CL Finance v Questioner

[questioner]

All brill stuff but I shall hang on until you experts all have sorted out what's what on this NOA issue before I try and use it again....

 

Being lazy I know but just hunting for a few hard paras that I can tuck away to slay CL with on the back of all other data against them...

 

Best for the new year guys..

 

GO EASY ON THE BARLEY WINE!!

 

Q

[questioner]

"Readin further on the NOA, it must be served on the debtor, meaning that it must be served by hand or by registered signed for post."

 

THAT DID NOT HAPPEN PROVABLY AS IT WAS CL WHO SENT NOTICE OF THIS ACTION ON THEIR OWN LETTER (MONTHS AFTER THE ALLEGED NOA HAPPENED) WITH THE NOA AT THE BOTTOM ON THE CL PAGE.

 

CL CONTINUE TO IGNORE ALL THE RELEVENT POINT RAISED.

[nicklea]

"Readin further on the NOA, it must be served on the debtor, meaning that it must be served by hand or by registered signed for post."

 

No, this is not correct. As I said above, the act speaks of you being given written notice. If they send you a letter, by any means, saying that you should now pay them the debt and you reply to that letter or refer to that letter or communicate with them in writing about your debt that now belongs to them then you have acknowledged that you have received written notice of the assignment. Why else would you be writing to them about your debt that used to be paid to someone else?

 

The whole point of s196 is to give the assignor/assignee a number of modes of service which will be deemed to be valid service, even if in the event the intended recipient does not in fact receive it.

 

So, if they do give notice by one of the methods refered to in s196 then - even if you claim that you never received it - they have legally given you written notice. However, if they choose not to do this (and you do not acknowledge any letters from them) then it is completely possible for you to deny receiving any written notice from them.

 

You must remember that s196 is actually there to protect the assignor/assignee - not you. In that if they follow the procedures properly then they are deemed to have given written notice - whether or not you actually receive it. However, if they don't follow the procedures propely - that's another matter.

 

Have a read of this case for more background:-

 

Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 573

[questioner]

The orginal shark is however supposed to have signed the NOA aren't they?

 

I never saw any NOA, albeit the scan of part of one (if that was what it was) from CL.

 

Then there is the question of the wrong agreement number.

 

I CCA's them and then received an agreement with a totally differant agreement number on to the one they chased. When asked to explain this CL said go ask GE.

 

They ignored this too.

 

 

General impression is - pay up and stop asking questions......

Edited January 3, 2010 by questioner

[nicklea]

The orginal shark is however supposed to have signed the NOA aren't they?

 

No

 

Then there is the question of the wrong agreement number.

 

This will be very important if they try to take you to court and could be all you need for your defence, depending on what they put in their poc

[questioner]

Right - so the NOA (which was potentially thought to be an issue on this) is not an issue I can follow up. So long as I know...

 

It does seem rather odd that anyone can therefore send us an unsigned NOA and it is all ok - or am I getting what you say wrong?

 

Lots of technical stuff flying about but I am still in the dark.

 

Yes - the wrong number thing is odd too and DCA nor OC seems to want to talk about it to me..

 

I was under the impression that if a shark chases one for account number 9***** then that is the agreement number that should be on the CCA request they give us.

 

When I asked I got a copy with number 3*** on.

 

It must be great to undersatand all this in a professional manner and it is not hard to see why some folks get so sick of trying and give the whole file to these claim companies or solicitors to save so much hassle.

 

No worries though as I will keep trying to get a better picture.

 

I am seeking PPI comp however so we shall have to see what this does..

 

On way or another I will beat this!

[questioner]

Right - so now Santander have written back with this excuse not to pay the PPI claim.....

 

I have no data about the number change either but they say it was all ok???

 

So do I just focus to HBOS for PPI (have alreday written to them but but reply came back) or chase up Sant over this ???

 

The CL assignment said it was an absolute one yet Santander admit they are doing admin here..

 

 

 

 

[citizenB]

I rather suspect now is the time to make a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman in respect of the mis sold PPI. You could of course make one last attempt to get HBOS or Retail Financial Thingy to cough up.

 

Will give this some thought.

[citizenB]

It might be a good idea to track down diddydicky and vint1954 and ask for their comments on GE issuing Default Notices on an account which they were only administering ??

[questioner]

Many thanks CB

 

I am getting more confused every time they write to me as no one seems to what to deal with the PPI claim or face the associated problems I am dealing with on this whole issue.

 

Sant say they are not liable for PPI yet admit to a joint venture under the title of Retail Fanancial Service with HBOS so....?

 

HBOS say silent as do CL

 

I just feel like I am being messed about .

 

YES - SANT WHO WERE GE SAY THEY WERE ADMIN AND YET JOINT OWNERS BUT ENTITLED TO ISSUE DNS ON THIS ONE..

 

I just require some simplification in all this complex chaos and I do not trust what Sant tell me as GE were mega fined for PPI misselling before, as we know....

 

And is the term 'Modifying Agreement' relevent herein in view of what they say as I have no idea about ever being "duly notified" about a change of acc number?

 

Someone - PLEASE SAVE ME BEFORE I CRACK UP!!!!!!

Edited January 9, 2010 by questioner

[questioner]

BTW, this thread evolved from this one

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/215881-cl-f-cca.html#post2690913