Excellent IGNM! This is what the Cabot people came up against because the assignment instruments were copies contained in a book debt transfer. Although obiter it could be cited at disclosure and in a Part 18 request - don't you think?

 

Best - Richard.

I agree, however many cases appear to be when different T&Cs are provided and represented to be current at the point of execution, ipso facto not a true copy!

 

Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

Sorry Patrick I only just saw your question. Proof of delivery would be either recorded deivery, special delivery or an affidavit swearing personal delivery. The word "cogent" means strong evidence of actual service of the NOA upon a defendant. Proof of posting is insufficient evidence it could be argued.

 

HTH

 

Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

 

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

 

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

 

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

 

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

 

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

 

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

 

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

 

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

 

HTH

 

Regards – Richard.

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

 

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

 

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

 

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

 

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

 

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

 

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

 

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

 

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

 

HTH

 

Regards – Richard.

“OFT seeks closure of 'look alike' debt advice websites”

 

LINK: http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/26-09

 

Hope this helps.

 

Richard

 

Let sleeping dogs lie my friend,

 

You express my sentiments precisely ncf!

 

Dear Ten, obvioulsy you are free to act as you wish; I am not aware of your intentions or desires. I commend you for dealing with the matter professionally, enjoy your victory - as you did your steak for supper.

 

Regards - Richard

Any way it seemed likely that they might come after me again and I considered it wise to try and get hold of a signed copy of the agreement (they have steadfastly refused to send one) and so I took the CPR 31.16 route and now I sit with my N244. Is this the correct form?

 

Are you really sure it is prudent to chase this apparent error on CL / Cohen's part and do you actually wish to obtain a true copy of the agreement which might prove a case against you?

 

Hope this helps.

 

Richard.

I dip very briefly into this thread and therefore respectfully request forgiveness for my indulgence in offing comment that I believe that should an alleged debt be sold to a third party it is a matter of good law that Notice of Assignment (NoA) do be received by the Defendant prior to proceedings being issued.

 

I recall that I dealt with this in my posts of 2007 (no longer available) from a case I was involved with when a DJ struck out a CL Finance claim in the County Court as the date of issue was prior to the date of the NoA.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Richard.

PUBLIC INFORMATION

 

Online Search of the OFT Consumer Credit License Register

 

LINK: http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

 

Check if DCAs have current Consumer Credit Licences!

 

INTERESTING NOTES:

 

Check if the Trading Names used are covered under the licence (and the dates declared)

 

Check that any Company Officer changes are notified

 

Check the history

 

HINTS:

 

Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd (in-house HSBC) did not have a CCL for 3 months

 

Close Assistance was not a registered Trading Name of Close Credit Management Ltd

 

NB: Both the above HINTS are verifiable by information contained in the OFT CCL Public Register.

PUBLIC INFORMATION

 

Online Search of the OFT Consumer Credit License Register

 

LINK: http://www2.crw.gov.uk/pr/default.aspx

 

Check if DCAs have current Consumer Credit Licences!

 

INTERESTING NOTES:

 

Check if the Trading Names used are covered under the licence (and the dates declared)

 

Check that any Company Officer changes are notified

 

Check the history

 

HINTS:

 

Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd (in-house HSBC) did not have a CCL for 3 months

 

Close Assistance was not a registered Trading Name of Close Credit Management Ltd

 

NB: Both the above HINTS are verifiable by information contained in the OFT CCL Public Register.

Well done to those of you who noticed the connection between the CSA and 1st Credit, re: Mr Nathoo Najib!

SLOWLY, SLOWLY CATCHEE MONKEY!

 

“The OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices”

 

SEE ARTICLE: http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/20-09

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC INFORMATION

 

1ST CREDIT (FUNDING) LIMITED

 

UK SUBSIDIARIES (FROM JORDANS)

 

 

 

Company name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

1ST CREDIT (ACQUISITIONS) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

2.

1ST CREDIT (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

3.

1ST CREDIT (CONSULTING) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

4.

1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) 2 LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

5.

1ST CREDIT (FINANCE) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

6.

1ST CREDIT (MANAGEMENT) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

7.

1ST CREDIT LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

8.

CONNAUGHT COLLECTIONS UK LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

9.

EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

10.

DELIVERY AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES LTD

 

 

 

 

 

11.

EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL (PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT) LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

12.

EDWARD JAMES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1ST CREDIT LIMITED

 

CURRENT DIRECTORS

 

 

 

 

Name

First Name

 

 

 

 

 

1.

 

Mr C.J. Holland

Charles

 

 

Director

 

 

 

 

 

Home Address

:

Church House, Little Coxwell, Farringdon, Oxfordshire, SN7 7LW

Full Postcode

: SN7 7LW

Appointment Date

:

15/04/1999

 

Total Number of Current Directorships of Active companies

: 12

Total Number of Current Directorships of Inactive companies

: 2

Total Number of Previous Directorships

: 2

 

 

2.

 

Mr N. Nathoo

Najib

 

 

Director

 

 

 

 

 

Home Address

:

29 Albert's Court, PalgraveGardens, London, NW1 6EL

Full Postcode

: NW1 6EL

Appointment Date

:

15/04/1999

 

Total Number of Current Directorships of Active companies

: 16

Total Number of Current Directorships of Inactive companies

: 2

Total Number of Previous Directorships

: 23

 

 

3.

 

Mr S.G. Dighton

Simon

 

 

Chartered Accountant

 

 

 

 

 

Home Address

:

28 Lightwoods Hill, Bearwood, Warley, West Midlands, B67 5EA

Full Postcode

: B67 5EA

Appointment Date

:

28/03/2008

 

Total Number of Current Directorships of Active companies

: 32

Total Number of Current Directorships of Inactive companies

: 35

Total Number of Previous Directorships

: 120

Biography

:

SIMON DIGHTON WAS APPOINTED AS GROUP FINANCE DIRECTOR OF FERRARIS GROUP PLC ASA WELL AS COMPANY SECRETARY OF THE GROUP. HE TRAINED WITH KPMG IN BIRMINGHAMANDCHICAGO BEFORE JOINING LLOYDS CHEMIST PLC IN 1995. MORE RECENTLY HE WAS GROUP FINANCE DIRECTOR OF BIRKBY PLCAND THEN NOVARA PLC. HE IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND MEMBER OF THE REGIONAL ADVISORY GROUP TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE. HE WAS BORN IN 1943.

 

 

4.

 

Mr S.G. Dighton

Simon

 

 

Company Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

Home Address

:

28 Lightwoods Hill, Bearwood, Warley, West Midlands, B67 5EA

Full Postcode

: B67 5EA

Appointment Date

:

31/03/2008

 

Total Number of Current Directorships of Active companies

: 32

Total Number of Current Directorships of Inactive companies

: 35

Total Number of Previous Directorships

: 120

Biography

:

SIMON DIGHTON WAS APPOINTED AS GROUP FINANCE DIRECTOR OF FERRARIS GROUP PLC ASA WELL AS COMPANY SECRETARY OF THE GROUP. HE TRAINED WITH KPMG IN BIRMINGHAMANDCHICAGO BEFORE JOINING LLOYDS CHEMIST PLC IN 1995. MORE RECENTLY HE WAS GROUP FINANCE DIRECTOR OF BIRKBY PLCAND THEN NOVARA PLC. HE IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND MEMBER OF THE REGIONAL ADVISORY GROUP TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE. HE WAS BORN IN 1943.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Richard Spud.

X20...could I just ask your background as I am intreagued you seem very knowledgable ?

 

While I appreciate the intrigue that x20’s posts might cause due to the extremely knowledgeable information intimated, it is precisely the type of enquiring statements as to the background of a poster which caused me to leave CAG on 24/06/07.

 

I have recently returned to CAG and while I do not intend to provide any advice I would like to be free to comment from my personal experience and knowledge base as I feel appropriate which I hope will help all CAGers.

 

I would commend x20 for intimating the knowledge expounded in his/her posts in this thread. I have nothing of consequence to add, save to say that acting for Defendants against Creditor Claimants I have personal experience of cases in the County Courts when I have raised the matter of original and copies of Regulated Agreements (under the CCA 1974) failing to be produced, not legible, incomplete etc. and on every occasion I have been successful in the Claim being either withdrawn and discontinued, struck out or denied by a DJ.

 

Regards – RS.

If I may offer comment in this matter; from my experience while the CPR and relevant PDs appear to be unequivocal in providing for original documents to be made available for inspection at the disclosure stage and at the hearing, in practice the defunct “Best Evidence” rule is no longer applied by the Courts in favour of copy documents being acceptable – however the weight of evidence given to copy documents (certified in writing as true and accurate copies) can be considered less than if the originals are produced. Should an actual witness take oath and give evidence as to the accuracy of a copy document - subject to cross – this will bolster the weight given the copy document.

 

Notwithstanding the above; I have known cases when the Court has ordered the original credit agreement to be lodged with the Court or the Claim will be struck out, when the DCA has been unable to provide legible T&Cs and at final trial when originals where produced by a Claimant bank without any T&Cs attached.

 

I would suggest that the disclosure stage is a great opportunity make or break a Claim – particularly against an Assignor DCA etc.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards - RS

I understand that for a legal assignment to come into existence to allow the purported Assignee to sue in their own name singularly against the alleged debtor (otherwise an equitable assignment would be created) that the NOA MUST be delivered to the debtor prior to proceedings being started. I suggest that proof of posting is insufficient, cogent evidence would be proof of delivery.

Regards to All

Regards to All