Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you are flying away tomorrow (or rather this) morning I'd just forget about complaining to the police now.  As BF said earlier it's probably just a waste of your time anyway so I wouldn't worry about it.  Forget it for now.  Have a safe flight and concentrate on your other thread against Aviva.
    • I'm afraid you won't get a complaint drafted before tomorrow morning - and I think most others here think it would be a waste of time anyway and that the police decision won't change.  I would ask for a review and make a complaint on principle, but I suspect you are better off concentrating your effort on your other thread and direct complaint against Aviva.   Unless you are out of the country for an extended period I'd wait until your return before considering futrther whwther to complain about the police.   [ By the way, just so that you don't mislead yourself as it's a mistake many people make, ALL agreements are "verbal" in that they are composed of words.  Some agreements are in writing and others are oral, spoken or vocal.  The law recognises oral or spoken agreements just as much as ones that are written down.  The only practical difference is that oral agreements can be difficult to prove in a dispute]
    • Just to add there is a scheme called the Victim's Right to Review.  It basically applies to decisions made by the CPS not to go ahead with a prosecution.  It doesn't apply to decisions made by local police forces, but it does say:   19.  Decisions that are not eligible for VRR include: ... iii where the police or other investigator exercises their independent discretion not to investigate or not to investigate a case further (whether in consultation with the CPS or not) and the CPS have not been requested / have been unable to make a final decision to charge. Requests for review of such decisions should instead be addressed to the relevant police force/other investigator; [My bold] Victims' Right to Review Scheme | The Crown Prosecution Service WWW.CPS.GOV.UK   I'm not familiar with the scheme so can't advise - but other posters here may know about it or have experience of it.  You need to read the above link but note that it talks about things that seem to fit your situation.   eg a victim is defined as ‘a person who has made an allegation that they have suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by criminal conduct’.   If you have not already requested that the police review their decision not to pass the case onto the CPS, then I would do so.  If you are not happy with the outcome of that, complain.   I can't advise you definitely to go ahead and ask for a review or complain, but if I were in your situation that is what I would do.  But I tend to agree with BankFodder that you'll get nowhere and, if you are sick and tired of all this and just want it to go away, then just drop the police.  However, if you don't try...   [Apologies for the italic typeface/font - it's the above link causing it.  The italics should have stopped at the end of the third para above ending ' ... criminal conduct'.  I can't change it.  Very annoying]
    • @Manxman in exile I eloped to get with my husband si my husband and siblings never sat together in the same room .   Hes claiming a verbal agreement was made but a verbal agreement doesn't hold any water in the eyes of the law..no agreement was made I was in Leeds with my toddler.    He has made use of the policy , had the luxury of the insurance and reversed the money back and now Aviva are coming after me.   You've summed it up well is there anyone in the group that can help me draft the complaint to the police as I'm flying out first thing tomorrow and my head is all over the place.   My husband me Mr z , my late father and eldest brother were at this meeting supposedly when the verbal agreement was made but yet the officer took a statement off the eldest brother and didn't take it off the husband and based the final decision on the eldest brothers statement and Mr Z and all other evidence which is in written form has been completely dismissed    I'm fighting it all alone coming from an Asian background I am getting taunts and salt is bring rubbed on my wounds its not been a pleasant experience yo say the least trying to prove my innocence and having to listen to the b******* being spouted out by everyone whilst Mr Z is walking away not guilty 
    • I would complain to the police - even if I thought it would go nowhere.  I can't see that you have anything to lose.   I can't tell you the grounds of your complaint because I don't know the details of everything that has happened (you know better than I do)  and because I've found much of the story too difficult to follow.     But - based on everything you have told us - it seems to me that your brother has clearly committed fraud by obtaining the benefit of an insurance policy by falsely misrepresenting that he was opening the policy on your behalf and also by falsely misrepresenting himself - or a third party - as being your husband.  If your brother could not have taken out that policy without making those misrepresentations, then he has committed fraud.  It doesn't matter whether the victim was Aviva or you  and it doesn't matter if the victim realises they've been defrauded or not - the police should investigate it properly.  In this case you are the ultimate victim of the fraud because Aviva are saying that you owe them for the premiums on the policy your brother fraudulently took out, so whether Aviva consider they were the victims of fraud or not is irrelevant - they don't care because you end up as the fall guy.  Point out that this may have ended in a civil dispute over a debt between you and Aviva, but that that debt directly arises as a result of your brother's fraud in claiming to be acting on your behalf and by impersonating your brother.   One of the reasons the police seem to have dropped this case (and this needs to be one of your main grounds of complaint I think) is that they have accepted without question your brother's statement that your husband was somehow involved or in some way agreed to your brother taking this policy out in your name, and the police have simply and uncritically accepted your brother's word on that without ever speaking to your husband, who would vigourously deny it.    (I can't make any better suggestion than that because, to be honest, I don't follow what has happened.  If you never authorised your brother to open this insurance policy at all then I don't understand why the police would place any importance at all on your husband being present at a meeting with your brother.  What did your husband's presence have to do with the insurance policy?  Even if he had been at such meeting (which you say he denies) then how could he authorise anything on your behalf?  None of it makes any sense to me and I can't see why the police would think it did.)   Challenge the police to explain to you why they believe there is insufficient evidence to pass this on to the CPS   I would follow the published complaints procedure of the police force in question and I would also send a copy to your local Police and Crime Commissioner.   I think the main problem here is that (despite what the nice woman PC may have suggested to you) the police have never considered you to be the victim.  You need to demonstrate to them via your complaint that you are the victim here.   One other question: is your husband and are your family supporting you through this, or are you going it alone?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Deed of Assignement


paulandberyl
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5045 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

 

I have been sent a letter from a DCA and they said they had enclosed the deed of assignment. When I looked at what they sent me it just said note of assignment. There is no reference to me or what I am supposed to owe.

Does anyone know what these deeds of assignment are supposed to look like?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

A notice of assignment is simply notice to the debtor that the debt has been assigned to whichever collection agency. It's just a letter...

 

A deed of assignment is a contract between the Original Creditor and to whomever the debt has been sold to. This is a private document that only need be produced in Court to support a claim, and then, only when the claim is defended. There is no automatic right to be provided with a copy of this.

 

Can you scan and post what they have sent ?

 

Hope that helps....

Regards, Dave.

If my post was helpful don't forget to click the star!

Advice is offered freely, without liability and without prejudice.

If in any doubt professional legal advice should be sought.

 

I do not profess to be in any way legally trained, I am a big

oily truck driver and all I know has been learned within the

Consumer Action Group.

 

FAQ's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

 

Trying to stop smoking?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/give-up-smoking-here/

 

A dummies guide to the forums

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

--

KEEP WILDLIFE IN THE WILD

http://www.bornfree.org.uk

BORN FREE FOUNDATION

--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave is absolutley right, to add

 

an assignment must contain the correct amount of money owed and also the correct date of assignment if it has a date on it, the date is not a requirement but if the date is on the form it must be correct

 

19. Form of assignment.

The assignment must be in writing under the hand of the assignor in order to be within the Law of Property Act 19251. The

fact that the assignment is also by deed does not take it out of the operation of the Act2. It is thought that signature by an

agent is not sufficient3. Apart from this requirement of writing, no particular form of assignment is required, but, whatever its

form, the document must be one which amounts to an absolute assignment4. A mere statement of an intention to assign is not

sufficient5. A direction6 or order7 by the creditor to the debtor to pay the assignee may be sufficient, as when a promissory

note is indorsed to a particular person and handed over8. An order to pay as expressed in a cheque is not within the Act9, and

a direction to a debtor to pay to a bank all moneys payable to the creditor under an agreement, although expressed to be

irrevocable, does not amount to an assignment of the moneys if the bank has not been informed of the arrangement between

creditor and debtor, as the direction, contrary to its terms, is in fact revocable10.

 

 

 

 

20. Notice in writing.

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment

must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or

the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3.

The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving

notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the

date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or

extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all

the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.

The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the

assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal

representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate

assignee17.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply diskmandave and also to pt2537. I have never scanned anything and sent it on this site before but I will have a go as soon as I can. I would appreciate it if you can ten look at it for me and give me your thoughts. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bits that have been blacked out is how I received the documents.

 

 

I'm surprised they sent the DOA, normally a NOA is only sent. Though they blacked out the sensitive data I see

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you need to do is send a CCA Request to the new legal owner of the debt, I'm assuming the debt is for a loan or credit card? If so the rights and responsibiliities to provide proof of legal ownership and right to collect the debt lies with them, if they cannot provide an agreement or provide a non compliant one the debt could be unenforcable.

 

 

kind regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why they would consider theor company number and where the registered office is based, or the date of assignment to be sensitive data.

 

Nice to have though. I'm sure that will come in VERY useful. I notice it mentions all rights, title etc. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

am I stupid thick or both --- reading that first page of appendix 1

 

it says

this deed of assignment is made between

(1) first national etc................

 

and

 

(2) aktiv capital asset investments limited ..........

 

whereas the assignor, GE capital global finance ltd, the assignee and aktiv kapital asa entered into an agreement on xx 2004 (the agreement)

 

there are 4 parties mentioned here not 2 as they are trying to pass off if you don't read it properly

 

they are not showing you an agreement "as mentioned"

 

how are we supposed to know there is a relationship between

(a)first national and ge

 

(B)aktiv capital asset investments limited & aktiv capital asa

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything on it that says it applies to you, your account or any sum of money. Could relate to anything. I think it is a try on.

 

The actual DEEDS of assignment relate to an agreement between the assignor and assignee. In other words, the original creditor/lender and the debt purchaser. They tend to be generic documents, relating to the fact that debts have been assigned, and don't reflect individual accounts. That's why there is no identifying information on there.

 

Usually they run to a fair few more pages than that, though. And as VB mentions, seems to be a heck of a mess. I wonder how it would stand in court?

 

Quite why they have produced this is beyond me. It's something they normally wouldn't divulge unless absolutely forced to. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ummmmm feel those dates are hiding something and

 

some vey interesting finds here !!!

 

sep 2006 Staggering Impairments Clobber Aktiv Kapital

june 2006 Aktiv Kapital's Earnings Fall

feb 2006 Audit Nightmare at Aktiv Kapital Causes Deep Drop in Profits

jan 2006 Revenue Growth Slows at Aktiv Kapital

 

oct 2005 Portfolio Management Group Acquired by Aktiv Kapital in Canadian Expansion

 

 

feb 2005

Aktiv Kapital's CEO Abruptly Resigns Amid Acquisition of Two More Collection Firms

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

paul

 

you have taken the scans down

 

does it say on the assignment thing

 

aktiv capital asset investments limited & aktiv capital asa

 

because just realised the company should be

 

aktiv Kapital asset investments limited & aktiv Kapital asa

 

is this my mistake or theirs ??

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Vulture Bank and Seahorse.

 

It says on the assignement Aktiv Kapital Investments Limited and "the Assignee and Aktive Kapital ASA".

 

I no its a personal choice but does anyone know if it's worth sending AK a final response letter and just ignore them or if it is best to contact the information commissioner and FSO?

 

Thanks for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is exactly how the document has been presented there is also:

Not enough room under the blacking out to fit a full company number in. Probably not there.

Not enough room under the blanking out to fit the address in. Probably not there.

Not enough room to fit a proper date under the blacking out in the main text. Probably incomplete.

If there was a date under the blacking out at the top of the page you should see at least part of the bottom of the numbers and letters.

Looks like a print of a blank template to me, ie an attempt to hide lack of data.

 

Newborn

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...