Restriction K's

[eggboxy1]

What annoys me is that the creditor is granted the CO on unsecured debt to make it 'equitable' and then sells the debt on. By selling the debt for less than the CCJ amount it should lose that equitable status as they are no longer securing the debt against default, having sold it. The buyer hasn't paid the creditor the full amount and so the situation is inequitable now, i.e. it is secured to allow the buyer to make a profit, not to cover their losses.

 

Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name

[butts]

Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name

 

Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

[eggboxy1]

Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

 

Sequenci will probably know the answer to this (sorry I don't)

 

However, I can't see why you would be as DCA's only offer lower settlements because they have bought the debt at a fraction of it's value for the risk they take in getting anything back.

 

Logically, given the reduced certainty Restrictions give creditors, I would have thought the OC would have wanted to have got shot of these even faster (and therefore sold off cheaper to a DCA)

 

Only my opinion though!

[toymaker1]

Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

DCA's buy debts from the original creditor with the stipulation that they are eligible accounts. That is to say, an eligible account is one where the debt is not being collected or enforced on behalf of the original creditor, and is not subject to any collection or contingency arrangement, or is not been the subject of a CCJ.

The normal practice in county court proceedings is for the Claimant DCA to redact (black out-conceal) all the information regarding whether or not it is an eligble account, and the normal practice is that the legal system permits them to do this unchallenged.

The normal practice is also that 99.9 % of the population has no idea that this is the normal practice. - which is why it continues unchallenged.

Edited July 13, 2011 by toymaker1

[butts]

DCA's buy debts from the original creditor with the stipulation that they are eligible accounts. That is to say, an eligible account is one where the debt is not being collected or enforced on behalf of the original creditor, and is not subject to any collection or contingency arrangement, or is not been the subject of a CCJ.

The normal practice in county court proceedings is for the Claimant DCA to redact (black out-conceal) all the information regarding whether or not it is an eligble account, and the normal practice is that the legal system permits them to do this unchallenged.

The normal practice is also that 99.9 % of the population has no idea that this is the normal practice. - which is why it continues unchallenged.

 

I have had debts sold by the original creditor to a DCA when they have been receiving REGULAR PAYMENTS via my DMP which they have agreed to.

[OnMyWayOut]

Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name

When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.

[OnMyWayOut]

I have had debts sold by the original creditor to a DCA when they have been receiving REGULAR PAYMENTS via my DMP which they have agreed to.

Likewise, at least two debts in a DMP were sold on whilst there was no lapse in payments under the plan. The other one that resulted in a CO was also up to date in a DMP when the OC got greedy and demanded higher payments and went for a CCJ.

[robbie2009]

When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.

 

The 'new' rules re: charging orders came in on 2003, I think it was around April time.

[robbie2009]

Likewise, at least two debts in a DMP were sold on whilst there was no lapse in payments under the plan. The other one that resulted in a CO was also up to date in a DMP when the OC got greedy and demanded higher payments and went for a CCJ.

 

As far as I was aware debts can be passed to a new 'creditor' at any point, regardless of whether the instalments have been breached, a DMP is in place, and if a CCJ/CO has been obtained. A recently example of this happening en-masse is with the purchase of the Egg portfolio.

[Basil Fawlty]

Can we just get this straight please, if you have a restriction as a joint owner the debt cant be sold on to anyone else? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

BF

[OnMyWayOut]

I'd like to know as well, including effective dates, as this could be before my CO was awarded.

[toymaker1]

As far as I was aware debts can be passed to a new 'creditor' at any point, regardless of whether the instalments have been breached, a DMP is in place, and if a CCJ/CO has been obtained. A recently example of this happening en-masse is with the purchase of the Egg portfolio.

I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

[eggboxy1]

When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.

 

Robbie2009 has given the correct reply but, just to clarify, I am not saying the debt can't be sold over to a DCA as I don't know that info?

 

Hopefully someone like Sequenci will clarify the facts.

[eggboxy1]

I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

 

Very interesting information!

 

Have you any examples where this had been challenged and what happens when it is?

[shazzyball]

hi eggboxy,

 

still waiting for the original agreement before we can proceed with any action. I believe that blackhorse sold the debt on to hillesden after they secured a charge. I assume they (hillesdens) have bought the debt for a fraction of the cost. I have asked them for all the paperwork in relation to this matter and have asked for proof they have the right to this charging order.

[eggboxy1]

hi eggboxy,

 

still waiting for the original agreement before we can proceed with any action. I believe that blackhorse sold the debt on to hillesden after they secured a charge. I assume they (hillesdens) have bought the debt for a fraction of the cost. I have asked them for all the paperwork in relation to this matter and have asked for proof they have the right to this charging order.

 

Hi shazzyball

 

Thanks for the update and please keep us informed!

 

Have you contacted the Solicitors Sequenci suggested in Brum?

[toymaker1]

Very interesting information!

 

Have you any examples where this had been challenged and what happens when it is?

I have no examples where it has been challenged. -Although it should be. There is no right to conceal such information, but they do, and it goes unchallenged.

[sequenci]

I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

 

This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can

[the_shadow]

This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can

 

Thats how I understand it too, debts can be sold under the LoP 1925, the bit about not selling debts which are disputed I believe comes from the OFT guidelines and fit for purpose test of licence holders I suspect. CCJ/CO debts can be sold but as I understand it the CO/CCJ MUST be changed to the new owner by an application to the court... after all you are paying the CCJ/CO as the court instructed, if you fail by paying someone else you are surely in contempt of court.

 

It is a FACT that any contract between two parties will always contain clauses that protect both parties if the goods (in this case debts) become uncollectable so that the buyer is not left disadvantaged. Thus they'll be caveats in the contract to return those debts sold "mistakenly". But this contract wouldnt overrule the LoP 1925 which is well established statute law surely.

 

S.

[toymaker1]

This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can

That's correct, there is nothing to stop a creditor selling a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925, provided it is an eligible account. That is a term which appears in every contract to sell/buy a debt between the original creditor and a DCA - you will see this in every county court case where a debt has been bought from the OC. But usually they conceal whether it is or is not an eligbile account, and they know that most people are not familiar with that term, because it only appears as a

term in the in house, private business contract between the original creditor and the DCA who is buyting it cheap. -Where the term appears in their evidential material they black it out, - they pull the wool over the court's eyes, and get away with it. The judge only deals with what is in front of him, and it is never challenged. - they say it is confidential business information, but is is no such thing.

 

 

 

 

 

so s

[toymaker1]

Thats how I understand it too, debts can be sold under the LoP 1925, the bit about not selling debts which are disputed I believe comes from the OFT guidelines and fit for purpose test of licence holders I suspect. CCJ/CO debts can be sold but as I understand it the CO/CCJ MUST be changed to the new owner by an application to the court... after all you are paying the CCJ/CO as the court instructed, if you fail by paying someone else you are surely in contempt of court.

 

It is a FACT that any contract between two parties will always contain clauses that protect both parties if the goods (in this case debts) become uncollectable so that the buyer is not left disadvantaged. Thus they'll be caveats in the contract to return those debts sold "mistakenly". But this contract wouldnt overrule the LoP 1925 which is well established statute law surely.

 

S.

It is nothing to do with OFT Guidance. What I am referring to is detailed clauses in the contract between the original creditor andd the DCA which is buying the debt. - Those contracts to sell/buy the debt always have a sspecific detailed clause covering the matter of whether the debt is an "eligible account" to be sold. - My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

[the_shadow]

It is nothing to do with OFT Guidance. What I am referring to is detailed clauses in the contract between the original creditor andd the DCA which is buying the debt. - Those contracts to sell/buy the debt always have a sspecific detailed clause covering the matter of whether the debt is an "eligible account" to be sold. - My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

 

I was actually trying to answer multiple posts in one hence the comment about OFT guidelines and CO/CCJ's selling on...

 

As to your suggestion the contracts I've seen normally have the caveat of "to the best of their knowledge, the accounts are :-" and then the relevant clauses listed, eg. Free from legal proceedings/in dispute etc etc.. in fact I've seen a sales agreement on here today... surely its between the buyer and the seller whether to use the sanctions/remedies in the contract.. if the buyer chooses to accept the account even tho the criteria listed are not met surely thats a matter for the buyer to take up with the seller IF they wish. Wouldnt a judge see it that way?

 

AFAIR the LoP 1925 just states that a debt can be sold so long as the owner is the owner and that notification is given to the debtor so it would be down to the buyer whether they accept the sale or use the sanctions contained within the sales agreement?

 

S.

[robbie2009]

My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

 

Is there a legal definition that defines what would constitute an account that is eligible and one that is eligible? Is it in the statute books somewhere? Or case-law? I think this might be a very important area for us all to consider, it's certainly not something I have ever heard of before. This could be really interesting! Thanks.

[the_shadow]

Found it... sales agreement here for Godfish to Cabot UNredacted , I've only had a chance to look at the first couple of pages myself

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?141075-Cabot-Morgan-Solicitors-Court-Action-(ex-Goldfish-account)&p=3488705&viewfull=1#post3488705

 

 

S.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

AFAIR the LoP 1925 just states that a debt can be sold so long as the owner is the owner and that notification is given to the debtor so it would be down to the buyer whether they accept the sale or use the sanctions contained within the sales agreement?

 

S.

 

This. The issue of whether an account is "eligible" or not is a matter between the buyer and seller of the debt. The debt itself and the person owing it are mere commodities and, provided the required notices are given, it is a matter of fact that the debt has been transferred to the new owner. Whether it was "eligible" or not is not the concern of the debtor. The debt sale agreement is commercially sensitive and it's not surprising details are redacted. All that the new creditor is required to prove is that the debt was one of those purchased, whether it should have been purchased or not is neither here nor there.