UK debt being Chased in Australia

[DAVEDU]

Seevee may be on our side after all...

 

Have a look at the link he posted and pay attention to the case law of Collection House v Taylor

 

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf/$file/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf

 

The case revolves around the unfair collection of an unenforceable statute barred debt by a DCA which involved the use of misleading and deceptive conduct.

Some cases I've heard about recently involve the unfair collection of an unenforceable foreign debt by a DCA which involved the use of misleading or deceptive conduct.

 

Would't take a great lawyer to be able to link the two.

 

If anyone reading this has already ben intimidated into paying a debt to a DCA under the threat of default or court action; and you have since found out that the DCA had absolutely no legal claim to the debt in Australia; I'd be calling your lawyer.

[ozzyboy]

I look forward to shaking you by the hand in Perth magistrates court soon, you have my defence in hand now... May the best team win...

 

Skippy x x x

Are you really sure you want to shake his/her hand - You don't know where it's been.

[skippycreditdownunder]

Seevee may be on our side after all...

 

Have a look at the link he posted and pay attention to the case law of Collection House v Taylor

 

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf/$file/statute_barred_debts_report.pdf

 

The case revolves around the unfair collection of an unenforceable statute barred debt by a DCA which involved the use of misleading and deceptive conduct.

Some cases I've heard about recently involve the unfair collection of an unenforceable foreign debt by a DCA which involved the use of misleading or deceptive conduct.

 

Would't take a great lawyer to be able to link the two.

 

If anyone reading this has already ben intimidated into paying a debt to a DCA under the threat of default or court action; and you have since found out that the DCA had absolutely no legal claim to the debt in Australia; I'd be calling your lawyer.

 

davedu, i've not heard of any cases like that...

 

the ones i've heard of recently are defaulted before the dca's telephone monkey's have the intelligence to look you up in white pages. It's clearly easier to type all your details into the veda "i will wreck your credit system" including dob, address etc etc than it is to do a search of your surname and suburb in white pages..... 8-)

 

we shouldn't bag "i need a better see vee" or CV too much though, the cowboys and indians will be launching more threatening letters re libel and deformation!

 

Cornflake girl> poor buggers you wouldn't even be able to afford kellogs cornflakes on $38k a year....you'd be stuck with supermarket own make. no one in their right mind would get out of bed for that kind of money...! no wonder they appear to struggle with their calibre of staff...

[skippycreditdownunder]

Are you really sure you want to shake his/her hand - You don't know where it's been.

 

same goes the other way too ozzy!

 

I'm man enough to be a true sportsman win or lose.... the bloke is only doing a job.... lol.

 

be like a cross between a tragedy, the ashes and judge judy! Can't wait i've been saving my frequent flyer points for months!

[ozzyboy]

Throw Anne Robinson into the mix and it would be perfect.

[Guest ednae]

You can make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in Australia (which is nothing to do with the UK service) about any listing made by Pioneer in Australia for a UK debt.

www.fos.org.au

[ozzyboy]

Ooooohhh...Miss, she said the "P" word!

 

Very interesting, if brief, post.

 

Methinks there is far more there than has been left unsaid than has been revealed.

 

Please shed some more light!

[expatdebtor]

Hi See Vee, have we misjudged you?

[expatdebtor]

Not talking tonight? Afraid that doesn't fill me with confidence...

[scared001]

ive just been reading thru the posts and its really cheered me up today!! thank you.....

[expatdebtor]

Hi scared001, pleased to be of assistance, PM if you need more specialised responses... for obvious reasons!

[Bodgit]

Ozzyboy

 

Me thinks that you're on the money. less words more meaning.

 

Well guy's theres an offer that can't be refused. An avalanche of complaints may be coming your way FOS.

 

As for the Troll, well what can I say. I'm Daft not Stupid, could see it a mile away in your PM. Perhaps you need to spend more time on your defence in relation to the various regulatory authority questions , requests and investigations that are sure to be coming your way, instead of playing silly buggers on here!!!

 

Ah well, sleep well PFF and all those kind people supporting.

 

A new day tomorrow and yet another complaint to fill out and send off. ( I think thats 5 now!!)

 

Bodgit

Edited November 26, 2009 by Bodgit
Spellink worng again

[seevee]

For the benefit of those with s/barred debts except for cornflakegirl and davedu who have read what I attached and do not need reminding.

 

I quote from the ASIC report on collection of s/barred debts

 

Has the limitation period been re-started?

Time may be re-started, however, if the debtor:

• makes a payment; or

• acknowledges the debt in writing.

 

This has been described as giving the right of action:

‘a notional birthday and on that day, like the phoenix of

fable, it rises again in renewed youth—and also like the

phoenix, it is still itself’.

Busch v Stevens [1963] 1 QB 1, Lawton J at 6 (Davedu, sounds like a religious experience doesn't it)

 

To have the effect of re-setting the clock, an acknowledgment must:

• be made by the debtor or a properly authorised agent of the debtor;

• be written and signed; and

• constitute a clear acknowledgment that the debt exists and is unpaid.

Whether a document constitutes sufficient acknowledgment of the debt to

re-start time can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

In Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, a

limitation period can be re-started at any time—even if the original

limitation period has already expired. In contrast, in the Australian

Capital Territory, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, a

limitation period cannot be re-started once it expires. [...]

 

In all jurisdictions other than New South Wales, after the limitation

period expires, the legislation operates ‘to bar the remedy rather than the

right’. This means that the debt remains owing, but the legislation limits

the enforcement options available to the creditor. (not sure what this might entitle the DCA to do but it might mean they can mess with your credit rating...of course this would assume that they can legally pursue a debt which comes back to what is mentioned above and/or assignment of debt means and whether a CCJ is needed etc.)

 

If court proceedings are started to recover a statute-barred debt, the

debtor will be entitled to file a defence pleading expiration of the

limitation period. This will be a complete defence to the claim, and if

successful, will prevent judgment being obtained against the debtor.

 

[...]

 

Given the inconsistencies between limitation regimes and the increased

centralisation of debt collection by both lenders and debt collectors, one

of the key issues in ensuring compliance is knowing which legislation

applies to what debts.

In 1993, each state and territory enacted legislation providing a nationally

consistent answer to this question. For example, section 5 of the

Victorian legislation11 provides that:

If the substantive law of another place being another

State, a Territory or New Zealand, is to govern a claim

before a court of this State, a limitation law of that place

is to be regarded as part of that substantive law and

applied accordingly by the court.

This means, for example, that if a debt is governed by NSW legislation,

the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) will apply regardless of where legal

proceedings are commenced.12 (and thus in WA where Plonkers is the law of WA will apply as this is where debt alledgedly resides. Plonkers can lodge in WA but this is not recommended by ASIC as this can disadvantage debtors but again this depends on whether alledged debts can legally be pursued)

Edited November 26, 2009 by seevee

[seevee]

I would imagine that Plonkers is banking on intimidation and ignorance to get people to admit to alledged debts. My thoughts re. alledged debts would be:

 

1) Never admit to the alledged debt especially in writing. If you do, s/barred status may be lifted. Admitting anything under oath is better than in writing.

2) Politely ask plonkers never to contact you again re. the alledged debt. Third parties like your family do not have to assist and can also request this. There are strict rules around contact, read the guidelines and know your rights

3) Use a lawyer to do the writing. If you need to make contact, use a lawyer to this.

 

What I can't figure out is:

 

1) What does debt re-assignment mean legally for simple credit arrangements. If Plonkers are legally allowed to pursue on the grounds that they believe the debt is yours does a CCJ really matter? Does debt re-assignment change the terms of the credit agreement that was alledgedly entered into or allow Plonkers to process the transfer of credit agreements via an Australian court?

 

2) Although Plonkers may not be able to seek remedy for the s/barred debt that does not mean that the alledged debt is extinguished. How does that impact a credit rating?

 

To all my fans. ASIC is considering stronger regulation of the industry. A recent paper was released on it. Based on complaints made so far and the fact that the world has just had to pay for international banking greed is more justification for stronger regulation - toxic debt transfer will be something that no country will desire to take on as it just creates more social grief for citizens. Wayne Swan went to the UK this year and told the Govt to get rid of toxic assets off balance sheets but I don't think he then meant sell it back to us! Anyway, this debt has probably been packed up and sold many times over to make a profit over the last few years but never to actually try and realise the debt collection until now and thus debts have expired. Why would you bother chasing a debt when you could sell it to someone else in some complex impossible to understand contract and make a buck? (heard of the term credit default swap - yep most bankers themselves were thinking WTF but did it anyway cause they needed a porsche)

 

Sounds to me that Plonkers just plain got ripped off.

 

The Troll or the mole.

Edited November 26, 2009 by seevee

[DAVEDU]

Seriously seevee, listening to you is just like a religious experience. It's just like being in church, I kinda want to fall asleep at the sermons you keep giving but just laugh out loud at the theatrics and aburdity of it all.

 

Your argument is as contradictory and illogical as I expected.

 

"This means, for example, that if a debt is governed by NSW legislation,

the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) will apply regardless of where legal

proceedings are commenced.12 (and thus in WA where Plonkers is the law of WA will apply as this is where debt alledgedly resides)"

 

As you state it matters not where the debt resides but what law governs the debt.

 

You then state because the DCA is in WA and the alleged debt is WA it is then governed by WA legislation??? Dream on fool.

 

According to UK and Australian law the debt remains governed by the CCA1974, you have no claim, as for the relevant legislation to back this up... look it up yourself you lazy bastard:D

[skippycreditdownunder]

For the benefit of those with s/barred debts except for cornflakegirl and davedu who have read what I attached and do not need reminding.

 

I quote from the ASIC report on collection of s/barred debts

 

Has the limitation period been re-started?

Time may be re-started, however, if the debtor:

• makes a payment; or

• acknowledges the debt in writing.

 

This has been described as giving the right of action:

‘a notional birthday and on that day, like the phoenix of

fable, it rises again in renewed youth—and also like the

phoenix, it is still itself’.

Busch v Stevens [1963] 1 QB 1, Lawton J at 6 (Davedu, sounds like a religious experience doesn't it)

 

To have the effect of re-setting the clock, an acknowledgment must:

• be made by the debtor or a properly authorised agent of the debtor;

• be written and signed; and

• constitute a clear acknowledgment that the debt exists and is unpaid.

Whether a document constitutes sufficient acknowledgment of the debt to

re-start time can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

In Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, a

limitation period can be re-started at any time—even if the original

limitation period has already expired. In contrast, in the Australian

Capital Territory, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, a

limitation period cannot be re-started once it expires. [...]

 

In all jurisdictions other than New South Wales, after the limitation

period expires, the legislation operates ‘to bar the remedy rather than the

right’. This means that the debt remains owing, but the legislation limits

the enforcement options available to the creditor. (not sure what this might entitle the DCA to do but it might mean they can mess with your credit rating...of course this would assume that they can legally pursue a debt which comes back to what is mentioned above and/or assignment of debt means and whether a CCJ is needed etc.)

 

If court proceedings are started to recover a statute-barred debt, the

debtor will be entitled to file a defence pleading expiration of the

limitation period. This will be a complete defence to the claim, and if

successful, will prevent judgment being obtained against the debtor.

 

[...]

 

Given the inconsistencies between limitation regimes and the increased

centralisation of debt collection by both lenders and debt collectors, one

of the key issues in ensuring compliance is knowing which legislation

applies to what debts.

In 1993, each state and territory enacted legislation providing a nationally

consistent answer to this question. For example, section 5 of the

Victorian legislation11 provides that:

If the substantive law of another place being another

State, a Territory or New Zealand, is to govern a claim

before a court of this State, a limitation law of that place

is to be regarded as part of that substantive law and

applied accordingly by the court.

This means, for example, that if a debt is governed by NSW legislation,

the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) will apply regardless of where legal

proceedings are commenced.12 (and thus in WA where Plonkers is the law of WA will apply as this is where debt alledgedly resides. Plonkers can lodge in WA but this is not recommended by ASIC as this can disadvantage debtors but again this depends on whether alledged debts can legally be pursued)

 

ok advantage dca if debtor admits in writing. those cases will be few and far between.

 

what's your point re assignment?

[seevee]

Davedu, I am beginning to like you

 

I would look it up but my legal team is on a coffee break. Perhaps instead of flaming me all the time you might like to share the evidence with all the bloggers?

 

That would be infinitely more helpful.

[DAVEDU]

"Sounds to me that Plonkers just plain got ripped off":D:D

 

You seriously want pity?? You aint lost nothing yet, was going to total the fines you're probably up for but ran out of fingers.

 

No wonder ASIC is considering tighter regulation consider the idiots running some of these companies; and the amount of complaints they must be getting.

 

Q1 What does debt re-assignment mean legally for simple credit arrangements

A1 As I said - do your own work

 

Q2 How does SB affect credit rating

A2 It doesn't

[skippycreditdownunder]

Davedu, I am beginning to like you

 

I would look it up but my legal team is on a coffee break. Perhaps instead of flaming me all the time you might like to share the evidence with all the bloggers?

 

That would be infinitely more helpful.

 

ok we assume you work for either the dca or the dca's law firm... in that case read the numerous letters sent to you by PFF members stating the legislation and more recently case law supporting our contentions re these alleged debts.

 

if you don't work for them why play devils advocate on here, what's your game?? what's your point exactly??

[seevee]

Skippy, the debate is on whether debt re-assignment allows plonkers to transfer alledged debts legally and begin pursuit.

 

DaveDu and many other people on this site have said no...so hey trust them. Based on the level of trust this forum has shown me I would be asking for evidence which we all don't seem to be able to find any...

[DAVEDU]

Davedu, I am beginning to like you

 

I would look it up but my legal team is on a coffee break. Perhaps instead of flaming me all the time you might like to share the evidence with all the bloggers?

 

That would be infinitely more helpful.

 

I'd love to share the info with you, I would however require a rather exhorbitant retainer. I think you'd find my legal advice far better than anything you currently receive.

[skippycreditdownunder]

"Sounds to me that Plonkers just plain got ripped off":D:D

 

You seriously want pity?? You aint lost nothing yet, was going to total the fines you're probably up for but ran out of fingers.

 

No wonder ASIC is considering tighter regulation consider the idiots running some of these companies; and the amount of complaints they must be getting.

 

Q1 What does debt re-assignment mean legally for simple credit arrangements

A1 As I said - do your own work

 

Q2 How does SB affect credit rating

A2 It doesn't

 

Q1 uk debt so assigned under uk law of property act 1925 if my memory back to my first year of uni serves me correctly.....

[skippycreditdownunder]

I'd love to share the info with you, I would however require a rather exhorbitant retainer. I think you'd find my legal advice far better than anything you currently receive.

 

dave for the right dough i'd change sides! would have to be a sh*t load more than 38k a year though!

 

50000 views over 3 forums... not one person successfully been sued for remedy of a uk debt in a foreign land.....

 

but of course the sandgropers are going to be first. true pioneers!

[skippycreditdownunder]

Skippy, the debate is on whether debt re-assignment allows plonkers to transfer alledged debts legally and begin pursuit.

 

DaveDu and many other people on this site have said no...so hey trust them. Based on the level of trust this forum has shown me I would be asking for evidence which we all don't seem to be able to find any...

 

Sure they can begin pusuit i have one of your lovely writs to prove it....

 

successfully achieve remedy may be another matter.... as i say see you in a court in Perth soon and we'll all find out.....

[DAVEDU]

Skippy, the debate is on whether debt re-assignment allows plonkers to transfer alledged debts legally and begin pursuit.

 

DaveDu and many other people on this site have said no...so hey trust them. Based on the level of trust this forum has shown me I would be asking for evidence which we all don't seem to be able to find any...

 

They can transfer debts to whomever they like, they can also pursue debts from whomever they like, but they must do it legally.

For this alleged debt you could legally only ask, even beg or plead, if you'd come to me on your knees with tears in your eyes I would have given you something... I not heartless.

But no you default me before you even say hello.. Piers Morgan

 

You'll find all people on here did a lot of work regarding the legality of the debts and defaults, our conclusions have been backed up and re-inforced by a gaggle? of lawyers.