If a DCA Buys a debt what do you REALLY have to pay

[jimbo45]

Hi all

 

If a DCA actually BUYS a debt rather than is just assigned to COLLECT a debt on behalf of the OC what do we REALLY have to pay if anything.

 

1) WE DO NOT have nor have ever had a contract with the DCA who has "bought" the debt.

 

2) Are they under any obligation at ALL to give details of what they "Paid" for the debt - or is it possible from way of getting (legally) at the accounts of the OC to see what the "Sold" the debt for. - Presumably the DCA's are companies registered at Companies House so their accounts have to be posted from time to time as well.

 

If we are dealing with a "Purchased" debt rather than an "assigned debt" then surely CONTRACT LAW comes in to play here -- and as we don't have a contract then it must be GAME OVER --surely.

 

For an Assigned debt then the OC still Owns it so we can in EVERY CASE just tell a DCA to go and take a hike and just say we will ONLY deal with the OC.

 

So all ways round why should we EVER pay a DCA ANYTHING ever.

 

Even if it goes to court surely we can still ensure that we will only deal with the OC.

 

 

Whilst this won't make the debt go away surely we can FAST TRACK all DCA's to EXTINCTION and I don't think anybody will be too sorry either.

 

Would be nice to see Mr Bryan C. at the local Job Centre on 62 Quid a week.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[lickthewallfatboy]

if there's no CCA

 

Zilch

[cashins]

if there's no CCA

 

Zilch

 

Short and to the point and indicates a better line of attack.

 

Debts can legally bought and sold and the original contract is enforceable if of course.............they can produce it.

 

David

[rameses_qc]

1. The debt and technically the contract is taken on by the debt buyer 2. No obligation at all 3. The contract has been assigned under Law (if it's been done properly)4. If by assigned to a DCA you mean the creditor has appointed the DCA to collect, then that will be allowed for in your original agreement. There is no obligation whatever for you to deal with a DCA. If you tell the creditor you will not under any circumstances deal with the DCA they have chosen, they should take the debt back. YOU are free to tell the DCA to get stuffed, and I would always do that. You are ion charge of what, whom and how you pay, not the DCA. They have no more powers than my cat.Of course it's different if thay have bought the debt, but you should ALWAYS send a CCA request to the bin rummaging parasites

[Bookworm]

Hi all

 

If a DCA actually BUYS a debt rather than is just assigned to COLLECT a debt on behalf of the OC what do we REALLY have to pay if anything.

 

 

....... ... ...You get the idea, lol.

[jimbo45]

1. The debt and technically the contract is taken on by the debt buyer 2. No obligation at all 3. The contract has been assigned under Law (if it's been done properly)4. If by assigned to a DCA you mean the creditor has appointed the DCA to collect, then that will be allowed for in your original agreement. There is no obligation whatever for you to deal with a DCA. If you tell the creditor you will not under any circumstances deal with the DCA they have chosen, they should take the debt back. YOU are free to tell the DCA to get stuffed, and I would always do that. You are ion charge of what, whom and how you pay, not the DCA. They have no more powers than my cat.Of course it's different if thay have bought the debt, but you should ALWAYS send a CCA request to the bin rummaging parasites

 

Hi there

Then this effectively means that ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW is JUNK and not worth the paper it's written on.

 

So for example I could "Purchase a service" from XXXXX for yy months with a cancellation clause if I cancel before zz months.

 

Now the "Provider" could be bought by a different company -- say one I have a serious issue with such as a Tobacco company or other company who I would not do business with under any circumstances.

 

If I cancel then the "new" company could attempt to get me on a "Breach of Contract" - even though had this company offered the service in the first place I would NOT have touched the contract in the first place on Ethical grounds - I don't like Tobacco Co's -- however I'm sure you can think of other companies you would not like to deal with.

 

It seems that the CCA's miss all this sort of stuff - apart from the totally disgusting Charging Order stuff that NEVER appears on a CCA it also doesn't say that your CONTRACT can be passed or sold to 3rd parties - sometimes it mentions that "Enforcement measures" can be used as well.

 

Looking at this the other way round -- can I say I'VE SOLD MY DEBT to XXXX so please contact XXXX in any future correspondance.

 

It does seem English Contract Law has gone totally BONKERS here.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[rameses_qc]

Well not really. English contract Law and Statute allow for the assignment, and creditors always put the clause in that they can assign the agreement, they also put in that you can't assign your liability.

[jimbo45]

Well not really. English contract Law and Statute allow for the assignment, and creditors always put the clause in that they can assign the agreement, they also put in that you can't assign your liability.

 

Hi there

Then SURELY as a ONE SIDED contract it doesn't have any validity since it has to be FAIR and EQUAL to BOTH parties.

 

It's like accepting a "Contract of Employment" where they CAN give you a Notice period but you CAN'T resign etc unless you are sacked.

 

This isn't valid -- the contract must be fair and EQUAL to both parties.

 

If THEY can re-assign on a "whim" why can't I.

 

I'm sure if a colleague of mine wrote to a DCA saying I've taken over the debt from XXX and here's the payment the DCA would accept it.

 

I'm sure the DCA wouldn't return the money saying the debt CAN't be re-assigned by the debtor.

 

 

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited February 3, 2010 by jimbo45

[rameses_qc]

This is something you need to take up with the people who make the law. Contracts cannot be made other than by negotiation by both parties. When was the last time you were nogotiated with and agreed every term and condition before you entered into a contract? What you say about onesided or unilateral contracts is true. BUT....once you put your signature on the bottom of the contract, you are bound by it, as you are deemed to have accepted understood, and negotiated ALL the terms. This is true even if it was written in Martian. The onus is on YOU to make sure you understand and agree to everything. If you don't agree, don't sign. Simple as that. You can't come later and say that you weren't aware of or didn't agree to whatever term, because you signed to say that you did.

[jimbo45]

This is something you need to take up with the people who make the law. Contracts cannot be made other than by negotiation by both parties. When was the last time you were nogotiated with and agreed every term and condition before you entered into a contract? What you say about onesided or unilateral contracts is true. BUT....once you put your signature on the bottom of the contract, you are bound by it, as you are deemed to have accepted understood, and negotiated ALL the terms. This is true even if it was written in Martian. The onus is on YOU to make sure you understand and agree to everything. If you don't agree, don't sign. Simple as that. You can't come later and say that you weren't aware of or didn't agree to whatever term, because you signed to say that you did.

 

Hi there

but what if conditions AREN'T on the CCA for example how many people realise that even for UNSECURED DEBT they can get a CHARGING ORDER which effectively turns an UNSECURED DEBT into a SECURED ONE (if you own property).

 

Now NOWHERE does it say this on the CCA -- so if it's not in the initial Contract how come the CO method is being used more and more - often for rediculously small suims.

 

If even the SLIGHTEST possibility of having a HOME at Risk because of UNSECURED DEBT arose then I wouldn't have taken out the "Contract" in the first place.

 

Seems that there is a LOT of IMPORTANT conditions MISSING on the average CCA.

 

A Mortgage or other SECURED loan says YOUR HOME is at risk if you don't keep up payments etc -- why is this IMPORTANT piece of INFO MISSING.

 

Could I say I've been "Mis-Sold" an agreement -- and in any case what's the difference between an "Agreement" and a "Contract".

 

Again English Law seems to be very vague ON PURPOSE - to confuse the Natives who finally "are getting restless these days" thanks to this excellent Forum.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[jan7777]

Hi

You have raised many superb points regarding debts passed onto debt collecting agencies.

When an agreement/loan is passed to dca its a got to be a debt from quite some time ago !

If the debt was originally secured against your home then the debt would never have been passed onto a dca as the original lender would put a charge on your house etc themselves.Oviously they couldn't , so they sell on the debt.

So how come months/years later a dca can end up putting a charge on your property when the original agreement never involved your property maybe as u purchased the house years later ?

Thats not the terms u originally agreed to regardless that you are in default surely ?

[jimbo45]

Hi there

I've asked this same question MANY MANY times on this Forum before but when it comes to the lack of "Visibility" of the Charging Order process - or the ease with which UNSECURED debts can be turned in to SECURED one's without the slightest mention of this possibilty being mentioned on the original "Agreement" aka CCA - everybody clams up completely.

 

Conspiracy here or what.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[rameses_qc]

Agreement is a contract.C.O. aren't terms and conditions of the agreement; they're enforcement methods. This is seperate from the contract. It may say something about what happens if you don't pay? The law is very very confusing and complicated, and that's why I always advise unless you know what you're doing, and where to look, you shouldn't dabble. You may end up making things MUCH worse. ALWAYS seek advice from a professional. Law centres are a good place to start, and they're free.As I said, the law assumes you know exactly what the consequences are, so if you aren't sure, then get advice before you sign ANYTHING.Lack of knowledge is why the ****** DCAs are so successful. Arm yourself with knowledge, and you can compete with the best of them

[cashins]

Hi there

I've asked this same question MANY MANY times on this Forum before but when it comes to the lack of "Visibility" of the Charging Order process - or the ease with which UNSECURED debts can be turned in to SECURED one's without the slightest mention of this possibilty being mentioned on the original "Agreement" aka CCA - everybody clams up completely.

 

Conspiracy here or what.

 

 

 

Not quite sure what you are saying here.

 

This point has been raised many times on the form and the concensus is that unsecured loans sould carry the same 'health warning' that secured loan are required by law to do.

 

That unfortunately is in the hands of the government.

 

David

[Gaznkaz08]

i'm currently arguing this point with Crapquest

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

f. passing on debtor details to debt management companies without the

debtors' informed prior consent

 

i'm asking to see the letter from halifax and my written consent

 

i don't think anyone gets a letter asking if they mind if the OC passes their info to a DCA

[jimbo45]

Hi there

whether it's in the "Enforcement" or in the actual conditions of an agreement then the word "UNSECURED" is a total and meaningless LIE and as such if this appears ANYWHERE on an agreement then surely the agreement is not valid as here it is being deliberately MIS SOLD.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[rameses_qc]

This is an argument that is raging throughout. The loan can be unsecured. No the agreement hasn't been mis-sold, as the loan is what it says it is: unsecured.At the enforcement stage the creditor can then secure it against your property.I don't say this is right morally, but it is right legallyThey only people who can change the law are your MPs. However as with lots of laws, they are there to protect the "haves" from being ripped off by the "have nots"By the same token, why should a creditor wait for his money (say 12,000) when the debtor is sitting on a property with equity of perhaps £25,000? (just an example) No Judge will let that happen.

[cashins]

it is being deliberately MIS SOLD.

 

 

That is my view also.

 

Unfortunately, as yet, nobody has been able to convince the authorities or a court of that fact:mad:

 

david

[stripper]

So the person that borrows without security gets away with it.Something wrong here surely.

Take this scenario:

X rents a flat and applies for a CC .He gets it accepted and over aperiod of time the limit is increased and the spend matches the limit.X then loses his job and cannot pay the monthly cc payments.

He stops payment and the Creditors writes off the debt.Truely unsecured.

Hence the higher interest rates.

However Y ,who does have a house does the same as X and Wallop, house gone,but this was originally an unsecured debt.

This is so typical of our loose and archaic Laws and ancient out of touch Judges.They are themselves in a different world.

This has got to be straightened out ,as Unsecured should mean Unsecured for everyone,not some.

Rant over:x

[Insomniak]

Well said stripper!

 

I am myself in the position of X and so I have no property or assets to which they can secure my debts onto.

 

But as you said they should not be allowed to secure unsecured debts.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

UNSECURED means UNSECURED -- that's why the INTEREST is usually so much higher -- for example 25 - 28% when the current "Bank rate" is 0.5%.

 

The Banks presumably have taken a reasonable risk in granting Credit -- if it doesn't come off - that's why the interest is higher as an "insurance" against Bad debts.

 

If there really is no such thing as UNSECURED loans then the interest rates should reflect that.

 

Also I agree ALL CREDIT should come with the health warning in LARGE RED LETTERS and the word UNSECURED dropped - otherwise Interest should be charged at 2 separate rates - those with property getting a much lower rate than those without.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[stripper]

From Credit Today

 

[/url]

www.justice.gov.uk/consultation/orders-sale.htm

At last the matter is being taken seriously.

Stripper:)

[angry cat]

According to Credit Today (current issue);

the price of purchased debts has gone down!

 

Presumably, due to the amount of; Lemons that are in the debt system...

 

Are they circumnavigating the Globe with them?

[stripper]

From yesterdays CREDIT TODAY

MoJ consults on minimum debt to repossess

February 05-10

A minimum level of consumer credit debt may be set in law before an order for sale can be issued, under proposals launched today by the Ministry of Justice.

Consultation paper regatding Charging Orders

At last they are looking into this subject

Stripper:)