cahoot loan not sold on

[therafalution]

just had an interesting conversation with a nice lady at cahoot. i have been paying apex for an old loan, got a letter today from cahoot, phoned them and asked them if they had sold the loan on, she said they had not, they are only collecting the debt on their behalf. Where do i stand in dealing with them, obviously i would rather deal with cahoot, got no complaints with apex but obviously don't want to deal with parasites.

[Seminole]

What did the letter say? Generally it's better to sort things out with the original creditor. The only advantage in them selling on the debt to a debt buyer is that they will normally do so at less than face value and so it may be easier to negotiate a full and final settlement. There are all sorts of disadvantages though.

 

You don't really have any say in the matter but you the original creditor is required by law to send you a formal notice of assignment naming the purchaser of the debt.

[therafalution]

the letter just told me i was in arrears with my loan, already knew that, just asked if they had sold it on and she said no, not received any letter from apex, have been paying them for over 12 months.

 

thanks for all replies, much appreciated.

[diddydicky]

unless there is a very good reason, you are obliged, as are they, to deal with their appointed representative and you will be seen as being unreasonable if you don't

[Deb T]

unless there is a very good reason, you are obliged, as are they, to deal with their appointed representative and you will be seen as being unreasonable if you don't

 

 

Rubbish, you're not obliged to deal with anyone other than the original creditor, if they want to outsource collection to a third party thats their perogative but there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about wanting to deal with just the original creditor.

[diddydicky]

really!,

 

To "legally appoint " someone to act on ones behalf (including your creditor) one merely has to inform you that the person or company is indeed acting on it's behalf.

 

 

From which point the creditor can justifiably refuse all direct contact from you-

 

The creditor can appoints any individual or company he wishes to act for him, be it debt collectors, solicitors, even the local fishmonger if he feelsl so inclined

 

You can if you wish refuse to deal with the creditors appointed representative but don't be surprised, if and when you get to court when you are hammered every which way with costs due to your unreasonable behaviour.

[Deb T]

Given the conduct of the majority of the dca's catalogued on this forum and the warnings that some of them have received from the likes of the OFT then I see nothing wrong with maintaining the line that you wish only to be in contact with the original creditor.

 

As for legally appointing the fishmonger I don't know many of them that are signed up to the data protection act or are registered with the FSA

 

As for unreasonable in court, if you've written to the Original creditor with a view to trying to reconcile your differences and assuming they still own your account I think a judge would be hard pressed to find you as being unreasonable by wanting to talk/deal with the people that your contract exists with.

[diddydicky]

nice sentiments Deb T but alas with no basis in fact

 

I am also unaware that the fishmonger or anyone else is required to have any legal qualifications to act on behalf of another (except in court of course)

[diddydicky]

Given the conduct of the majority of the dca's catalogued on this forum and the warnings that some of them have received from the likes of the OFT then I see nothing wrong with maintaining the line that you wish only to be in contact with the original creditor.

 

As for legally appointing the fishmonger I don't know many of them that are signed up to the data protection act or are registered with the FSA

 

As for unreasonable in court, if you've written to the Original creditor with a view to trying to reconcile your differences and assuming they still own your account I think a judge would be hard pressed to find you as being unreasonable by wanting to talk/deal with the people that your contract exists with.

 

presumably then when you deal with the court you are going to insist on dealing directly with the judge who will handle the trial and refuse to deal with his clerks!

[Deb T]

nice sentiments Deb T but alas with no basis in fact

 

I am also unaware that the fishmonger or anyone else is required to have any legal qualifications to act on behalf of another (except in court of course)

 

You haven't provided evidence to the contrary? Are you just bluster

Anyone can appoint any person of course but it simply would not be seen as unreasonable if you wanted to talk to the Organ Grinder as opposed to the proverbial monkey, could you show me where it would be seen as unreasonable? as in basis of fact..?

 

If for example Mckenzie Hall contacted me with a view to collecting a debt, would I talk to them? Not a chance, would it be seen as unreasonable? Not a chance, if they don't own my debt etc... I'd

simply print out the below...

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

I seriously doubt a judge would think it unreasonable to not want to talk to them. Likewise, any other appointed representative such as the fishmonger (I'd prefer it to be an Ironmonger..at least then I could nail them..er in a manner of speaking) can come along and ask for money but would it be unreasonable to not want to speak with them? I think not.

 

Under the debt collection gudiance from the OFT updated 2006 under the section headed Deceptive and /or unfair methods 2.8 it states 'passing on debtor details to debt management companies without the debtors informed prior consent' It's open to interpretation, 'informed prior consent' we boh know many DCA's cannot provide true signed copies of a credit agreement which then brings the 'informed prior consent' straight to the fore. At the same time as this, the original credit agreement if it is provided is again open to interpretaion, it may say that they 'may pass on your details to a third party for collection' or words of a similar nature, however in the absence of 'named third parties' I don't think it would be unreasonable to reject their appointed spokespersons, particularly the fishmonger, they could be anyone (and usually are)

 

That's part factual basis, wheres yours?

[diddydicky]

not quite sure what relevance the last paragraph has to what we were discussing (or what the term "part factual basis is supposed to mean) but, i think we probably need to agree to disagree here.