question regarding debt collection notice of assignment

[mikedesign]

I have posted my other question regarding claiming bank charges back in the other forum (the bank one) but now I have a question for the helpfull people on the debt forum.

 

I am wondering how a debt can be assigned to a collection agency(bought) ?If they buy the debt and the the debt is made of unfair charges then effectively does the liability for the unfair charges get transferred to the DCA making them liable for the charges.

 

I would so like this to not being my overactive imagination running away with me as i really would like to take the fight back

 

also i read somewhere on this board that the employment at work act could be used against callers of the DCA's in that if they are carrying out threatening behaviour at work it was an offence effectively

 

it read along the lines that whilst carrying out their duties as a DCA phone whatever it is, if they harass or threaten a member of the public this could be seen as a breach of their employment (i know companies employ this tactic) but if someone did this to you in the street you can involve the police as it is verbal assault and also a form of abuse which is a chargeble offence, therefore I think the original poster was stating the guy on the other end of the phone could face charges and the directors of the company if they knew it was happening could be held liable. Im pretty sure if the telephone operator was having charges levelled at them they would squeel

 

Its a shame I cant find the original thread but someone might be able to point me in the right direction or answer it

 

thanks

 

mike

[rory32]

If they buy the debt and the the debt is made of unfair charges then effectively does the liability for the unfair charges get transferred to the DCA making them liable for the charges.

No. The liability to refund the charges lies with the original creditor as they were the ones who applied them.

 

it read along the lines that whilst carrying out their duties as a DCA phone whatever it is, if they harass or threaten a member of the public this could be seen as a breach of their employment (i know companies employ this tactic) but if someone did this to you in the street you can involve the police as it is verbal assault and also a form of abuse which is a chargeble offence, therefore I think the original poster was stating the guy on the other end of the phone could face charges and the directors of the company if they knew it was happening could be held liable. Im pretty sure if the telephone operator was having charges levelled at them they would squeel

It's a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which makes employers vicariously liable for harassment acts of employees. It is a criminal offence to harass someone.

[mikedesign]

thanks rory 32

 

can I say the debt is in dispute now then and the DCA cannot actively chase me for what is owed .The particular debt was 0 but then recieved a statement saying 35 quid for late payment even though i cleared the balance..i just said no and wrote leter after letter which they just seemed to ignore

 

now the debt is 625 quid withthreats of we will add more on if we have to send a guy round

 

I do chuckle at these letters but its not helping me any legally to just laugh and saying get stuffed is hardly the attitude.

 

thanks again

[mikedesign]

oh also I might be a bit dim also but what is vicariously liable

[rory32]

can I say the debt is in dispute now then and the DCA cannot actively chase me for what is owed .The particular debt was 0 but then recieved a statement saying 35 quid for late payment even though i cleared the balance..i just said no and wrote leter after letter which they just seemed to ignore

 

now the debt is 625 quid withthreats of we will add more on if we have to send a guy round

You certainly can say that the debt is in dispute. Have you made a complaint to the OFT or Trading Standards?

 

Regarding them sending someone round you can send them the following if you so wish:

Dear Sirs,

 

Please be advised that I am only prepared to communicate with you in writing. OFT rules and regulations clearly state that you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

 

Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you persist in sending “doorstep callers” to my home, you will be reported for harassment and be liable for damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be liable for conspiring in a tort of trespass by acting in defiance of my instructions and sending someone to visit me nevertheless.

 

Should it be necessary, I will obtain an injunction.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Print name do not sign.

Send via recorded delivery.

 

oh also I might be a bit dim also but what is vicariously liable

Indirectly liable.

[mikedesign]

I will copy the letters and send them

 

thanks for that

 

No I havent made a complaint to the OFT as I haven't disputed it yet based on the fact that I didn't know who to claim from (bank charges thread)but now you have answered my previous question Capital one will be getting their claims proceedings and the DCA will definitely be getting told its now in dispute if they carry on I'm sure I will be using your advice to dampen their spirits a tad.

 

I assume if they carry on bothering me its then that I go to the OFT

[rory32]

I assume if they carry on bothering me its then that I go to the OFT

Yes.

[mikedesign]

Any pointers now what i can do legally im bored of messing about with them

 

I have no legal need to pay these as the amounts are just made up of unfair credit card fines, they owe me more than that,and can anyone point me in the right direction to claim these charges back.

 

i would like to get rid of them and their entries on my credit files the debts are definitely going to be disputed as i pointed out to the muppets today.

 

if someone can point me to the letters which spells this out im more than happy to go to court with them

from Godebt 16 01 2009 edited details.pdf

from lowell group 26 01 2009 edited details.pdf

Edited January 29, 2009 by mikedesign
changed attachments

[lickthewallfatboy]

credit card charges are NOT subject of the ongoing bank charges test case

 

go through the procedures as laid down on the site,using the various template letters

 

and don't let them try to hoodwink you by quoting the bank charges case,as some have tried

[mikedesign]

does anyone know why my images are so small and other peoples are readable????????

[havinastella]

you need to upload them to a file hosting site like photobucket and use the IMG code to link back to here.

[mightypotters01]

It might be a good idea to block out the barcodes on any letters that you post. They may be able to identify you from these.

[mikedesign]

Does the notice of assignment have to come from the original creditor

 

i have a debt which has done the rounds withh all the DCA'S (funny how they don't want to go to court)and each letter keeps saying your debt has been sold to us on them all and they are now the owners

 

funny i thought the NOA had to come from the original creditor on their letterheaded paper?

 

any advice duly welcomed

[creditcardmug]

Hi, yes that's correct, you should have one from both the new, and previous owner, otherwise tell them you will not correspond further with them.

[loobyloo85]

You would normally receive the letter of assignment from both the original creditor, and the agent, however sometimes the agent will send a letter on behalf of the creditor stating the debt has been legally assigned

[creditcardmug]

You would normally receive the letter of assignment from both the original creditor, and the agent, however sometimes the agent will send a letter on behalf of the creditor stating the debt has been legally assigned

 

Yes they do, and this is also unacceptable, and unenforceable in law!