Received copy of Agreement with incorrect information

[alangee]

diddydicky

 

But there is no signature page.

 

Alan

[alangee]

I should also add that one of the prescribed terms (the APR) is wrong by 10% at the outset, and by 5% after the introductory rate.

 

This by the way, is not the only thing wrong with the account. I have not received an NoA, and the DN is defective, it is just another piece to fit in the jigsaw.

 

Alan

Edited July 3, 2009 by alangee

[I've got no money]

I should also add that one of the prescribed terms (the APR) is wrong by 10% at the outset, and by 5% after the introduction rate.

 

This by the way, is not the only thing wrong with the account. I have not received an NoA, and the DN is defective, it is just another piece to fit in the jigsaw.

 

Alan

 

If the agreement has been assigned to IJ (as opposed to them acting as debt collectors for the OC) unfortunately you have received a NoA and you have acknowledged it...whether the NoA is valid or not depends on a number of factors - I would need to see the correspondence between you and IJ before I could form a view

 

There is NO specific form of wording required for a NoA - anything which tells you that there has been an assignment will do - the document does not need to include the date of assignment or the amount outstanding but if either is quoted it must be accurate.

 

It is true that there are rules governing service of the NoA HOWEVER IMO those rules do not apply where you have acknowledged receipt - so the fact that you have got involved in correspondence with IJ proves that you have been served with notice of the assignment

[alangee]

All I have acknowledged when they have written to me is by stating that I do not owe them any money, and if they think any different, then they should provide me with an agreement, and a copy of the NoA.

 

Are you now saying that anybody that responds to any DCA letter is in fact acknowledging the Notice of Assignment?

 

I may be wrong, but the general advice on CAG doesn't seem to hold that view.

 

Alan

[I've got no money]

All I have acknowledged when they have written to me is by stating that I do not owe them any money, and if they think any different, then they should provide me with an agreement, and a copy of the NoA.

 

Are you now saying that anybody that responds to any DCA letter is in fact acknowledging the Notice of Assignment?

 

I may be wrong, but the general advice on CAG doesn't seem to hold that view.

 

Alan

 

IMO if you receive a letter from anybody that says explicitly or implicitly that there has been an assignment and you acknowledge receipt of that letter then you have actual notice of the assignment - I do not believe that you have any prospect of later persuading a court that you have not been served with a written notice of assignment. I have actually been making this point on a number of threads for some time.

 

If the advice on CAG is to the contrary then IMHO it is wrong - I'd ask anyone who gives that advice to point me to a case where an otherwise valid NoA has been declared invalid in a case where the debtor acknowledged receipt BUT then claimed that because it hadn't been served by registered post it didn't count

 

As far as writing on the letter that you do not owe them any money or you do not acknowledge any debt to them is concerned that has no effect at all in terms of the NoA - the reason people write it on is that it is designed to prevent the letter being an treated as acknowledging the debt for limitation purposes

[I've got no money]

Can I just clarify - I know that IJ do both debt collection and debt purchase - is this an assignment case or is it a straight debt collection?

[2Grumpy]

Not paying is in the act - i hope! in the bit about 12 days + month

 

Yes, i should have mentioned IJ & the OC trashing the credit file, but if we are already with IJ then the cra file is already trashed.

 

Probably made too many assumptions! Sorry

 

I must admit I hate IJ.

[alangee]

IGNM

 

As far as I am aware they have bought the debt, but as I have not received an NoA, despite my requesting one, I do not know.

 

You talk about acknowledging receipt of a valid NoA, but what do you term a valid NoA? Is it just a demand for money?

 

 

Alan

Edited July 3, 2009 by alangee

[diddydicky]

IMO if you receive a letter from anybody that says explicitly or implicitly that there has been an assignment and you acknowledge receipt of that letter then you have actual notice of the assignment - I do not believe that you have any prospect of later persuading a court that you have not been served with a written notice of assignment. I have actually been making this point on a number of threads for some time.

 

If the advice on CAG is to the contrary then IMHO it is wrong - I'd ask anyone who gives that advice to point me to a case where an otherwise valid NoA has been declared invalid in a case where the debtor acknowledged receipt BUT then claimed that because it hadn't been served by registered post it didn't count

 

As far as writing on the letter that you do not owe them any money or you do not acknowledge any debt to them is concerned that has no effect at all in terms of the NoA - the reason people write it on is that it is designed to prevent the letter being an treated as acknowledging the debt for limitation purposes

 

you are 100% right any acknowledgment of a NOA or a SD for that matter completes the primary objective- which is to make the debtor aware of the assignment or SD -

 

it then matters not if the service or delivery , which otherwise might have defeated it, was correct - the object of making the debotr aware of its existence is acheived

 

(one more reason incidentally why one should never acknowledge receipt of a SD that has not been personally served or signed for)

[I've got no money]

IGNM

 

As far as I am aware they have bought the debt, but as I have not received an NoA, despite my requesting one, I do not know.

 

You talk about acknowledging receipt of a valid NoA, but what do you term a valid NoA? Is it just a demand for money?

 

Alan

 

The difficulty is that the case law on NoA's is very flexible as to what is a NoA - it has been held that a document can be a valid NoA even if it doesn't intend to be one - so anything which tells you that you owe the new creditor the money may amount to a NoA - so yes a demand for money (if the information on it is correct) is likely to be a valid NoA especially if it refers to the original creditor and the new creditor.

 

All a valid NoA has to do is to let you know that you should pay the new creditor and in your case that has happened - you know that there has been an assignment...as I said earlier the notice may be invalidated if it contains incorrect information.

Edited July 3, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

you are 100% right any acknowledgment of a NOA or a SD for that matter completes the primary objective- which is to make the debtor aware of the assignment or SD -

 

it then matters not if the service or delivery , which otherwise might have defeated it, was correct - the object of making the debotr aware of its existence is acheived

 

(one more reason incidentally why one should never acknowledge receipt of a SD that has not been personally served or signed for)

 

I don't know much about SD's at all - although I understand that if someone is served with an SD they should never just ignore it. There are a couple of excellent threads which deal with what to do...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/162131-statutory-demands-service-post.html

 

and

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/112326-dcas-statutory-demands-few.html

[diddydicky]

I don't know much about SD's at all - although I understand that if someone is served with an SD they should never just ignore it. There are a couple of excellent threads which deal with what to do...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/162131-statutory-demands-service-post.html

 

and

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/112326-dcas-statutory-demands-few.html

 

if you read surface agents piece regarding service by post of an SD which is unsignred for ignoring it is exactly what he recommends!!

 

the reason is that service by normal post is not acceptable by a court as a reliable means of service

[I've got no money]

if you read surface agents piece regarding service by post of an SD which is unsignred for ignoring it is exactly what he recommends!!

 

the reason is that service by normal post is not acceptable by a court as a reliable means of service

 

As I say I don't know much about SD's - just that they need carefull consideration...I didn't say that you should acknowledge them I said that you shouldn't ignore them. As I understand it rather than just binning a Stat Demand that came by normal post you need to consider carefully your options and make an informed decision - that's what I meant by not ignoring it.

 

One point to remember is that, and I know that the it does not apply to SD's and bankruptcy - which I believe are governed by the insolvency rules, in civil cases generally it is permissible to serve a claim form by unrecorded post (CPR 6.3). I only make the point because I would not want another Cagger to read DD's post and to think that it applied to all types of proceedings. In the County Court most claim forms are served, by the County Court, by normal unrecorded first class post. In the County Court, under the CPR, unless the envelope is returned as undelivered it is deemed served.

[diddydicky]

point taken - my comments applied to sd's