Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


InKogneeToh last won the day on April 6 2007

InKogneeToh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

343 Excellent

About InKogneeToh

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. 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 The original creditor may have withdrawn your credit facility and also may have written off the debt and/or marked your credit file as 'settled', but this is only an accounting procedure sometimes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 com
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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 spec
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  • Create New...