I have a judgement, claim dismissed, a DCA did not supply DOA. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:- 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). It sometimes appears that this site is more Solicitor and DCA Action Group than Consumer

They have not proved by way of Deed of assigment that they are entitled to collect.

After some research (Court Services have not heard of a GSO.) It seems that these orders were used for the mass selling of mortgages. Here's a sickening (as far as I'm concerned) article from Mortgage Finance Gazette. "On the transfer of any mortgage which is subject to litigation, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) require an application to deal with the substitution of the new charge holder as claimant in each ongoing action. Traditionally, this would involve applications being made in every case, creating a major headache for lenders, administrators and their advisers having to deal with large volumes of legal proceedings within a portfolio. The GSO is a single application for a single order. The order substitutes the buying party as claimant in multiple cases at once by reference to an annexed schedule. On that basis, and given that it is a discrete application, it can be prepared by solicitors on a fixed-fee basis and a single court fee of £45 is payable. The cost saving in terms of court fees alone for a thousand cases is therefore the best part of £45,000, leaving aside the much more significant solicitors’ fees which would be generated by those thousand applications." As far as the Court Services are concerned My C.C.J. is still with the original claimant so I'll restart paying the original claimant. We really need to consider a class action to establish that DCAs must supply a DEED OF ASSIGNMENT verifying their authority to collect

So you're saying I should continue paying HSBC despite them saying they have sold this debt and have informed the credit reference agencies that the debt is satisfied so who at the moment owns this debt? And if Cabot have been sold (assigned) the debt we are entitled to see the deed of assignment. I have a court ruling to this effect with another DCA who would not or could not supply DOA and I won the case.

As far as we are concerned this bunch are not the new owner the county court still has the original claimant on the judgement.

No, original judgement claimant sold the debt and informed us they had no further interest in the matter and that as far as they were concerned the debt had been satisfied and they would inform credit agencies. We then tasked Cabot to supply proof of their legal right to collect this debt by way of change of claimant notified to us from local county court that had original judgement This situation with these GSOs must be sorted! I have just contacted the court service and they inform me that the CCJ we have, still has the name of the original claimant so here's a scenario we start to pay Crapbot we sell our property Crapbot say they are the claimant on the charging order but the CCJ and land registry still have HSBC as claimant. This seems like the DCA is skating close to what is legal and its very lazy, done on the cheap legal practice.

I have also got one of these Global Substitution Orders connected to a previous thread, (can a CCJ be sold) all I want to know is does this trump ( bad use of term!!) O.C. CCJ and charging order. Will the original court inform me? Will paperwork be changed Crapbot have now threatened to go back to court to get an attachment of earnings, this is a joint CCJ I am retired, my wife is still working. Been looking on websites this is an extract from Mortgage Finance Gazette (incidentally a GSO costs a one off fee of £45!!) GSO Applications proceed on very similar lines to individual substitution applications. They can be made without notice and must satisfy the usual requirements of Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding the substitution of parties in existing proceedings. Evidence of the transfer must be shown, together with evidence that affected borrowers have been given notice of the transfer. The draft order should contain a schedule providing details of each claim, including the claim number, the county court where the claim is proceeding and the name of the defendant(s).

so tell me what their next step maybe also you state the legal position what is the lawful position?

and the judgement states claimant is HSBC Also Andy, who seems to ere on the side of the DCA, you say crapbot have the charging order ?? and various other forms of execution what are they, door step visits ooooooo! threatening letters ooooooo back to court oooooo good.

Charging order is in name of original claimant who have now sold debt.

If I read the terms (typical legalese, confusing and aimed to confuse crap) of the Law of property act correctly, the assignment has all the original creditors legal rights, does that mean that the CCJ is automatically re assigned to the new "claimant" if this is the case why havent the new owners just taken this back to court? If this debt has been assigned I have the right to view the deed of assignment? In past cases in court I have successfully won after no deed of assignment was correctly presented to the judge. I can see where your coming from Andy, as a man who's successfully defeated **** DCA in the past it appears I will have to make my own way from here. Should I win this case I will come back to this site not to gloat but to inform. Adieu for now

You sound like a solicitor Andy! Please note as I said debt has been sold not assigned, I believe that the DCA can threaten all they want if they dont change via court and charge claimants then they can get stuffed.

Most "Solicitors" acting for DCAs are not but are semi legal depts of the DCAs, or bluffing bullies!! The ones dealing with the sold CCJ are Mortimer Clarke part of the Cabot financial group. As for their collection ability, the debt has been sold to Cabot there is no change of claimant on judgement or charging order, the original claimant has written to me saying the debt has been SOLD and they no longer have any interest in the matter, so I believe 1. the debt and therefore CCJ has been sold (not sure if this is lawful) 2. if the debt is sold it has been satisfied. 3. A new CCJ cannot be taken out on the same debt. Therefore can I just ignore the demands? as the only thing the new "claimant" can do is to apply to court and Land Registry to change claimant details. Any thoughts?

CCJ was for disputed overdraft with First Direct claimant parent bank HSBC we had to pay DG Solicitors then reverted to paying HSBC direct.

This matter again raises its ugly head. Four years ago had a CCJ and charging order on debt With HSBC, I was informed before Christmas that the CCJ and Charging order had been sold NOT ASSIGNED to Crapbot, letter from Mortimer Clarke, saying pay our client through us (they're part of Cabot group) I asked them to supply proof they sent me copy of letter of sale from HSBC. I believe they cannot use CCJ and charging order to intimidate me into paying them without changing claimant on CCJ and Charging Order, am I right? Or will they continue to bluff and bully as I will not roll over until they do things right.

Apologies for reviving this very old thread but these "sales" are still continuing and no definitive advise. I have an O/D with HSBC CCJed with a C/O now sold (the "sale" is specified in correspondence from HSBC) to DCA and their pet solicitors are informing that I should now pay them. The main questions are, does the court have to be informed and the judgement altered, who can enforce the C/O, can the DCA take this back to court for enforcement.

Cheers Renegadeimp, will complain to OFT who are SRA?

Received from Bryan Carter letter on 7th Aug 2013 Re an alledged debt. I have requested verification of debt from various agents, non received. The letter threatened court proceedings on a specific date. I sent them a cease and desist letterand over a month later no action has been taken. Yesterday I got a reply saying my account was on hold. Firstly can I insist that they verify that the debt does not exist, or can I threaten them with action as they "demanded money with menaces" when they threatened me with specifically dated threat of court action. Some web advise says this can also be construed as blackmail?

Not quite telephone harrassment. Just had email "Final Demand" from DCA. Has a signature and name can I threaten legal action. To my knowledge never given my email address on social media.

This is a two year old debt, we were a little nieve then, and judgement was awarded with much hast with us making mistakes. I am a regular contributor on another site and have successfully 'beaten' various DCAs. As this debt when first in arrears went to Triton credit services is it a fair assumption that it was sold, also I am asking present solicitors (collectors) to furnish me with the accounting proving that Tesco is receiving our payment. Interestingly at the start of the CCJ we continued to pay Tesco and Incasso (the first collector) attempted to take us back to court for non-payment, as a representitive of Tesco surely they would have known we were paying Tesco. Therefore they proved theirselves as an interloper, with no first hand knowledge of the debt. This debt was probably sold to collectors but getting either party to admit is probably going to be imposossible as they are all in it together.. ...Sorry to go on, letter was sent by DWF LLP Solicitors.

We are paying a CCJ alledged Tesco loan debt. On the judgement papers it said we must pay Incasso, however they have appearently gone into administration. We have today received a letter saying that we must now pay DWF LLP. solicitors. Two points, why if we owe the debt to Tesco do we have to pay someone else, and if that "agent" changes should this not go back to court? I suspect the debt is sold and therefore these agents are third party interlopers and cannot recover the alledged debt.