Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • rickyleavet
      Claim through officialinjuryclaim.org.uk for PI following RTC Road Rage Incident

      By rickyleavet · Posted

      My understanding is that they won't provide the name to me whether the investigation is Live or Closed, & I have no legal rep as I didn't have P.I. Cover on my policy, & am intending to claim using OIC.org.uk, but remain completely stuck as they 100% cannot open a claim on the portal without both the Reg. No. & Name of the other driver.  
    • jasowter
      Excel/DCBL ANPR PCN - Appealed - 5minutes overstay - iceland gravesend

      By jasowter · Posted

      thanks again ftmdave, your words are verey encouraging and i do appreciate them. i have taken about 2 hours to think of a letter to write to the ceo...i will paste it below...also how would i address a ceo? do i just put his name? or put dear sir? do you think its ok?  i would appreciate feedback/input from anybody if anything needs to be added/taken away, removed if incorrect etc. i am writing it on behalf of my friend..she is the named driver  - im the one with the blue badge and owner of the car - just for clarification. thanks in adavance to everyone.       My friend and I are both disabled and have been a victim of disability discrimination on the part of your agents.   I have been incorrectly 'charged' by your agent 'excel parking' for overstaying in your car park, but there was no overstay. The letter I recieved said the duration of stay was 15 minutes but there is a 10 minute grace period and also 5 minutes consideration time, hence there was no duration of stay of 15 minutes.   I would like to take this oppertunity to clarify what happend at your Gravesend store. We are struggling finacially due to the 'cost of living crisis' and not being able to work because we are both disabled, we was attracted to your store for the 10 items for £10 offer. I suffer dyslexia and depression and my friend who I take shopping has a mobility disability. We went to buy some shopping at your Gravesend branch of Iceland on 28th of December 2023, we entered your car park, tried to read and understand the parking signs and realised we had to pay for parking. We then realised we didnt have any change for the parking machine so went back to look for coins in the car and when we couldnt find any we left. As my friend has mobility issues it takes some time for me to help him out of the car, as you probably understand this takes more time than it would a normal able bodied person. As I suffer dyslexia I am sure you'll agree that it took me more time than a normal person to read and understand the large amount of information at the pay & display machine. After this, it took more time than an able bodied person to leave the car park especially as I have to help my friend on his crutches etc get back into the car due to his mobility disability. All this took us 15 minutes.   I was the driver of my friends car and he has a blue badge. He then received a 'notice to keeper' for a 'failure to purchase a parking tariff'. On the letter it asked to name the driver if you wasnt the driver at the time, so as he wasnt the driver he named me. I appealed the charge and told them we are disabled and explained the situation as above. The appeal was denied, and even more so was totally ignored regarding our disabilities and that we take longer than an able bodied person to access the car and read the signs and understand them. As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us. I cannot afford any unfair charges of this kind as I am severely struggling financially. I cannot work and am a carer for my disabled Son who also has a mental and mobility disability. I obviously do not have any disposable income and am in debt with my bills. So its an absolute impossibility for me to pay this incorrect charge.     After being discriminated by your agent my friend decided to contact 'iceland customer care team' on my behalf and again explained the situation and also sent photos of his disabled blue badge and proof of disability. He asked the care team to cancel the charge as ultimately its Iceland's land/property and you have the power over excel parking to cancel it. Again we was met with no mention or consideration for our disability and no direct response regarding the cancellation, all we was told was to contact excel parking. He has replied over 20 times to try to get the 'care team' to understand and cancel this but its pointless as we are just ignored every time. I believe that Ignoring our disability is discrimination which is why I am now contacting you.     I have noticed on your website that you are 'acting' to ease the 'cost of living crisis' : https://about.iceland.co.uk/2022/04/05/iceland-acts-to-ease-the-cost-of-living-crisis/   If you really are commited to helping people in this time of crisis ..and especially two struggling disabled people, can you please cancel this charge as it will only cause more damage to our mental health if you do not.  
    • rickyleavet
      Claim through officialinjuryclaim.org.uk for PI following RTC Road Rage Incident

      By rickyleavet · Posted

      I've also been in touch via the online portal to the Police's GDPR team, to request the name of the other Driver. Got this response:   Dear Mr. ---------   Our Ref: ----------   Thank you for your request which has been forwarded to the Data Protection Team for consideration.   The data you are requesting is third party, we would not give this information directly to you.   Your solicitor or legal team acting on our behalf would approach us directly with your signed (wet) consent allowing us to consider the request further.   I note the investigation is showing as ‘live’ at this time, we would not considered sharing data for suggested injury until the investigation has been closed.   If you wish to pursue a claim once the investigation has been closed please signpost your legal team to [email protected]   Kind regards   ----------------- Data Protection Assistant    
    • NewsBot
      Brit Finance (Clone of Previously FCA Authorised EEA Firm)

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • jSW24
      Solidworks - CJHC meeting and Resellers/Partners not helping

      By jSW24 · Posted

      Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Restriction K's

Ellison50

By Ellison50
in General Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4658 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
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. :-x

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

butts

butts

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by toymaker1
Link to post
Share on other sites
butts

butts

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OnMyWayOut

OnMyWayOut

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
OnMyWayOut

OnMyWayOut

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
shazzyball

shazzyball

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaston Grimsdyke

Gaston Grimsdyke

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...