Arrows and old OD Account and Notice of Assignment/ the law of Property Act

[Sooty&Sweep]

Today I have received a letter from Arrow Global Ltd of Booth St Manchester headed with the same title as this thread. The letter claims I owe money to them on behalf of Lloyds TSB. I had a Lloyds account but closed it over 5 years and in any case the account number they quote is nothing like the old account number. I should point out I have had no previous correspondence for either Lloyds or Arrow.

 

Can anybody advise me what the Property act has to do with this and further should I contact this Company or simply deal with Lloyds despite the letter stating that 'It is essential that all payments and correspondence regarding this account be directed to Arrow global'

 

Thanks

[MandM]

Hi S&S, welcome to Cag,

 

This means they've bought the 'debt'. How exact is your recollection of the dates? have you paid anything or acknowledged it in that time?

 

Once it reaches 6 years (with none of the above) then it's statute barred. So this maybe a fishing excercise.

 

M

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome to the site.I will move your thread into the DCA forums.

[lilly white]

ok do not contact these people in Manchester yet. as you will agreed to the assignment.

 

so read this.

 

 

 

 

Assigning A Debt Or Benefit Of Contract?

 

It is important to first provide the debtor with a notice of the assignment!

 

Other points and issues that should be borne in mind:

 

· In principle, the benefit of a contract can be legally assigned without consent,

provided there is no express prohibition on assignment or, for example, a requirement that consent

is obtained.

 

· Where there is no restriction on assignment, the usual way of assigning the benefit of

contractual rights is by statutory assignment. The assignment must be in writing, signed by the

assignor, absolute (not purporting to be by way of charge only) and notice in writing must be

given to the other contracting party (section 136, Law of Property Act 1925).

 

· If a contract is not effectively assigned under statute, it may still be assigned under

common law by an equitable assignment. An equitable assignment may exist where the requirements

for a statutory assignment are not satisfied. The main practical consequence of an equitable

assignment is that the assignee cannot bring an action in its own name against the third party,

but must fall back on the rules governing equitable assignments and join the assignor as a party

to the action.

 

It is, in any event, desirable for notice of an assignment to be given to the third party because

the third party will otherwise be entitled to continue to make payments to the assignor. Notice

will give the assignee priority over any other assignee that has failed to give notice, provided

there is no knowledge of such prior assignment.

[lilly white]

work of my fellow cagger nicklee

 

 

The Assignment of the Debt

 

 

19. If the Claimant was not zzzzzzzzzzzz Bank then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court.

 

 

20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

 

23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

 

 

25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

[lilly white]

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

[MARTIN3030]

Good posts lw.

[nicklea]

As lily white says, do not under any circumstances acknowledge any letters from Arrow Global.

 

If they try to take you to court then this will stop their claim dead in the water.

 

The only thing would be if they actually sent it to you by recorded delivery - but they never seem to do that

[Sooty&Sweep]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I must confess I got a little spooked by the letter and even more so after searching for Arrow Global here and reading some of the horror stories.

 

Firstly I don't believe I have any debt but my Lloyds account wasn't closed until November 2004 so I'm guessing the statute of limitation does not apply in this case.

 

Secondly I telephone the OFT who advised me that since the letter was not signed and was mass produced I should in the first instance ignore it and to contact them again if Arrow continue to contact me if when they will assist. (I'm not sure I trust this advice though).

 

I am tempted to contact these people and try to sort this out. However I am concerned that once I respond I will be hooked and there will be no getting rid of them, and after reading some of the posts here they seem to be a particularly nasty bunch.

 

Hopefully this cannot get out of hand (CCJs etc) without independent contact from a Court of some kind or at least third party correspondence.

 

Once again thanks for the advice

[Metroblue]

I don't want to hijack the thread but my query is also about Arrow and Lloyds. I too received this document today ie notice of assignment and it relates to a Lloyds Credit Card. I CCA'd in Feb 2008 and although this has passed from agency to agency as yet no one has provided me with an agreement. My question is can Arrow persue this while it is in dispute? Many thanks for any responses. I haven't posted before but have gained the most valuable information from this website - I wouldn't have survived without it.

[bamboo2]

just been in court with this one and the Judge checked it out.

 

It is a common misunderstanding because of the wording - the assignee must assign the debt in their own hand to the person they are assigning it to - i.e the new creditor.

However the person who owes the debt can be notified by the new creditor.

 

There was an issue that was not resolved though about the law - just because you assign the debt doesn't mean you assign the responsibilities - that can only be done by way of law -the Judge wasn't sure what that meant and I'm not but could be another loophole to explore for some banana

[lilly white]

just been in court with this one and the Judge checked it out.

 

It is a common misunderstanding because of the wording - the assignee must assign the debt in their own hand to the person they are assigning it to - i.e the new creditor.by way of a deed

 

 

However the person who owes the debt can be notified by the new creditor.

 

Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

There was an issue that was not resolved though about the law - just because you assign the debt doesn't mean you assign the responsibilities -burden that can only be done by way of law -the Judge wasn't sure what that meant and I'm not but could be another loophole to explore for some banana

 

O bless the judge he/she was talking about novation

[bamboo2]

fab clarification thankyou lilly white - not got a clue about novation but will look it up -so If I had known I could have quoted this case law to the Judge - as it happens I didn't need to as I won on another issue, but this will come in very handy I'm sure for any future issues that may arise. Wonderful that people help out.

[lilly white]

B2.

 

I SEE YOU HAD A GOOD DAY IN COURT WELL DONE.......

 

Ok well the reason we seek the deed is this.

 

1 THEY MAY NOT HAVE ONE.........

 

2 WE SEE WHAT THEY PAID FOR THE DEBT KICKS THE MORAL QUESTION OUT THE WINDOW I DO BELIVE IN VJOHNS CASE THEY ONLY PAID FOR THE DEBT IF THEY GOT PAID AND AS LITTLE AS 3%..........

 

3 ALSO IN SOME CASES THEY CANT PRODUSE THE DEED AND ALSO THE BUYER OF THE DEBT DOES NOT HAVE UK COMPANY NO STANDING IN COURT.

 

O HAPPY DAYS

 

VIVA CAG...............

[bamboo2]

lovely lovely stuff. Thanks again for sharing LW

[MARTIN3030]

Seems they have been busy block buyingLloyds CC accounts.

Their latest tac is to send the threatogram from the Manchester Address saying they have been assigned.

they then go on to say that payments and communications should be directed to Fredrickson International-which clearly has got to be in breach of OFT guidelines if not CSA.

This letter is then followed up by a further demand from Fredricksons a week later.

 

Anyone wishing to complain should note that Arrow Globals registered offices are 22-24 Bedford row London WC1R 4JS.

 

Their Manchester address is not recorded on their consumer credit licence registration page.Neither it seems is there any entry for Fredricksons KT13 0YH address on their threatogram letters on the cc public register.

[Bosund]

subbing...

[rameses_qc]

Novation is a new contract made between the debtor and the debt buyer. (in general terms) so that would never get off the ground as all the parties have to agree

[Sooty&Sweep]

Well well after hearing nothing from these people since January today I received out of the blue a claim form from Bradford County Court claiming £2,500. which is over double what they originally claimed and that doesn't include fees and costs. I'm kind of worried about my defence though as the POCs are exactly the same posted further up the thread i.e.

1. Defendant failed to maintain payments

2. Default notice was served (I'm not sure it was as all I received was the Property act letter I started this thread with)

3 By virtue of a sale agreement etc

 

It looks a bit lame to say I haven't got a clue what this claim is about.

 

My real question is should I as part of my defence state that I have received no documentation which allows me to assess what this all about thereby hampering my ability to respond or should I give the court chapter and verse that I THINK that it might refer to a closed account from 2004.

 

Two additional things though I think the form is official (N1cpc) but it is 'signed' with a print of the Solicitors Company name and the Court Seal is not embossed or anything. Is this normal.

 

Sorry to repost the same thing but I had thought this had all gone away

[Jasper1965]

 

It looks a bit lame to say I haven't got a clue what this claim is about.

 

My real question is should I as part of my defence state that I have received no documentation which allows me to assess what this all about thereby hampering my ability to respond or should I give the court chapter and verse that I THINK that it might refer to a closed account from 2004.

 

 

There is nothing lame in not knowing what the claim is about, on the contrary the fact that they have taken you to Court without satisfying the pre action protocols will count in your favour.

You must acknowledge this claim and then defend it.

I would imagine that in the circumstances you shall initially be filing an "embarrassed defence" and then using the Court to force them to reveal documentaion to prove the debt which it's unlikely they will have or be able to find.

I suspect as this alleged debt is likely 5 years and 11 months old that they've just taken a punt on you not defending. It'll be statute barred next month if it does exist so £75 to make £2500 is a pretty good gamble in their eyes.

Sadly a high enough percentage of the public don't defend against this type of behaviour to make it profitable, please make sure that you are in the minority.

 

My guess is that they'll want out pretty sharpish once you hit them with your demands, I hope so.

You are entitled to an explanation of the debt and you are also entitled to proof that the debt claimed lawfully exists and is lawfully collectable by the claimant.

You will be forcing them to provide the original agreement, statements to prove that the amount claimed is actually owed and does not contain any unlawful charges, interest or fees, proof that the account was lawfully defaulted then terminated, proof that the account was lawfully assigned and the claimant does have the right to puruse you through court and much more and all with the power of the Court behind you.

I suspect (and hope) they will struggle.

 

Have a read of this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED&highlight=being+sued

Edited October 8, 2010 by Jasper1965

[2Grumpy]

1. Defendant failed to maintain payments

2. Default notice was served (I'm not sure it was as all I received was the Property act letter I started this thread with)

3 By virtue of a sale agreement etc

 

 

I think that the default notice would have been from LTSB.

 

If you haven't made any payments since receiving that, the 6 year countdown would have started around then (maybe a month after your last payment to LTSB?)