Where do I stand on this one? Egg loan sold to dca who cant provide cca

[rosyb]

I feel that you do not realise that it is not threats of litigation that are the problem the simple fact is that claims are being issued

as threats and then discontinued once the claimant has achieved their objective of intimidating an alleged debtor in to agreeing payments.

I do not think vegetables have a place in court buttered or not.

 

With respect i am not sure i see your point.

If a case is taken to court then discontinued, the defending party does not have to pay anything.

The fact is , as you say, creditors can take people to court.

Agree about vegatables not having a place in court, although i think i have seen one or two there in my time.

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I draw your attention to post 26 the use of the term summons, this is not relevant to civil claims

failing to answer to summons can have profound repercussions unlike a civil court claim which if you decide

not to defend or appear results in either judgement in default or dismissal

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

With respect i am not sure i see your point.

If a case is taken to court then discontinued, the defending party does not have to pay anything.

The fact is , as you say, creditors can take people to court.

Agree about vegatables not having a place in court, although i think i have seen one or two there in my time.

Rosy

I see this regularly action issued debtor pays when often not liable especially in SB cases and action withdrawn, a waste of court time and money!!"!!

[mines a pint]

Thanks Rosy,

 

The repayment arrangement has been in place since 2009 and not one payment has been missed.

 

When I fell into difficulties Egg where informed & I sent them a National Debt Line I&E sheet which they accepted.

 

If anything my position has worsened but I have stuck to you arrangement as I want to clear the debt before I retire (providing the Government stop moving the retirement age ).

 

Incidently the last line in their letter states its their final response & they will not discuss it further.

[dx100uk]

who owns the debt on your CRA?

 

dx

[dx100uk]

three threads merged for history of advice.

 

please keep to one thread only per debt.

 

dx

[mines a pint]

who owns the debt on your CRA?

 

dx

 

For awhile both Egg & dca were showing the debt, but following complaint to CRA Egg removed their data leaving just the dca.

[dx100uk]

who is the owner ?

so egg does not show anywhere on the cra file?

 

dx

[theghost]

I see this regularly action issued debtor pays when often not liable especially in SB cases and action withdrawn, a waste of court time and money!!"!!

 

Just because a debt is is SB that doesnt mean you shouldnt pay it - from a moral point of view.

 

 

If credit companies can scare people into paying debts by threatening court then you would ask why those people were not paying to start with.

 

There may well be some peopel that end up paying wrongly for one reason or another but on the whole you would hope someone who genuinley believes they have no reaos nto pay or win i ncourt would let it goto court and let a court decide the issue.

[dx100uk]

as much as cag is not here for debt avoidance and that is something we will never condone

 

we equally are not here to trumpet the moral high ground

 

if the creditor cannot be bothered to want a debt paid in the six years leading to sb

we equally can never allow fleecing dca's to get away chasing sb'ed debts

 

none of that money ever goes to the oc anyhow

it simply funds their further operation in this murky business

 

dx

[the_shadow]

Just because a debt is is SB that doesnt mean you shouldnt pay it - from a moral point of view.

 

Morals and financial institutions dont go together I'm afraid, that is just not an argument that any banker or money lender could EVER win.

 

S.

[mines a pint]

My thread seems to have gone completely off track/topic.

 

This is nothing to do with SB or debt avoidence.

 

My debt has been sold to a dca and although a request was under under cca 1974 for the agreement they have failed to provide it - I HAVE NOT STOPPED PAYMENTS OR THREATENED TO DO SO, I owe the money & intend paying it, however I am continuing to pay the original creditor (EGG) until such times as the dca complies with cca 1974 - if they own it they should be able to provide the document.

 

Their threats & demands are centred around the fact that payments are being made via EGG, I wont speak to them

on the phone & although I've had a payment arrangement in place for almost three years the dca says that is now null & void.

Edited July 2, 2011 by mines a pint

[Bazooka Boo]

And therein lies the truth, the DCA speaks with forked tongue!

 

Either believe what they are saying and pay them, or completely ignore them, as they are deluded and wouldn't know there left from their right, and continue paying the OC direct.

 

Your final option would be to suspend payment as no agreement has been given to you, which you lawfully requested, and then wait and see who it is who comes out of the woodwork demanding money.

 

If the OC can't be bothered to collect this themselves and has decided to farm it out to a tin pot DCA, then they would have informed you of this, or should have at least.

 

It is after all your choice as to what you wish to do, but you posed the question and have been given advice, albeit some questionable #84, can't stop laughing at that...... So the choice is yours.

[rosyb]

I would continue to pay as agreed with Egg , I would also continue paying to the original creditor until you receive a verifiable copy of an assignment notice proving that the ownership of the account has been transferred.

The fact that only the DCA appears on your credit report proves nothing. It is the duty of any party taking over management of an account to process data, they do not have to own it just service it. This is quite clear from the ICO guidelines.

If they do not want to provide the information then, OK they would have to provide it to a court if they wanted to enforce the agreement anyway.

It is all hot air and bluster.

Keep everything in writhing and keep up your end of the bargain made with the OP, everything will fall into place once they realise that you cannot be railroaded.

Rosy

[rosyb]

Morals and financial institutions dont go together I'm afraid, that is just not an argument that any banker or money lender could EVER win.

 

S.

 

Absolutely correct.

[rosyb]

I draw your attention to post 26 the use of the term summons, this is not relevant to civil claims

failing to answer to summons can have profound repercussions unlike a civil court claim which if you decide

not to defend or appear results in either judgement in default or dismissal

 

 

Yes of course as i said you are quite right "claim" i am involved in both civil and criminal proceedings or have been i sometimes get the terms mixed up" deepest apologies for the severe distress this grevious error must have caused the OP:|.

As to your second point, no i think that if a "claim" is not defended then summary judgement for the claimant is usually entered.

If it is discontinued as mentioned in your earlier post, then the immediate action fails. There is generally no cost to the defendant, oops did it again.

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would continue to pay as agreed with Egg , I would also continue paying to the original creditor until you receive a verifiable copy of an assignment notice proving that the ownership of the account has been transferred.

The fact that only the DCA appears on your credit report proves nothing. It is the duty of any party taking over management of an account to process data, they do not have to own it just service it. This is quite clear from the ICO guidelines.

If they do not want to provide the information then, OK they would have to provide it to a court if they wanted to enforce the agreement anyway.

It is all hot air and bluster.

Keep everything in writhing and keep up your end of the bargain made with the OP, everything will fall into place once they realise that you cannot be railroaded.

Rosy

 

Rather puzzled by the first line of this post, surely EGG are the OC?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Default Judgements are often very easily set aside, criminal Judgements are not

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Just because a debt is is SB that doesnt mean you shouldnt pay it - from a moral point of view.

 

 

If credit companies can scare people into paying debts by threatening court then you would ask why those people were not paying to start with.

 

There may well be some peopel that end up paying wrongly for one reason or another but on the whole you would hope someone who genuinley believes they have no reaos nto pay or win i ncourt would let it goto court and let a court decide the issue.

 

I assume then you would happily pay an SB Debt

[rosyb]

Rather puzzled by the first line of this post, surely EGG are the OC?

 

As log a the OP can understand what is meant, i am happy.

 

Rosy

[rosyb]

Default Judgements are often very easily set aside, criminal Judgements are not

 

How does this help the OP?

I think that this is enough of this irrelevant nonsense on this thread, don’t you. Be glad to contribute if you want me to educate you elsewhere though.

Rosy

[rosyb]

I would continue to pay as agreed with Egg , I would also continue paying to the original creditor until you receive a verifiable copy of an assignment notice proving that the ownership of the account has been transferred.

The fact that only the DCA appears on your credit report proves nothing. It is the duty of any party taking over management of an account to process data, they do not have to own it just service it. This is quite clear from the ICO guidelines.

If they do not want to provide the information then, OK they would have to provide it to a court if they wanted to enforce the agreement anyway.

It is all hot air and bluster.

Keep everything in writhing and keep up your end of the bargain made with the OP, everything will fall into place once they realise that you cannot be railroaded.

Rosy

[mines a pint]

Well I havent been on here for almost 12 months.

 

Been very quiet as far as the dca is concerned, in fact nothing from them until a month ago when I suddenly received a letter from them sating that if I didnt ring them they intended to get either an attachment of earnings or a second charge on our house.

 

Kindly remined them that my cca request had not been forfilled, then last week they finally provided a copy of the cca & account statement, also enclosed was a letter stating I have seven days in which to ring them to discuss repayment, they are insisting that it has to discussed over the phone & wont entertain letters.

[cerberusalert]

They are desperate to speak to you on the 'phone because they will say things they wouldn't dare commit to paper, that's why it is important never to get into a telephone conversation with them. If they have anything of importance to say they can do it in writing which will leave a nice paper trail.

[the_shadow]

Well I havent been on here for almost 12 months.

 

Been very quiet as far as the dca is concerned, in fact nothing from them until a month ago when I suddenly received a letter from them sating that if I didnt ring them they intended to get either an attachment of earnings or a second charge on our house.

 

Kindly remined them that my cca request had not been forfilled, then last week they finally provided a copy of the cca & account statement, also enclosed was a letter stating I have seven days in which to ring them to discuss repayment, they are insisting that it has to discussed over the phone & wont entertain letters.

 

They have no right to demand such a thing, sending responses in writing slows down the process and ensures you are not put under undue pressure which is what they are trying to achieve here. DONT let them dictate how the communication will take place, if any. If you have a wish to negotiate with them then I would almost certainly keep things in writing as nothing said over the phone will ever be recorded at their end, unless you have a recording device and advise them at the start of a conversation that you are recording you cant trust anything they say.

 

The OFT debt guidelines state you can ask for communication to be in writing and as such if thats your wish tough on them. Remind them that they are dealing unfairly with you asking you to phone them and that you would prefer to have everything in writing so you can ask/seek advice from a third party (CAB, etc etc)

 

The OFT debt collection guidelines state it is an example of unfairness if a company is:-

Section 3.3 k:

ignoring or disregarding debtors' reasonable requests in respect of when, where and how to contact them

 

HTH

 

S.