Arrow/Global and Fredrickson assignement of law of proeprty act 1925

[thesludge]

hi, just wondering if anyone can help please?

 

I had a Lloyds account until about ummm... i think its was december 06. I closed my acccount due to the amount of insane charges made by them for missed debits and one or 2 other bits and pieces which were, at the time, under the reign of my ex missus.

 

I have never ever heard a thing until today, whereby i have recieved a letter from ARROW GLOBAL saying the debt of £2716 has been assigned by Lloyds to them under the "Notice of assignment pursuant to the law of property act 1925"

 

What the hell does that mean?????????????????

 

It then states, any payments made AFTER October 2009 automatically get transferred to Arrow and Global. All future payments should be made to Fredrickson International??

 

What do i do? Reply to them or what? Request a CCA??

 

Please help

[lilly white]

what type of account

[thesludge]

errr just a visa bank account, not a credit card lilly,

[lilly white]

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.(they owned the debt)

 

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.(acting on behalf)

 

 

 

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, (acting on behalf)

 

 

 

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.

 

OK IF IT IS OWNED BY THESE PEOPLE, xxxxxxxx, YOU SHOULD HAVE a HAD NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT IF NOT THEY ARE ACTING ON BEHALF

__________________

[lilly white]

errr just a visa bank account, not a credit card lilly,

 

ok

 

i will be back

[thesludge]

ok, thanks lilly

[lilly white]

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters

 

ok get here have a read and get to work get the letters off.....

 

Sar the bank we need all details statments etc please do this.

[lilly white]

hi, just wondering if anyone can help please?

 

I had a Lloyds account until about ummm... i think its was december 06. I closed my acccount due to the amount of insane charges made by them for missed debits and one or 2 other bits and pieces which were, at the time, under the reign of my ex missus.

 

I have never ever heard a thing until today, whereby i have recieved a letter from ARROW GLOBAL saying the debt of £2716 has been assigned by Lloyds to them under the "Notice of assignment pursuant to the law of property act 1925"

 

What the hell does that mean?????????????????

 

It then states, any payments made AFTER October 2009 automatically get transferred to Arrow and Global. All future payments should be made to Fredrickson International??

 

What do i do? Reply to them or what? Request a CCA??

 

Please help

 

ok have a read thanks to nicklee who work this is so do not contact these people for the reason outline

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

[lilly white]

Also Can You Check The Last Time You Pay Anything On This Account Is It Over 6 Years Check This

[thesludge]

last payment to them was circa dec 06, and they closed the account not me in march 07

 

ill send the subject access request now-Has that got to go to the Bank or the Debt collector ie Arrow/Global

 

Thing is by doing that, does that not admit to me living where i am

Edited April 2, 2010 by thesludge

[lilly white]

yes send it to the bank not the dca in regards to where you live to you

 

however if you can hold out another 1 year or 2 the 6 year kicks in

 

to you of course

 

have a read

 

A law centre in Scotland has revived the legal campaign against bank overdraft charges.

 

In November, the Supreme Court ruled that the scale of bank charges could not be challenged as unfair under consumer contract rules.

But a client of the Govan Law Centre has won the right to challenge the Bank of Scotland's overdraft charges under the Consumer Credit Act.

The bank will now have to demonstrate that its charges are not excessive.

"Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision," said Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre.

"The Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act.

"That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law, the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair," he added.

No refunds

Last November's Supreme Court ruling was swiftly followed by a decision of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to throw in the towel.

 

The regulator had been pursuing a test case against the banks since July 2007 to establish that it had the power, under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), to decide if bank charges were fair or not.

After winning the argument at both the High Court and Appeal Court stages, the regulator lost decisively at the Supreme Court.

This appeared to bring to an end to the attempts of hundreds of thousands of people to force their banks to refund them their past overdraft charges.

However, a Glasgow woman, Jennifer Sharp, whose case has been on hold since 2007, revived her case last Friday at the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

New claim

Despite opposition from the Bank of Scotland's barrister, Sheriff Baird allowed Ms Sharp to amend her legal claim in the light of the Supreme Court judgment.

Her lawyers put forward a new point, arguing that under a 2006 amendment to the Consumer Credit Act, there had been an unfair relationship between her and her bank, which was illegal.

The crux of her case was that it was unfair to have been charged £750 for running up an unauthorised overdraft because the charges had been used not only to deal with her, but also to subsidies the cost of the bank's free current account service to those of its customers who stayed in the black.

The OFT had not pursued this argument because it is one that is open only to individuals, not a regulator such as the OFT.

Ms Sharp's renewed claim also involves an argument that an unfair relationship exists under the UTCCR as well.

The case will now go to a full trial on 11 June.

"It would be inappropriate to comment on any customer case before the courts as it is still part of an ongoing legal process," said a bank spokesman.

 

[lilly white]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html

 

 

Have a read also you will see a post from glc,,,,,,,,,,,,:)

[thesludge]

thanks lilly-thing is the Bank doesnt have my new address-they havnt since 2007, so i think its just the DCA fishing.

 

Do i reply ro do anything with them or simply ignore any further letters

[lilly white]

how did the DCA know your new address as you say fishing.........

 

Well to you, i would wait now and see what comes your way. however to you....................But do not acknowledge,the NOA as outline.

May i wish you a happy Easter.

Viva cag lilly white

[thesludge]

lilly thanks for that, you too I hope that you had a happy easter.

 

I have NO idea how the DCA got my address, i have been here 2 years now, and at an address 1.5 years before that and heard nothing in all that time until now.

[meandbex]

Lilly, reference to this i hvnt applied for anything yet, due to being sooo busy at work. But this weekedn i got my credit file and the account shows as being satisfied but Fredrickson have opened another file up. See below>

BEFORE

 

And NOW