Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

HI

I have just been calculating interest on annother thread for a Welcome sufferer and i noticed that people are having a lot of difficulty calculating interest (APR)and aplying it to their agreements .

I use a spreadshee and the go-seek function which is recomended by the TCC regulations.

I dont know if one is already available on here but if enough people are interested i wil put the instructions up so they can make one.

It is not the simplist thing to use but it is accurate to three decimal places and always works.

 

If enough people respond i will start a new thread, if not forget i mentioned it

Peter

[conar686]

HI

I have just been calculating interest on annother thread for a Welcome sufferer and i noticed that people are having a lot of difficulty calculating interest (APR)and aplying it to their agreements .

I use a spreadshee and the go-seek function which is recomended by the TCC regulations.

I dont know if one is already available on here but if enough people are interested i wil put the instructions up so they can make one.

It is not the simplist thing to use but it is accurate to three decimal places and always works.

 

If enough people respond i will start a new thread, if not forget i mentioned it

Peter

 

I'd be interested in your spreadsheet advice Peter, thanks for the offer.

[foolishgirl]

Me too. Yes please Peter.

 

I hate those calculations.

[Needabreak]

Could someone look at KB BA1's agreements on this thread. I'm not sure if they are enforceable or not, but they are missing terms and conditions.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/188276-mbna-abbey-cc-final.html#post2034893

 

Thanks.

[humbleman]

someone please point me in the direction of any threads where validity of Notice of Assignments has been discussed.

[foolishgirl]

Is this the one you wanted HM?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/123771-validity-debt-assignment-re.html

[foolishgirl]

Oh, found another one in my folder

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/155843-deeds-notifications-assignment.html

[humbleman]

FG

 

Thanks

[foolishgirl]

YW - enjoy...

[humbleman]

am I right to say that the assignment of credit card debts are governed by LPA 1925

[car2403]

am I right to say that the assignment of credit card debts are governed by LPA 1925

 

Yup

[humbleman]

Yup

 

Now, listen to this

 

When I told the Judge that according to LPA 1925 s136 this assignment is not valid, due to .........

 

Guess what he told me

 

Law of Property Act is to do with properties and not credit card agreements and the solicitors for Phoenix supported that too.

[car2403]

Now, listen to this

 

When I told the Judge that according to LPA 1925 s136 this assignment is not valid, due to .........

 

Guess what he told me

 

Law of Property Act is to do with properties and not credit card agreements and the solicitors for Phoenix supported that too.

 

Did the Judge look like Father Ted, because that just made me laugh so hard I almost ended up in a puddle of pee! (Urgh! )

 

Anyway, here's the LOP Act, with which the Judge needs hitting over the head with;

 

s.136 Law of Property Act 1925;

 

 

Quote:

136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice

The key here is the bit in Blue - if the NoA doesn't come from the original creditor, the assignment is ineffectual in law and the assignee cannot pursue the debtor through the Courts, or be recognised as having the legal obligations and requirements as the original Creditor. They may, however, have an equitable interest, such as collecting on behalf of the OC, but they are not legally entitled to take any action. They may also be in breach of harassment legislation if they continue to chase a debtor in that way, in these circumstances.

[madjj111]

i have a rew different outstanding credit card loans, overdraft etc - havent paid anything towards them in a while, one of them with the bank is three years old now, they have passed these debts onto to different credit agencies and i have received letters saying they goin to visit, i have just ignored everything, one of the debts have been passed threw 3 different credit agencies, where will this will all go in the end? any ideas?

[foolishgirl]

Now, listen to this

 

When I told the Judge that according to LPA 1925 s136 this assignment is not valid, due to .........

 

Guess what he told me

 

Law of Property Act is to do with properties and not credit card agreements and the solicitors for Phoenix supported that too.

 

Where DO they get them from?!! - The purlers aswell as the judges.

[humbleman]

FG and Car2403

 

I have posted a copy of the NOA over on my thread if would like to have a look.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/130101-humbleman-hfc-weightmans-court-8.html

[Goldlady]

Maybe he was an old judge and needed to see the words 'chose in action' rather than 'thing in action'.

 

That is unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. And the other side must have been rubbing their hands together with delight!

 

With judges like that, why bother?

[Number6]

Now, listen to this

 

When I told the Judge that according to LPA 1925 s136 this assignment is not valid, due to .........

 

Guess what he told me

 

Law of Property Act is to do with properties and not credit card agreements and the solicitors for Phoenix supported that too.

 

This is why it's important to go into court with written backup for every assertion that you make, or could make during the defence. Then if you do get a know-nothing judge you can show him / her a copy of the appropriate section of the legislation there and then.

 

When I was last in court, even though I was only up against Turnbulls I went into court totally tooled up - I almost needed a trolley to carry all my binders containing copies of acts, case histories and precedents, and commentaries. It was a good feeling when the opposition solicitor had to admit to the judge that he hadn't even got a copy of the CCA with him and I had! :grin:

Edited March 16, 2009 by Number6
Typo

[pt2537]

Now, listen to this

 

When I told the Judge that according to LPA 1925 s136 this assignment is not valid, due to .........

 

Guess what he told me

 

Law of Property Act is to do with properties and not credit card agreements and the solicitors for Phoenix supported that too.

well in that case stick W Harrison and Burke under his nose and ask him if that changes his view, the complete doris

[Goldlady]

PT can you have a quick look at my ramblings on BigAl's thread please?

 

A thought - I have included the relevant chunks of legislation in the main body of the defence, mindful of the judge mentioned above. Would it be better to use them as appendices so the defence is not quite so long?

[Number6]

PT can you have a quick look at my ramblings on BigAl's thread please?

 

A thought - I have included the relevant chunks of legislation in the main body of the defence, mindful of the judge mentioned above. Would it be better to use them as appendices so the defence is not quite so long?

 

FWIW, my option is to quote the legislation briefly in the defence and then go to court armed with full copies marked up appropriately to show the Judge if needs be.

[tedney]

Did the Judge look like Father Ted, because that just made me laugh so hard I almost ended up in a puddle of pee! (Urgh! )

 

Anyway, here's the LOP Act, with which the Judge needs hitting over the head with;

 

s.136 Law of Property Act 1925;

 

 

Quote:

136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice

The key here is the bit in Blue - if the NoA doesn't come from the original creditor, the assignment is ineffectual in law and the assignee cannot pursue the debtor through the Courts, or be recognised as having the legal obligations and requirements as the original Creditor. They may, however, have an equitable interest, such as collecting on behalf of the OC, but they are not legally entitled to take any action. They may also be in breach of harassment legislation if they continue to chase a debtor in that way, in these circumstances.

 

 

I don't understand:confused:. The "blue" text says is effectual, whereas expalantion says"ineffectual in law" Am I missing something here?

[lexis200]

Did the Judge look like Father Ted, because that just made me laugh so hard I almost ended up in a puddle of pee! (Urgh! )

 

Anyway, here's the LOP Act, with which the Judge needs hitting over the head with;

 

s.136 Law of Property Act 1925;

 

 

Quote:

136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice

The key here is the bit in Blue - if the NoA doesn't come from the original creditor, the assignment is ineffectual in law and the assignee cannot pursue the debtor through the Courts, or be recognised as having the legal obligations and requirements as the original Creditor. They may, however, have an equitable interest, such as collecting on behalf of the OC, but they are not legally entitled to take any action. They may also be in breach of harassment legislation if they continue to chase a debtor in that way, in these circumstances.

 

I'm a bit confused about the bit in green (I thought I'd make it more colourful:))

 

I asked this question a while ago as I had only got an NOA from the DCA, not the OC. I had this reply...

 

Section 136(1), Law of Property Act 1925 says:

 

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

 

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

 

You will note that while the assignment is required to be under the hand of the assignor, the notice to the debtor need not be. All that is required is that the debtor has express notice of the assignment. Express notice may be given by the assignor, assignee or some third party even.

 

A debtor mistrusting of a person claiming to be the assignee may enquire of the assignor for confirmation the assignment is genuine.

Which is right? As far as I can see the bit I've highlighted in the above quote shows that 'any person claiming under him' can notify the debtor? Am I reading it wrong?

 

Thanks

 

Lexis:)

[car2403]

I don't understand:confused:. The "blue" text says is effectual, whereas expalantion says"ineffectual in law" Am I missing something here?

 

No?

 

The ineffectual bit is written under my own fair hand, whereas the quote from the Act states is effectual. If you revisit my original post, you'll see what I mean.

[car2403]

I'm a bit confused about the bit in green (I thought I'd make it more colourful:))

 

I asked this question a while ago as I had only got an NOA from the DCA, not the OC. I had this reply...

 

Which is right? As far as I can see the bit I've highlighted in the above quote shows that 'any person claiming under him' can notify the debtor? Am I reading it wrong?

 

Thanks

 

Lexis:)

 

I think the point being made here is that it's open to interpretation - mainly whether you consider the punctuation to link those 2 phrases together or not, it seems?