Hi If there is still a debt outstanding, the account is NOT closed - it is still very much a live account! The original creditor may have withdrawn your credit facility and also may have written off the debt and/or marked your credit file as 'settled', but this is only an accounting procedure sometimes done when selling a debt on. If a debt is SOLD to a DCA then they become the new creditor and as such, are obliged to comply with your CCA s77/78 request. However, since you had already made this request to the OC before they sold the account on, then they had an obligation to comply. Also, as already mentioned on this thread, a creditor must not sell on a debt that is in dispute. This debt is currently unenforceable since the OC did not comply with your CCA request. I suggest writing to the DCA and telling them that! Also tell them that the OC should not have sold a disputed debt to them, as per OFT guidelines. Regards, Pam

Hi The CRA's dance to the creditors' tunes and always say that they have to check with their client(s) first before removing or amending any of our data! I would write to Cabot and argue, as I have suggested above, that since the debt was purchased by CF(UK) Ltd, Kings Hill had no authority to process your data. If they then respond with 'but it was Kings Hill who bought the debt' then you can point out the 'little problem' with the notice! I suggest you read Richard Spud's excellent posts regarding the assignment of debts - procedure/legal status etc. Regards, Pam

Hi Your claim would be against Cabot UK, as the owner of the debt. I have had a further thought about the issue of the default. Cabot have now sent you a copy of the 'assignment notice' in which they state that the debt was purchased by CF(Uk)Ltd (incorrect we know) but this is what they have put IN WRITING. So, if, as the notice of assignment actually implies, CF(UK)Ltd has always been the owner of the debt, and CF(Europe) the appointed agents, then what authority can they possibly show for an entirely different company (Kings Hill) to have registered a default against you? Of course, we all know that this is because it was Kings Hill that actually bought the debt (and was therefore the assignee) BUT their notice of assignment to you, which is required to make an assignment absolute, doesn't say that does it? You could use this notice to your advantage if you were to pursue an argument based on this. If they then wanted to argue that it was actually KIngs Hill, that bought the debt, this would make the notice of assignment invalid! Hmmm! - WW wedged between a rock and a hard place! A pleasing notion! Regards, Pam

Hi Cabot have their own supply of various creditor's headed paper and print off these 'notices of assignment' as and when the need arises. This 'notice' was obviously freshly printed in response to your request because, as you say, it states that the debt was sold to CF (UK) Ltd, when in fact it was sold to Kings Hill (who were only renamed CF (UK) Ltd on 15 Jan 07!) Oh what a tangled web we weave........!!! Regards, Pam

Your are quite right LB, this has already been discussed at length. I will just say that restitution and mistake (of law and/or fact) were pleaded extensively in my claim (which went to first appeal) but to no avail. I agree with you, Your Holiness! , but it's getting a county court judge who is prepared to think and act 'outside the box' that is the problem! Regards, Pam

Hi The reason why Mrs Wilson paid the £6,900 was because the 1st instance judge had declared the agreement enforceable and allowed her a certain time limit to pay the loan, failing which the court gave the creditor liberty to realise the security. She had therefore paid this money under a ruling of the court, which was then overturned by the COA. Because the order of the 1st instance judge amounted to enforcement of the agreement (subsequently declared to be unenforceable) the creditor was ordered to return her payment + interest accrued since that 1st judgement. These were special circumstances and do not set a precedent for general claims. An unenforceable agreement is still valid and lawful. I have already lost a claim for reimbursement under an unenforceable agreement, where the judge ruled that any payments made according to the (still valid) terms of an unenforceable agreement are made voluntarily and therefore the creditor is entitled to retain them. 'Unenforceable' is not the same as 'void' - it simply means that a creditor cannot force you to pay! I feel that any similar claim made at county court level is likely to be met with the same ruling. Any challenge to this would then have to be made on appeal - a costly and risky business! Only the COA and HL can change the law, county courts simply apply the general consensus! Regards, Pam

...

POST UNAPPROVED

POST UNAPPROVED

Post Unapproved

Hi all A rather belated update. I sent requests to all 3 CRAs for my OH's credit files back in April and they have all now been sent to him. NO defaults from Lowells!! I don't know whether they had previously recorded any but have since taken them off (because no credit agreement has materialised since CCA request in January!) or whether they didn't record any in the first place! But who cares? - OH's credit file is as clean as a whistle! Just wish mine was the same. Ah well, only another 3 years to wait! Regards, Pam

In which case, you must be a b*****d!!

Hi This is yet another case of right hand not knowing what left hand is doing. Send them a copy of Lowell's letter and advise them to check their facts!! Lowell's will have asked B/Card for the copy of the agreement to send to you in the first place and obviously there isn't one to be had - so no matter who Red Debt's clients are, they are up a gum tree!! Regards, Pam

Hi Dave This argument that a creditor may not profit from an unenforceable agreement and that this means you can claim back monies already paid is no more than a theory at the moment I'm afraid. It has not been tested in court and there is no relevant case law that specifically supports this assumption. That's not to say that such a claim would be unsuccessful - but who's going to go first?! I certainly would not advise relying on this assumption as a way of reclaiming monies if a debtor had allowed a creditor to off-set the refund of any unlawful penalty charges against any future (unenforceable) liability of the debtor. A debtor can still pay an unenforceable debt if he wants to and a creditor is perfectly entitled to keep any payments made voluntarily. Regards, Pam

Hi I'm afraid there is no precedent or case law that supports the supposition that you can claim back any monies already paid, so a claim for the refund of interest would be a shot in the dark! If an agreement is unenforceable, the creditor would not be entitled to use your money (unlawful penalty charges) to off-set against an account that he could no longer enforce. If it is unenforceable, you have no legal obligation to pay, so why would you donate back to the creditor, money that he had unlawfully taken from you in the first place. If you are certain that the agreement IS unenforceable, you should insist that the creditor refunds your money to you by cheque. Regards, Pam