Beware of full and final settlements. In theory even if they agree to a settlement figure it does not stop them 'chasing' the balance at a later stage! See this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/163369-letter-halifax.html

Hi MeHonestly Reliable are the debt collection arm of JD williams - simply B are part of JD. The chances are that your client never signed a valid CCA - catalogue debts are notorious for this. Send the letter and you'll get the standard response as outlined here and in many other threads. They'll try to use standard waffle but in the end the equation is simple - No valid CCA no enforceable debt. All you want is proof that they hold a signed, enforceable agreement - which is your right under law. They know they haven't got one if they did they would have no hesitation in sending it to you. Let us know how you get on.

Valhalla - Try this link for more info:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/155843-deeds-notifications-assignment.html I've dealt with these muppets and their so called 'assignments' before. If you stick to your guns and have all the documentation required you will be in a strong position to tell AK to go forth etc... There is lots of information on assignment on CAG and I have used it to my advantage on a number of ocassions. Hope we can help.

Not sure where you got your info from but the effect of Pinnel's IMHO is that a debt cannot be discharged by a smaller consideration than was originally agreed. However if the original agreement was / is unenforceable that's a different matter. Also the fact that you credit report states 'partial Settlement' clearly states that the settlement was not 'full'. I'm only saying this if some point in the future they decide to 'recover' the remaining balance. There are certain circumstances where a lesser amount is treated as full consideration i.e. payment by a third party or where a contract is altered and agreed by both parties. Not being a killjoy here it's just that this was tried against me a couple of years ago - it took a fair amount of effort to stop the collection - the original agreement was in fact unenforceable.

Be careful here...Even if you paid a 'full & final' it does not stop the OC chasing you for the balance! I suggest you check out "pinnel's case". Did you pay the money or did someone else pay it on your behalf? What exactly did Halifax say (in writing) when they accepted your full & final? Did you ascertain if this alledged debt was enforcable? Palamino gives good advice - don't shred anything!

bump

Anyone??

Quick background: Claim issued Jan 07 for charges etc. Case stayed like everyone else. However they have used AIC & now Robinson Way to chase original overdraft balance and are now threatening court action to recover overdraft balance (approx £1100) which - by the way, is entirley made up of charges - the basis of my original claim. Anyway here's the question (I'm familiar with OFT collection guidance whilst an amount is in dispute) I read an interesting thread (which I can't find again!!!) and would like some views. Heres an extract from a letter posted: Can anyone provide additional info on this statement? Is it factual? Where in the judgement is this highlighted? I want to hit them with an appropriate response.

Quick background: Claim issued Jan 07 for charges etc. Case stayed like everyone else. However they have used AIC & now Robinson Way to chase original overdraft balance and are now threatening court action to recover overdraft balance (approx £1100) which - by the way, is entirley made up of charges - the basis of my original claim. Anyway here's the question (I'm familiar with OFT collection guidance whilst an amount is in dispute) I read an interesting thread and would like some views. Heres an extract from a letter posted: Can anyone provide additional info on this statement? Is it factual? Where in the judgement is this highlighted? I want to hit them with an appropriate response.

They are only required to state they have bought the debt - it does not have to be by recorded delivery. However if they purchased the entire contract (which they have not) then they would have to prove delivery. This however IMHO is academic as I have previously stated this assignment is equitable (they’ve admitted that) I, personally would request that this case be thrown out as vexatious on the grounds that the claimant has no legal right to sue.

Actually Asset Link have clearly stated that this was not a 'Legal assignment' (which means absolute) they have stated that the OC has retained the duties under the contract therefore this is an equitable assignment and, as such, Asset Link cannot sue in their own name. IMHO this is an unarguable defence - they cannot sue for somthing they do not own (the original contract). Also any judge will want to see the CCA to ascertain who in fact owns the title to the contract. Asset Link have no case.

Also check out this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/91168-when-does-original-creditors.html

Fred bassett Sorry in the time to reply but i've been away (lucky me!!). Ok assignment - essentially in your thread for Cabot / goldfish the balance was assigned not the contract this is called equitable assignment. If the contract whad been assigned it would have been absolute - this is vary rare and can only realy effectively be done by novation (google for definition) . For more info on assignment check out these threads: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/112975-equitable-assignment-how-affect.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/146027-aktiv-capital-no-replies.html These cover most of the main points on how assignment works in the debt collection industry. Specifically in you case what are you hoping to acheive? it would be useful to know in helping you formulate a strategy.

Can you give details? Most of these "assignments" are nothing more than the original creditor selling the balance only. Can I ask why you are asking the question?

Well well, now we see the true colours of notsoevil. Her(or him?) seem to think that when a debt is sold the legal authority goes with it - how wrong. OC's rarley absolutely assign debts and in any event the only real way to truly assign a CCA debt is by novation. Dca's like to think that they obtain the 'legal authority' when they buy the balance, but in reality all they buy is 1 - 10% of the original balance and gamble on getting more from you than they paid. DCA's seem to think they can sue and threaten to protect their "bet". Its about time everybody was made aware of how these "debt purchasers" actually make their money.