Provisions for legal assignment of debts and other legal things in action

[celebrity debtor]

Please do not copy copyrighted works onto the forum.

[celebrity debtor]

9. I have so far described in deliberately neutral terms the securitisation scheme as a process which involved the deployment by MBNA of receivables payable by its credit card holder customers for the purpose of raising working capital. A central question for the purposes of output issue 1 is the proper characterisation of the method by which that deployment was achieved, for the purpose of deciding whether it constituted a series of supplies for VAT purposes. In the barest outline, the Commissioners and both Tribunals concluded that the method did not constitute a supply, but amounted to no more than the granting of security for a loan. By contrast, the taxpayers in both cases contended, and MBNA contends on this appeal, that the method constituted a true sale of those debts

49 An inevitable consequence to these two requirements is that the Receivables must not be assigned by the Bank, in any sense by way of security. If they were, then this would firstly expose the ultimate lender (who does rely upon the Receivables as security) to adverse consequences arising from the insolvency of the Bank (at least to a much greater degree than would arise merely from a sale of the Receivables by the Bank), and it would also imply some obligation to pay on the part of the Bank. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there is a regulatory ban on banks issuing floating charges on their book debts or other property, due to the consequences of the exposure of the Bank and its assets to the appointment of receivers. For these reasons, the designers of securitisation schemes of the type under review go to great lengths to structure the arrangements so as to avoid the assignment of Receivables by the Bank having the character of assignments by way of security. The assignments are not registered pursuant to Section 395 of the Companies Act 1985, and they are supported by categorical opinions from the solicitors responsible for their design and implementation to the effect that they constitute "true sales" rather than assignment by way of security .

[Rhia]

Hang on a minute. This is something that has puzzled me for ages. If MBNA (or whoever) has actually sold the credit card debts via a securitisation process to some hedge fund or similar. What is there to sell to a DCA when they sell off a defaulted account.

This stuff is headbanging but I would like an answer.

[Vulture_Bank]

lets consider the selling of an endowment.

 

when you (a member of the public)s ell an endowment it is assigned you get some cash and the buyer pays the premium until the policy matures or you expire (depending on which happens first)

 

the company acting on behalf of the potential purchaser (possibly it intends to keep the policy on its books ??)

 

asks that the seller

 

1. completes a referee form (so they can check if you are alive!)

2.completes a certification regarding bankruptcy. which you complete and return together with the deed of assignment.

3.in addition you have to send in proof of your address to comply with uk money laundering regs.

4. send proof of your identity passport etc

5. The original policy document or a letter to say that the policy is lost and cannot be found anywhere.#

 

 

 

Now the seller has no interest in the endowment : so because the policy cannot be returned to the seller it seems logical that the assignment is absolute.

 

So be it suggested that for a legal assignment of a "debt" point 5 should also apply .

 

Consequently when one DSAR's both the OC[original creditor=assignor ] and the purchaser [assignee] it seem logical that if the agreement cannot be found by the OC then it be stated in documents relating to the assignment ???

 

 

UPDATE

yes UNDER THE "NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS" IT says that the assigment is absolute.

[tifo]

securitisation seems to be perfectly legal and has been going on for a long time.

[Vulture_Bank]

the point i am making is point 5

 

The original policy document or a letter to say that the policy is lost and cannot be found anywhere.

 

meaning IN AN ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT the debtor has a right to see a copy of a statement as in point 5

when he does a dsar

 

and he can thence use the document to show in court that the OC does/did (and hence the assignee) does not have a copy of the agreement

[Rhia]

Now this is interesting as I know a couple of recent court cases involving credit cards where the OC has been asked to produce the original agreement in court for inspection. However the OC has stated they no longer have the originals as they have been destroyed and they only have archived copies which they have produced.

The copies are incomplete and don't seem to be part of the same document and are neither signed nor dated by OC to say they are properly certified.

You would have thought this would have been thrown out. However the Civil Evidence Act states that an official from a company can swear in court that an uncertified copy is a certified copy and the court will accept this. It is bonkers.

[tifo]

You would have thought this would have been thrown out. However the Civil Evidence Act states that an official from a company can swear in court that an uncertified copy is a certified copy and the court will accept this. It is bonkers.

 

And if you find out later the official lied? What then?

 

Is it possible that bank and DCA officials may actually tell the truth?

[Vulture_Bank]

And if you find out later the official lied? What then?

 

Is it possible that bank and DCA officials may actually tell the truth?

 

at least mbna cannot do this (reconstitute ) regarding all those former building society credit card agreements they serviced as they have nothing to reconstitute which backs up the reasoning why they sell the accounts s