certainly going to court. Also, DCA #2 made reference to debt previously owed to Barclays. Is there any requirement for the assignee to be mentioned on a Notice of Assignment? Again, case law would be great.

Forgot to mention the fact that if the Notice of Assignment is incorrect and a new one needs to be issued, along with a new summons, the debt would now be statute barred.