Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Deeds/Notifications of Assignment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4545 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

Is there a strict format for these notifications? i.e., should they contain account numbers, balances etc? Also, I've read various different opinions on how they should be communicated - some say they must be sent by recorded delivery or delivered in person, others say that regular mail is good enough.

 

Does anyone have the definitive answer to this?

 

Regards to all.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Deeds are agreements between a seller and a purchaser of a debt. I suspect (I've never seen one for obvious reasons) that a deed might be list of debtors and names.

 

Notices of assignments are sent (or supposed to be sent) by the seller to the debtor advising that the debt has been sold. As far as I'm aware there is no specific format as long as the relevant bits are there - account (or other reference) number, amount and purchaser of the debt. I understand that proof of service can be asked for if the matter is disputed - this suggests recorded delivery or even personal service however I suspect that most Notices are sent out by ordinary mail for reasons of cost.

 

I'm no expert and others may want to clarify or elaborate.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

jpf, in particular I want to find out if the notice of assignment sent to me by Goldfish/Cabot was correctly done. See this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131660-fred-bassett-morgan-stanley-2.html#post1653208

 

You see, I don't believe they did it at all and that this was simply an afterthought. There are also others where I would query the way in which this was done but that's for another day. In this case I know full well that did not send me anything, now they're simply lying and I want to catch them out.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the act pertaining to notice of assignment and it seemed fairly simple with no prescribed terms. The one thing it did mention was that the notice had to be “under the hand” of the original creditor.

Now, it occurred to me that it could mean that they had to be signed and most of mine (I have a collection God help me) are not signed.

I did pose the question somewhere on the forum but I don’t think I received a reply.

 

Dogs

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notices of assignment should contain the name of previous creditor & balance & striclty speaking date of assignment. One of old legal bods explained that the notice could be sent by either party, although I beg to differ on that one as I would expect the notice to arrive from a company I knew as opposed to an unknown buyer.

 

It should be sent by recorded delivery to guarantee receipt. 2nd class post works if you acknowledge receving the letter.

 

For Cabot use the following users in the advanced search box:- Tbern123, Seahorse, Elizabeth1, Andrew1, Rhia, pmhcfc, Louie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974.

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974.

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

 

Magda,

 

I don't know much about this. This may or not help, but Babybear started a thread relating to the CPUTR (?) which may have some relevance to your question.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred, thanks for the reply, I have seen that thread as I have been having some issues with TS on whether as the apparent "owner" of the debt, Asset Link are for the purposes of the CCA also the "Creditor" they say that they aren't and TS seem to agree. I am not sure what sort of assignment they have, but they have stated that the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor. This sounds to me like it is an equitable assignment, but I am not sure. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. This is an Absolute assignment then.... which means they've bought it. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. In other words, they've bought the balance on the OC's books at the time. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974. The are arguing that they have the benefits (ie... being able to chase you for the money) but not the duties (which are tied in with the CCA Act, 1974) under The Law of Property Act.... which is a load of bowlarks

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. No, it's the other way around... If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

 

It's an Absoluet Assignment, which is why they're trying to wriggle out of any responsibilities under The CCA Act, 1974. Cabot used to try and pull this one as well... :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

jpf, in particular I want to find out if the notice of assignment sent to me by Goldfish/Cabot was correctly done. See this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131660-fred-bassett-morgan-stanley-2.html#post1653208

 

You see, I don't believe they did it at all and that this was simply an afterthought. There are also others where I would query the way in which this was done but that's for another day. In this case I know full well that did not send me anything, now they're simply lying and I want to catch them out.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

On the back of the very first letter you received from Cabot, you should find some small print which says that "this letter acts as a Notice of Assignment" or something like that. If Cabot were to produce such a letter, they could argue that it was sent, which may be enough for a court... should it get that far.

 

Best to find alternative ammunition... as this wouldn't be strong enough to get them off your back in court, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Priority One, that's what I needed to know. TS back them up (or say they just don't know) in the argument that they are not the creditor for purposes of the CCA and OFT just sit on the fence and don't want to get involved. These Companies, like Asset and Cabot are a law unto themselves aren't they? Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Magda. I don't bother with TS/OFT anymore. They've never done anything positive in any of my sagas... and don't seem to know what they're on about half the time anyway.

 

Far too many incestuous back scratches within the finance industry, IMO. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the back of the very first letter you received from Cabot, you should find some small print which says that "this letter acts as a Notice of Assignment" or something like that. If Cabot were to produce such a letter, they could argue that it was sent, which may be enough for a court... should it get that far.

 

Best to find alternative ammunition... as this wouldn't be strong enough to get them off your back in court, IMO.

 

Thanks Priority1

 

There is something on the second page of the letter to that effect. What's on the first page however is a joke - it's a copy document with mail merge fields in it and doesn't even mention my name - plus there is no date on it.

 

Anyway, I'll keep that argument to my thread.

 

The other thing I want to find out is how these letters should be communicated. My understanding is that they should be sent by recorded delivery, but I can't find a definitive answer to this. Any ideas?

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

If they are sueing in their own name, then they are lying.... which is not unheard of in this industry. :roll: The CCA won't show ownership... and if the CCA is produced, it can be re-enforced no matter who owns it anyway.

 

If Asset are sueing, then they should be made to produce the Deed of Assignment in court. If no Deed of Assignment, then they need to clarify the basis of their claim ?

 

This does sound like a classic "we've got the rights but not the duties" kind of bowlarks that some come out with when they've bought a duff account (ie, no CCA)... and don't want to tell you because it makes them look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The other thing I want to find out is how these letters should be communicated. My understanding is that they should be sent by recorded delivery, but I can't find a definitive answer to this. Any ideas?

 

 

As far aw I'm aware, there's nothing to stipulate how these Notices should be sent/delivered.... and they can come from either the OC or the DCA.

 

On that basis, it's not strong enough to rely upon as part of any defence, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I've not read the thread in question, so it's difficult to comment any further.

 

Assignment to one side though.... if there's no CCA, it cannot be re-enforced under CCA 1974, sec. 127 (3)..... regardless of who's trying to do the sueing.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I have not seen any notice of assignment, but the wording on one assignment I have received from them for another account (also subject to court action) is as follows:

"G E capital bank ltd assigned to us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agrement. As a result of the assignment the debt is now owed to us" I do think it is confusing when they state that the "duties of the agreement have been retained by the original creditor" and whithout seeing the actual deed of assignment, I don't know how I can be 100% sure that they have the legal right to take me to court.

 

I've not read the thread in question, so it's difficult to comment any further.

 

Assignment to one side though.... if there's no CCA, it cannot be re-enforced under CCA 1974, sec. 127 (3)..... regardless of who's trying to do the sueing.

 

:)

 

Unfortunately they did provide the CCA once court action was under way and they had seen my defence. They claim now that they originally sent the agreement to our old address (we moved 9 years ago) which I know is absolute rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...