Arrow have taken over Egg Loan

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good luck DS.

[The Debt Star]

needless to say the adjudicator hasn't rushed to respond

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Now there's a surprise:madgrin:

[The Debt Star]

This thread may seem a little confused to newcomers. So to summarise there are several issues:

 

1. Egg absolutely assigned (sold) my loan to Arrow Global during a prior dispute (book balance of debt was £5,500)

2. The prior dispute was a PPI claim that the FOS had adjudicated on in my favour 6+ months ago but which Egg had failed to comply with at the time of the absolute assignment to Arrow. I calculate that Egg owed me a further £1,100 in PPI prior to the assignment.

3. Arrow have instructed Wescot DCAs to collect the money on a prior dispute and for a disputed sum (due to point 2)

4. I have made a 25% F&F to Arrow based on the sum owing of £4,400 (the true debt after the PPI)

 

Not altogther uncomplicated.

 

Thus far:

 

1. Wescot have acknowledged my compalint but have not responded to it in detail

2. I have continued to pay Arrow the agreed repayments I was making to Egg (ie I am not paying Wescot anything) and Arrow have accepted my cheque forlast month's instalment

3. Egg have acknowledged my complaint about the assignment but have not responded in detail

4. The FOS have said they are chasing Egg bit nothing ever seems to get done. Egg have allegedly told the FOS that the assignment has "complicated" things

5. I have fired off a complaint about the FOS to the adjudicator as they have been sitting with their thumb up their jackson for months now

 

I wonder if Arrow will accept the F&F given how complicated it has become due to the absolute assignment? If they do my guess is that they (Arrow) will then try to pass it back to Egg who will want to recover the full sum. This is where the absolute assignment to Arrow becomes useful to me.

[mrman101]

Having dealt with this situation before, I would assume that arrow will not do that. They will say sort out the ppi claim with egg, then use the money to pay off the remainder of the debt. I will be very surprised if they suggest any different. The debt has been sold, I don't think they offer a money back guarantee. As far as I remember arrow let dra s offer 50% f&fs so may settle themselves for less than that, although if you have let them know you are offering f&f and claiming ppi, then they are going to be less likely to offer a larger reduction because they know you have original f&f amount plus money claimed via ppi.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is often a buy back clause in these

debt sales, for situations just like this, so it

is a possibility DS.

[mrman101]

This was arrows policy on the whole ppi issue, haven't had anything to do with them for a while, but may have changed, although if there is a possibility of settling, I very much doubt they will pass back

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

In the last few years I have seen many debts returned

to the OC --see Magdas post this evening for one.

[mrman101]

When they are offering to pay?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes especially when there are disputed charges

and insurance that the DCA's are very reluctant

to get involved with.

And the debtor is wanting to offset insurance payments

against the debt.

[mrman101]

I agree with that they are reluctant, however in this occasion he has made payment to arrow. We dealt with hundreds of these when dealing with arrow, I know a few were recalled but generally we were holding while claiming and then asking to use funds to clear. However more were settled through negotiating settlement terms without a claim. Arrow encouraged us not to offer f&fs on accounts that have been subject to a ppi claim.

[The Debt Star]

Hi thanks for posting Brig and mrman.

 

mrman, been thinking about yuor comment re: "although if you have let them know you are offering f&f and claiming ppi, then they are going to be less likely to offer a larger reduction because they know you have original f&f amount plus money claimed via ppi."

The PPI was mis-sold and I have a FOS adjudication agreeing that it was. Egg have been told to stump up but haven't. Instead they sold a balance of £5500 to Arrow when in fact only £4400 was owing. It is not my fault about the PPI and as far as I'm concerned - whatever Egg and Arrow have agreed between themselves - the debt is £4400. You'll appreciate that i don't really care who owns the debt and I never asked for it to be sold to Arrow in the first place.

 

Therefore, from my perspective, I am offering the debt owner a f&f taking into account what the "true" balance is. It is the same f&f I would have offered Egg if they still owned thd debt. The PPI refund of £1100 is money that belongs to me and is due to me and which has nothing to do with the "true" loan balance, save and insofar as it would ordinarilly have been used to offset the balance. FOS agreed with that. But of course Egg did something really dumb and sold a debt in prior dispute.

 

Do you see my logic? The PPI has - or should have - nothing to do with the f&f because it is money that is due to me because of the mis-selling of PPI by Egg. Egg SHOULD have sold the loan for £4400 to Arrow and not for the £5500 but from my perspective any offer made to the debt owner HAS to take into account the mis-sold PPI of £1100, which I am entitled to anyway (whether paid direct or by way of off-set). The outstanding PPI claimc should not make any difference therefore.

 

Arrow, on the otherhand, have been stitched up by Egg. A bit like me selling you a car for £1000 when its worth £900.

 

Or am I wrong?

[mrman101]

No your correct in what you say, but f&fs are used to either resolve a dispute or settle nested of arrangement. The way they will look at it, you have offered x amount, so if you reclaim ppi, you now also have y amount. So you have both x and y at your disposal to pay. You now cannot say you only have x to pay. So they will be less likely to offer a reduction on balance minus ppi.

[mrman101]

Or in simpler terms if somebody owes you ten pounds and they say they only have five, will you accept that, they then pay with a ten pounds note and ask you for change?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Of course the other £5 is what I have to live on,

true in too many cases!!!!

[mrman101]

But you get the point?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed but after dealing with so

many DCA's and DPC's who have

no care and no interest in the circumstance

of the debtor offering the payment I think

the point is lost!!

[mrman101]

And I also get your point, but in order to settle on low %, you really need to give them an incentive. He cannot claim the ppi and then say he has no money? They will know he has the money before he does. At which point there is no query, what incentive do they have to offer a 25% f&f as you recommended? All I can see is him having no query and more money than he started with?

[The Debt Star]

Or in simpler terms if somebody owes you ten pounds and they say they only have five, will you accept that, they then pay with a ten pounds note and ask you for change?

 

Not quite, because in your example you are forgetting that I owe that somebody some of the £10 I claim is due to me, because of mis-sold some insurance to them, say worth £3 making their real debt to me £7. So if they offered £5 I would be hard done by, but not if they offered £7. Of course I have offered less because I have offered 25% based on recommendations to start with a lower offer than that which I will ultimately go to, say 50%.

 

Arrow own the debt and are claiming the full whack inclusive of the mis-sold PPI due to me. Thinking about it I do agree with you, as it is Egg not Arrow that owe the PPI. But of course Egg won't pay it over and sold the debt inclusive of the PPI to someone else who is pursuing me for the incorrect sum. So I am offering that party (Arrow) a f&f taking into account the PPI, which of course i would do as Egg haven't paid it back to me but sold on the total debt inclusive of it. Is that so unreasonable?

 

If I had the £1100 PPI cheque to hand - which I don't as Egg haven't paid it and probably never will (this claim is now getting on for 2 years) - then I would make the f&f based on the amount sold to Arrow. But in these circumstances we are talking about an absolute assignment to Arrow of a debt in prior dispute that includes a tranch of mis-sold PPI that is not being repaid and I have made a f&f taking into account that element of PPI the debt owner is chasing.

 

Surely the remedy for Arrow would be to negotiate with Egg for the shortfall as the debt in prior dispute was sold to them inclusive of it?

 

I do also have the matter of Arrow's DCA harassing me for a debt sum that is disputed.

Edited August 25, 2011 by The Debt Star
syntax

[The Debt Star]

I hope I haven't scared you off mrman! I'm sure you are right. Because although this was an Absolute Assignment (ie the debt with its rights and duties were sold in its entirity to Arrow and Arrow effectively then became the "original creditor" as they have all the rights and duties of Egg), I'm sure that there would be a clause in the deal betwixt Egg and Arrow making Egg not Arrow liable for the PPI. So Arrow are likely to 'factor in' the PPI where a f&f is concerned. That's logical. You are correct. Assuming that the PPI remains Egg's liability, not Arrow's, under the Absolute Assignment.

[Master Chief]

Brig, you there mate?

 

I've just had an equifax alert telling me my long-term defaulted Egg account has been marked "settled." As the sum of £5K ish was sold to Arrow Global, presumably this just means that as far as Egg are concerned the debt is "settled" hence the amendment to my CRF?

 

Does this mean that Arrow can file a brand new Default on my CRFs for the debt they purchased from Egg? ie its a diferent account, new owner (same debt of course) but allowing them to file a fresh 6 year Default?

 

If this happens, what should I do about it? The ICO are as useless as a wet blanket.

 

 

Hi DS,

 

This has happened to me. Egg sold my account to Arrow recently, for which I had been (and still am) paying Moorcroft. Despite never missing a payment, two CRA's are showing a new default with the assignment date as the default. The Egg one had previously fallen off.

 

Naughty!

 

MC

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There can only be

ONE DEFAULT ON ANY DEBT the new owner
can only update the details and cannot change the date.
 
Brig.

[count orlok]

Yes naughty, the original default date still aplies. They are not allowed to do this, the CRA should remove the default when they are told about it. The trouble is I doubt if they make any checks before putting enteries on ones file, and those that supply the information can't allways be trusted to tell the truth. if this industry is not going to be properly regulated it should not have the power to ruin peoples lives.

[The Debt Star]

Hi DS,

 

This has happened to me. Egg sold my account to Arrow recently, for which I had been (and still am) paying Moorcroft. Despite never missing a payment, two CRA's are showing a new default with the assignment date as the default. The Egg one had previously fallen off.

 

Naughty!

 

MC

 

Hi MC. Long time, no hear.

 

I hope you are bearing up well my friend.

 

FWIW, Arrow managed to get my default filed at Experian transfererd to them correctly. The only change that took place was the replacement of "Egg" with "Arrow" and the default date remained the same.

 

With Equifax thus far the account ahs been filed as "Settled" with no Arrow input, as yet.

 

Sorry to hear of your troubles with the CRAs mate. What some folks fail to understand is that while there SHOULDN'T be more than one daefult filed and for the wrong date, it does happen and it happens A LOT. Just read these forums.

 

I suggest you go to Arrow first to sort this out. Send them a copy or screebn print if you have one of your old cerdit file and if necessary send Egg a SAR to get proof of the default date. If you still have no joy then it should go to the ICO.

[Master Chief]

Hi DS, yep it has been a while. I've been otherwise engaged and things were pretty quiet in terms of DCA bullsh**, hence being awol from the forums. But just like the proverbial bad pennies, they are back!

 

I'm OK, bearing up thanks.

 

As you, Brig and count rightly point out, there is clearly defined guidance on CRA file reporting. But the DCA's will insist on using the CRA's as a debt collection tool rather than for the intended purpose. I have no doubt that the error will be corrected just as soon as I point it out to those concerned. I'm sure that I have all the historical evidence that I need, so I'm not unduly worried, just bloody annoyed that they think they can get away with it!

 

Hope you're well too and all the best.

 

MC