Amex CC Debt advice needed, (now RMA)

[DCam]

Last spring I had a Amex CC debt of around £3000 and was paying around £75 a month back with about £35 interest going on every month. In their wisdom, they decided to increase the monthly payments to nearly double, around £130 a month, and although I informed them I couldn't afford this and asked them if they could reduce the payments back to £75, which they refused, they asked for proof in the form of some kind of incomings/outgoings statement, which at the time I thought of as my business and none of theirs, although I since had a conversion with a debt advisor over the phone and he said I should have provided this.

After a few months Amex passed the debt over to Newman Debt Recovery, and after much reading on this excellent forum I sent them this template letter on the 5th Nov 09:

Consumer Credit Act template - Consumer Wiki

deleting the line about disputing the debt, tbh I wasn't sure about this, as I'm not a lawyer, and really need help in sorting this out.

 

I recieved a letter back on the 19th Nov 09 with a copy of my application:

 

 

I note that although it has my signature on, it has not been signed by them. This post mentions that both parties must sign:

(sorry not sure how to use trackbacks)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case-6.html#post2675695

 

I'm pretty sure that this is a application form, and not a executed agreement that is required?

 

This debt has now been passed onto Risk Management Alternatives (RMA)

Newman did put a charge of around £500 on, which they eventually removed, before passing the debt on to RMA.

 

I really need some advice on what to do next, should I send them the template letter:

 

Letter when account has been passed on whilst agreement request is in dispute

 

 

Could this debt now be considered to be in dispute?

 

Any advice would be most appriecated, thx.

Edited January 4, 2010 by DCam
Link wrong

[UnitedFront]

Is the copy they have sent you any more legible than the scan posted? I can't make out if any/all of the prescribed terms are held within that document..... ??

 

I certainly can't see any prescribed terms (or any terms really?) on that document.... is that all they sent you?

 

Cheers

UF

[DCam]

If you right-click on the image and select "save as" to save it to your computer, then open the image in a picture viewer, you will be able to "zoom" to view the image closer. You can just about make out the text if you do this, or I can re-scan the image at higher resolution if you want, let me know.

(You can try zooming in with the browser also)

 

They also sent me a "copy of the terms and conditions" (doesn't say if these are the original or updated terms) which is 9 pages long.

[UnitedFront]

Hi DCam, I've tried saving the file, but unfortunately the smaller text is still illegible, on the most part. What I am trying to ascertain is whether the document sent contains the terms that are prescribed as necessary in order to make it an "executed credit agreement". I can't see them thus far, and nor can I see any referrence to anything "overleaf" etc.

 

As for the T&C's they have sent you.... the general consensus is that as far as the actual prescribed terms go, these must be contained within the "four corners" of the agreement document in order for it to be executed properly.

 

Thus, if these terms are not on the document, and if the document does not refer to anything overleaf; the "agreement" is unenforceable. That does not mean that the debt does not exist, but it does mean that a court should not enforce it.

 

If you could try scanning at higher quality, it would give us all a chance to inspect it properly and see if these terms are there.

 

Cheers.

UF

[DCam]

Try this link here, the picture is quite large, about 4.6 Mb I think, just to warn anyone with a slow connection or capped broadband package. If you zoom IE to 300% you should be able to read the text ok.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4905/amex4b7.jpg

 

Oh and I was looking at this again and it doesn't even seem to be the original agreement, as it has an old address on, that I admended with my new address (now my old address again).

[UnitedFront]

That's much better. And as I suspected.... there are NONE of the prescribed terms contained within that document!! There is a chance that the original document contained these on the reverse -and I'm not too sure what the legal position of that would be- but given that it makes no mention of anything overleaf, I think that is unlikely.

 

They do mention T&C's; so most likely they are relying on a seperate document. The general consensus around here is that the prescribed terms must be contained within the four corners of the signature document. As this has none within the four corners, I'm on the opinion that it is unenforceable.

 

If I were in your position and had received this, I would be sending the "Account in Dispute" letter. I'm trying to find it now for you.... someone else may be along sooner with it though.

[mightypotters01]

Did you get this in relation to a CCA request or SAR??

[UnitedFront]

Did you get this in relation to a CCA request or SAR??

First post says it was a CCA request

 

OK.... I've found two template letters that you could send (either one will do) :

 

#1:

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your quick response to my original letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.

 

My request remains outstanding. The items you sent in your reply, does not constitute a true copy of any credit agreement that may or may not have been signed by me on the opening of this account. It neither confirms that I am liable for any alleged debt to you, nor gives me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.

 

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

You had until XX/XX/2009 to provide me with the true copy I requested. You are now in default of my request. Any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit reference agencies.

 

Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

#2:

Thank you for your response to my request under the Consumer Credit Act section 78.

 

I am pleased to see that you confirm this as a true copy of the original agreement executed by yourselves on the XXXXX.

 

As you must realise this agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act 1974 and would therefore only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, the absence of any prescribed terms and my signature means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3)"

 

You had until (date here) to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request and I am therefore advising that the matter is now in dispute . Whilst the matter is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, make any further charges to the account or pass the account to anybody else.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies including any defaults. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

 

Just choose which one to send and then edit to suit your specific details.

 

Just yell if you need anything

 

Cheers

UF

[mightypotters01]

The problem is these days is that creditors can send virtually any old rubbish in response to a CCA request and still comply with the regulations. The only to get a copy of the agreement that you actaully signed is by SAR.

[UnitedFront]

The problem is these days is that creditors can send virtually any old rubbish in response to a CCA request and still comply with the regulations. The only to get a copy of the agreement that you actaully signed is by SAR.

 

SAR would only do that if they actually still had it. If they only hold a reconstituted "agreement" on file then this is what you would get under a SAR. CPR has been used recently to get a copy of the signed agreement.

 

If you read post number1, you will see that the company has sent a copy of the signed "agreement" already. And it is missing the prescribed terms.

 

I would send one of the letter as above and see what comes back. As always, send by recorded delivery and DO NOT the letters or anything else you send.

 

Cheers.

UF

[mightypotters01]

What is in the first post is one side of one page. How do you know that there is nothing on the other side?? There could well be more parts to this, as often happens with with credit card agreements.

[UnitedFront]

Hence I touched upon that in my previous posts. The same outcome could come after a SAR as well though.

[mightypotters01]

So surely the only way to see that would by sar?

[UnitedFront]

That would only show you what that company currently holds on file. It would probably come back as the same document. It is not unheard of for companies to suddenly come up with original agreements that had previously had their existence denied even for the purpose of SAR's.

 

On that basis, the standard advice even in the current climate is to send the dispute letter. There is no mention of "overleaf" on the document posted either; so the only way to show that there was something on the back would be to see the original; and the only way that will happen is in a court, as far as I am aware.

 

I stand by my previous advice; however, it goes without saying that the more opinions the OP can get, the better; and then the actions to take are down to the OP, in the end.

 

Cheers.

UF

[DCam]

Just to clear a couple of things up 1st, I sent the £1 postal order, which they returned, not sure if this is important or not, and the application form they sent me was a photocopy (is a photocopy ok?) with nothing on the other side.

 

The template letters, I was on the verge of something along the lines of the 1st, but a got a strange call from RMA out of the blue and realised the debt had been passed to them. So I send the CCA request to Newman, which they responded to, and then passed the debt onto someone else.

So I will have to reword the 1st paragraph somehow as RMA didn't send me the copy of the agreement, or do I need to CCA RMA too?

 

Regarding the second template letter, the application form does have my signature on, (but not theirs), would this make a difference?

 

Thanks for the help btw!

[UnitedFront]

OK, to take each point one at a time:

 

When you sent the cca request, you offered the statutory £1 fee. They can return this to you if they want; they are still under the same obligations. However, having sent this; they would appear to have discharged their obligations under your request as they have sent an "agreement".

 

Your argument now is that the agreement that they have sent is not enforceable as it is missing the prescribed terms required by law.

 

A photocopy is fine to discharge their obligations of your request; however, if their was another side this should be included, but as I said before; the only way to know for sure what was on the other side is to see the original. And I'm not sure what your chances of seeing the original are, given this was signed over 7 years ago.

 

Finally, technically both signatures should be there; but I've not heard of a court refusing to enforce purely on this point alone.

 

As with all of these situations; there is a risk that you could get to court and the company could magically turn up with the original document and it could have the prescribed terms on the back. Personally, I'm not sure how likely this is.

 

If you have a read around the forum at some of the other Amex threads, you will be able to get a clearer idea of things for yourself; because obviously what to do next is your decision.

 

If I were in your position I would certainly fire off one of the letters above, or a variation there of, and see what comes back at you. The simple fact that what they have sent you thus far is unenforceable does, in my opinion, at the very least put you in a very strong position.

 

Hope this helps, just yell if you need anything further.

 

Cheers

UF

 

 

 

I am a mature student in the first year of my law degree.

 

I am NOT an expert in law.

 

All of my posts are just my opinion and are based on a combination of my own experiences, personal research and information I have picked up on these forums. I cannot be held responsible for their accuracy or the way in which the information etc is used. If in doubt always consult a qualified professional lawyer.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2010 by UnitedFront

[DCam]

How about this for a slight rewording of paragraph 1 of the 1st letter, to take into account that I CCA requested Newmans and not RMA?

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I requested a true copy of the original agreement from Newman Debt Collections, and I appreciated the quick response to my letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil the requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I could just leave the rest as is and send it off to them.

[UnitedFront]

Hi, there is a specific "bemused" letter kicking about; but as you've never sent an "account in dispute" letter to anyone regarding this, I think you're best with the ones given; and yep, your alterations make the letter fit your situation better, so I'd definitely make the alterations and go with it. See what, if anything, turns up and we can go from there.

 

Yell if you need anything.

Cheers.

UF

 

 

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

[nuke em]

send them this, take out the bit in RED as that is only if you were sending to Solicitors

 

 

sender name and address

 

 

Sent Registered mail

 

 

Solicitors or debt collectors

address

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORMAL NOTICE

 

Re:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I have received your unsolicited letter dated xxxxx (copy enclosed()

 

I wish to clarify your position in this matter.

 

You are a third party intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. We do not have a contract and any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.

 

As professional solicitors you well know that an affidavit address to a specific person with specific statements can only be rebutted point by point by the person so addressed who has personal first hand knowledge of it.

Which - means, in case you had not noticed, it was not addressed to you or your company.

It is neither judicial, nor is it a threat, nor is it proceedings. It has nothing to do with the you, the court or any judicial system as it is as stated above.

So your statements allegations, of abuse of court process, wasteful litigation etc., are in the light of the above - pointless.

 

 

I am now formally requesting that you cease all correspondence including but not limited to; letters, phone calls and text messaging.

 

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1970 and I believe, should you continue contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail and you will be in breach of these acts and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

 

Please note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading and take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way and pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. You will confirm this action in writing to me within 14 days of receipt of this official request which is being sent to you registered mail. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

Notwithstanding the fact that I do not, have not and will not consent to your interference in this matter, am I not correct is stating that any ‘contract’ that I might have with ( insert name of orig creditor) is governed by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

 

Am I also not correct in stating that S1 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 sets out the circumstances in which a third party may seek to enforce the terms of a contract?

 

As no third party was expressly identified by name as required under Section 1, Sub-sections 1 - 3 of the above Act you are not a third party to the contract and have no rights in this matter.

 

And;

 

Section 6. Section 1 confers no rights on a third party in the case of a contract on a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument.

 

You are therefore in serious breach of the common law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

 

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served (3days) from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

 

I recommend you actually read what is written here and I would suggest you take legal advice as it seems to me you could do with some.

 

Under the circumstances should you continue this approach I reserve the right to take appropriate Action.

 

Formal notice of fee schedule to XXXXX DCA

For unlawful unsolicited interference in my commercial affairs.

 

1 For each unsolicited phone call £100.00

2 For each unsolicited letter of harassment £100.00

3 For each letter that I have to write to XXXXXXXX due to

unsolicited letter/s of harassment £200.00

4 For each letter I have to write to ICO regarding XXXXXXX’s

unlawful letters of harassment £250.00

5 For each letter I have to write to the Office of Fair Trading £250.00

6 For each letter I have to write to

7 For each letter I have to write to Trading Standards £250.00

8 For each letter I have to write to the Police £250.00

9 For each court appearance £1000.00

10 For each phone call I have to make to the relevant bodies £75.00

(plus £300.00 per hour or part thereof £5.00 per minute)

11 For each and any legal counter claim £3000.00

 

 

This fee schedule effective from the date of this Notice and will initiate upon the receipt of any further unsolicited letters or communications from XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

 

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

 

______________

All Rights, Privileges and Powers Reserved Without Prejudice

[UnitedFront]

Hi Nuke, whilst I am in every way entirely for taking on and beating DCA's and their horrible tactics; I am also for giving accurate and true information. If you look at my previous posts, this is clear.

 

Can I ask where that letter came from? I've seen it in another thread and was just about to reply to that one when this one popped into my email box as well?

 

Some of the information in that letter appears, to me, to fatally flawed.

 

For example; the common law doctrine of privity of contract does apply to these such cases; however, this prevents parties from suing for damages under a contract, or suing to enforce a contract.

 

There is common law exception in the form of assignment. This essentially means that the benefit of a contract can be assigned to a third party (an equitable assignment). This form of assignment means that any court action must be brought in the name of the original creditor.

 

There is also an absolute assignment, as under S136 Law of Property Act 1925. This again allows the benefit of a contract to be absolutely assigned to a third party; whereby that third party can sue (in their own name) for the benefit owing under the contract.

 

As stated previously, the third party cannot sue for damages relating to the breach of contract (non-payment) but can sue for the benefit owed under the contract (the outstanding money).

 

S7(1) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 states that the Act "does not affect any right or remedy of a third party that exists or is available apart from the Act". This meaning that the above forms of assignment are unaffected by the Act,

 

On the basis that the benefit of such contracts can be assigned, it seems highly unlikely that any court would consider communication by writing unreasonable.

 

Having said this, the letter is accurate in that you do have the right to revoke license for people to contact you on your telephone line. As do you have the right to revoke license for people to visit you on your premises.

 

Finally, the fees stated at the bottom would, in my opinion, be held in any court to be wholly and completely unreasonable. In my opinion any court would hold you in very poor light for making such demands.

 

I would personally not send that letter as it stands; owing to the points above, to name but a few. However, I do respect your opinions and your right to adopt such a tactic in your battles.

 

I would stick with the opinions stated in my previous posts and see what comes forth. That way if the matter ever does get to court, the OP can be in the best position possible.

 

Cheers.

UF

 

 

__________________

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Edited January 6, 2010 by UnitedFront

[nuke em]

Hi Nuke, whilst I am in every way entirely for taking on and beating DCA's and their horrible tactics; I am also for giving accurate and true information. If you look at my previous posts, this is clear.

 

Can I ask where that letter came from? I've seen it in another thread and was just about to reply to that one when this one popped into my email box as well? its one that has been used very successfully by myself & a few freinds

 

Some of the information in that letter appears, to me, to fatally flawed.

 

For example; the common law doctrine of privity of contract does apply to these such cases; however, this prevents parties from suing for damages under a contract, or suing to enforce a contract.

 

There is common law exception in the form of assignment. This essentially means that the benefit of a contract can be assigned to a third party (an equitable assignment). This form of assignment means that any court action must be brought in the name of the original creditor.

 

There is also an absolute assignment, as under S136 Law of Property Act 1925. This again allows the benefit of a contract to be absolutely assigned to a third party; whereby that third party can sue (in their own name) for the benefit owing under the contract.

 

As stated previously, the third party cannot sue for damages relating to the breach of contract (non-payment) but can sue for the benefit owed under the contract (the outstanding money). i think you need to read up more on the S1 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which sets out the circumstances in which a third party may seek to enforce the terms of a contract. remember most DCA's do not have absolute title, just an equitable chance -theri-arm position at most, and NONE that i have come across have a deed of assignment , even when they say they have, they just lie about it, not seen one yet

 

On the basis that the benefit of such contracts can be assigned, it seems highly unlikely that any court would consider communication by writing unreasonable.

 

Having said this, the letter is accurate in that you do have the right to revoke license for people to contact you on your telephone line. As do you have the right to revoke license for people to visit you on your premises.

 

Finally, the fees stated at the bottom would, in my opinion, be held in any court to be wholly and completely unreasonable. In my opinion any court would hold you in very poor light for making such demands. why ?, these are my reasonable fees dealing with their crap. isnt that after all what they do? pile on excessive fees , charges etc for nothing, PLus who ever said anything about going to Court, that the last place i would think about going, i like to keep everything in the Private not the Public ( courts)

 

I would certainly never recommend sending that letter; owing to the points above, to name but a few. I & my associates have been sending this letter ( and slightly different variations for the past 4 months & its working, just fine)

 

I would stick with the opinions stated in my previous posts and see what comes forth. That way if the matter ever does get to court, the OP can be in the best position possible.

 

Cheers.

UF

 

 

see above,

 

BTW this is principly for getting rid of third party DCA & sols etc. if they persisit then i get real heavy with them & turn their invaild claim into my valid claim

[UnitedFront]

see above,

 

BTW this is principly for getting rid of third party DCA & sols etc. if they persisit then i get real heavy with them & turn their invaild claim into my valid claim

 

I feel it is important to read Acts of Parliament as a whole, and not just sections therein. With this in mind and with respect, S7(1) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 specifically states that the Act does not affect any other remedy available to third parties, outside the Act. That being said, any legally recognised form of assignment would be a valid exception to the Act.

 

Furthermore, under the common law principles of equitable assignment, there is no requirement for a notice of assignment, and when the "debts" are sold, I am certain that some paperwork would be in place. There is a need for such a document (notice of assignment etc.), however, under the Law of Property Act.

 

Whether or not we believe their contentions of having deeds of assignment etc. in place, the courts have repeatedly shown a willingness to accept the documents of this nature placed before them.

 

Given the number of top barristers, solicitors etc. who earn their money defending claims from DCA's, I feel certain that more than one of these highly trained people would have picked up on the simple issue of third parties; and DCA's would not ever win in court.

 

Whilst I think it is fantastic that you have successfully used this letter; the purported facts within it are flawed. On that basis I respectfully think it is somewhat negligent to recommend its use within a public forum.

 

Obviously you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I would hate to think that any person on the forum was being given false information. If the contentions within the letter were to be true then, as said before, no DCA would ever have a chance in court; and we need not ever bother checking if agreements etc. are valid; because a simple "you are a third party" defence would suffice. This is not the case.

 

Cheers.

UF

 

 

__________________

I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Edited January 6, 2010 by UnitedFront

[nuke em]

I feel it is important to read Acts of Parliament as a whole, and not just sections therein. With this in mind and with respect, S7(1) Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 specifically states that the Act does not affect any other remedy available to third parties, outside the Act. That being said, any legally recognised form of assignment would be a valid exception to the Act.

 

Furthermore, under the common law principles of equitable assignment, there is no requirement for a notice of assignment, and when the "debts" are sold, I am certain that some paperwork would be in place. There is a need for such a document (notice of assignment etc.), however, under the Law of Property Act.

 

Whether or not we believe their contentions of having deeds of assignment etc. in place, the courts have repeatedly shown a willingness to accept the documents of this nature placed before them.

 

Given the number of top barristers, solicitors etc. who earn their money defending claims from DCA's, I feel certain that more than one of these highly trained people would have picked up on the simple issue of third parties; and DCA's would not ever win in court.

 

Whilst I think it is fantastic that you have successfully used this letter; the purported facts within it are flawed. On that basis I respectfully think it is somewhat negligent to recommend its use within a public forum.

 

Obviously you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I would hate to think that any person on the forum was being given false information. If the contentions within the letter were to be true then, as said before, no DCA would ever have a chance in court; and we need not ever bother checking if agreements etc. are valid; because a simple "you are a third party" defence would suffice. This is not the case.

 

Cheers.

UF

 

 

__________________

.

 

another point on this 3rd party etc. The actual "note", has to be available as proof that the debt exists, as we both (should) know this cannot be produced, as it is long gone and if it was produced, it would show clients promissory note, converted to a bill of exchange. So how can anything be assigned when it cannot be proven to exist?

The value of the funds/loan were created by the Applicants signature, the so called lending institution cannot prove they lent their funds because they didnt !!!!!!

Also see my reply to your other posting.

I/We stay in the Private and look for Private remedies. We dont need to go anywhere near a court, ( the Public) Games are played on Courts - And this is the profession you now as a mature student aspire to? You will become part of "them". the machine, the Problem. I have seen enough crap/ injustice regarding debt/money/banks in Courts to know it is nothing but a stage upon which actors play their roles. Most are one way or another under the @sway@ , to put it mildly of the Banksters. You want to join the Law Society, fine but i have no use for a Society like that, i didnt subscribe to their silly Rules. i have inalienable rights, thats all i need!

….

[UnitedFront]

another point on this 3rd party etc. The actual "note", has to be available as proof that the debt exists, as we both (should) know this cannot be produced, as it is long gone and if it was produced, it would show clients promissory note, converted to a bill of exchange. So how can anything be assigned when it cannot be proven to exist?

The value of the funds/loan were created by the Applicants signature, the so called lending institution cannot prove they lent their funds because they didnt !!!!!!

Also see my reply to your other posting.

I/We stay in the Private and look for Private remedies. We dont need to go anywhere near a court, ( the Public) Games are played on Courts - And this is the profession you now as a mature student aspire to? You will become part of "them". the machine, the Problem. I have seen enough crap/ injustice regarding debt/money/banks in Courts to know it is nothing but a stage upon which actors play their roles. Most are one way or another under the @sway@ , to put it mildly of the Banksters. You want to join the Law Society, fine but i have no use for a Society like that, i didnt subscribe to their silly Rules. i have inalienable rights, thats all i need!

….

 

I have seen your other post. I respectfully choose, as previously stated, not to enter into a slanging match. You are entitled to your views, as am I. I will, however, where letters of a legal nature are posted, continue to place forward what I understand to be the correct interpretation of the law.

 

You are right, the original documents should be available. That is what proves the debt; no agreement etc. = no debt. With regards to deeds and notices of assignment, the courts have continuously shown the willingness to accept what is placed before them by the DCA's etc. and show little chance of stopping.

 

On that basis, what I have previously said is, as far as the law in this country is concerned, factually accurate.

 

I shall say the same in this thread as I have the one previously. I will not be drawn into a slanging match. Nor will I begin throwing personal insults as you have done at me in the other thread concerned. I will simply return and post as and when the OP requires assistance.

 

Have a good day.

Cheers.

UF

 

 

__________________

[DCam]

I'm still getting letters asking for this debt to be paid, now from Allied International Credit. The letter states they are going to take me to court as I have failed to contact them, and this is the final letter they will send me. They mention that they may get bailiffs to seize assets under a warrent of execution.

 

I was wondering what to do about this seeing as I already sent the account in dispute letter to RMA (The 1st letter with my ammendment of the 1st paragraph) which said amonst other things that they were not allowed to ask for payment. Should I just send the same letter to Allied International Credit?