Default Notices and Debt Assignment contract

[Battersea Bulldog]

Attending court yesterday to defend an absolute charging order on the basis I had not been served with Default Notices and 1st Credit refused to provide a copy of the assignment agreement under a Part 18 request serving instead a copy of a Barclaycard letter purportedly confirming the debt had been assigned to First Credit failed. The District Judge effectively said I was lying that I had not received the Default Notices although there were no copy Default Notices attached to the claimant's bundle and she was satisfied with copy letter from Barclaycard was a sufficient assigment document. Counsel for 1st Credit relied on Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to persuade the judge.

 

What is my next step to knock out the Absolute Charging Order?

 

regards

Battersea Bulldog

[blind-as-a-bat]

Law of Property Act 1925

196 Regulations respecting notices

(1)Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

(2)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.

(3)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

(4)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

(5)The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.

(6)This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court.

 

Only if they can prove you recieved it before action by the new owner commenced, which the above says they should be able to prove

 

Law of Property Act 1925

136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

 

If not they can not prove from what date they had right of action.

 

 

Thats how i read the above anyway

[Battersea Bulldog]

Thank you.

So how do I proceed based on the above?

 

regards

 

Battersea Bulldog

[blind-as-a-bat]

Well if i am interpreting those two section correctly (and please wait for others to comment before acting on it) it is apparent the judge is ignoring/unaware of the interaction, and implications of the above.

 

I cant advise the best way to get this accross, without angering the judge, as you state s/he has already stated the NoA is OK and i fear s/he may not be pleased being questioned on that discision.

 

Hopefully someone with better knowledge of how to aproach the court with this will be able to advise soon, if it is correct and useable, how best to do so

[Battersea Bulldog]

How about an appeal, would that be worth while based on Section 196? Or some other legal procedure I can take.

 

regards

Battersea Bulldog