"under the hand of" - what does that *actually* mean

[gh2008]

Pretty much as the title - a definitive answer please

 

Ta

[MARTIN3030]

authenticated by the handwriting or signature of.........

[gh2008]

sooooo, how can an assignee send a NOA pp the Assignor on the Assignor's letterhead??

 

I thought that meaning of it may be too 'literal' and that in 'lawspeak' it meant 'in the name of' or 'with permission of' or something similar

[The Mould]

The NOA must be in writing signed under the hand of the assignor, (its a bit like a letter of authority), that way the other original party to the contract can determine without doubt or question that he is indeed now obligated to direct his performance obligations under the contract to this new party.

 

Law of Property Act 1925 s136(1) (we all know of the act now) the prescribed language in the said section was designed to protect the debtor as he, the debtor has no choice or say in the matter of the contract being legally assigned to another party who was never a party at the time of the contract being concluded between the debtor and the creditor.

 

Hope that helps somewhat.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

[gh2008]

it would if you could provide case-law and/or a respected commentary to back it up

 

I agree that is what we would hope it means - I am struggling to find anything to back it up .....

[gh2008]

Ok, think I've sussed it

 

S136 of the LoP Act says

 

 

So, the Assignment must be 'under the hand of' but the notice doesn't need to be - it just has to be 'given'

 

jmho - but I think it makes sense

[The Mould]

If a debtor receives a letter from a party that he knows not of, and such letter states to the debtor that he must direct all payments to this new party because the new party claim to now own the contract/debt, how is the debtor to know that what is stated in the said letter is fact.

 

In my opinion, the original party (the assignor) must give express notice under his hand and signed by him to the other original party to the contract.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

[broken arrow]

Thread I started 2 years ago.

As long as notice has been given it does not matter if it came from Assignor or Asignee.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?163133-Notice-of-assignment-question&highlight=

[gh2008]

Thread I started 2 years ago.

As long as notice has been given it does not matter if it came from Assignor or Asignee.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?163133-Notice-of-assignment-question&highlight=

 

Thank you BA - your thread came to the same conclusion I had myself - however reading some other posts that come across as being very authoritative saying something different - you start doubting yourself so I just wanted to look at it for myself.

[vjohn82]

gh2008,

 

I have a copy of Halsburys Laws if you want to read it. It has 86 pages on the law of assignment and "choses in action" - covers pretty much everything assignment wise. PM me for a copy!

[gh2008]

Thank you VJ - PM sent

[spamheed]

I would also add to this that there is no stipulation under the LOP or any other statute for the NOA to be constructed by a DCA so that it looks like it was sent by the OC, this is a practice which IMHO is designed to mislead a consumer into believeing that the OC has communicated in some way with the debtor.

 

I do not fully understand why they would even bother doing this if the only legal requirement was to inform a debtor of the assignment via an NoA, surely the DCAs "welcome letter" would suffice to this end

[Newborn]

Could it be that notice can be given by anyone because the debtor is still free to contact the OC to confirm it?

 

But as Spamheed says, why all the misleading letters? Because that is what they are. A letter from one company purporting to come from another. When a Ltd company sends a letter they have to use their own details. Why don't they just say 'sent on behalf of'?