Deeds/Notifications of Assignment

[Fred Bassett]

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

[palomino]

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.

[jpf104]

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?

[Fred Bassett]

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

[tendogs]

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

[babybear39]

This has and still is being debated accross the forum and particularly on this thread here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/150362-dcas-using-their-clients.html

 

Sorry FB, I'm not sure about the assignment thingy...

[make them aktiv runners]

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.

[jpf104]

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.

[jpf104]

Also check out this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/91168-when-does-original-creditors.html

[MAGDA]

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

[Fred Bassett]

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

[MAGDA]

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

[PriorityOne]

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...

[PriorityOne]

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.

[MAGDA]

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

[PriorityOne]

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.

[jpf104]

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.

[Fred Bassett]

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

[PriorityOne]

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. 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.

[jpf104]

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.

[PriorityOne]

 

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.

[PriorityOne]

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.

 

[PriorityOne]

 

If the contract whad been assigned it would have been absolute - this is vary rare

 

Sorry JP... this is incorrect. There are loads of examples on here and most have mine have been assigned Absolutely now as well.

[MAGDA]

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.

[PriorityOne]

Have you had sight of the supposed CCA, Magda ? Have you sent them a CPR 18 request for example ?