Cap1 & CCA return

[patrickq1]

thanks uni good thread ,it is a shame that the mods at cag act as a group and temporary buy these defaults for a penny each (we can all chuck in a few pence) and then instigate imediate bankrupcty against the big boys that ll set the cat amongst the pigeons lol

[patrickq1]

this also means peter they are in breach of the data protection act since they are not a legal party to any such debts it also gives you the chance then to bring the banks to book as your witness and for them to furnish all data and breakdown of figures as how they arived at the debt totals ...or am i on the wrong track

[pjdavies2000]

Peter, two things:

 

1 - if there is no 'credit' as such, then how can a DCA register defaults or change your credit file through a CRA? Surely they shouldn't be able to have any access to that file what-so-ever?

 

2 - if the DCA are in effect saying they only own the money, not the actual credit agreement, but are adding their own interest, whether based on the original APR or not, wouldn't there need to be some form of CCA between the person and the DCA? How else could they apply interest of any kind to the money...unless they have taken over the original CCA (which is what it always says in the Banks/CCards T&Cs anyway!)

 

My head hurts now!

 

Peter

[patrickq1]

i think we should be also in our writings be making sure that these are opinions and not neccesarly the law ?

[pjdavies2000]

thanks uni good thread ,it is a shame that the mods at cag act as a group and temporary buy these defaults for a penny each (we can all chuck in a few pence) and then instigate imediate bankrupcty against the big boys that ll set the cat amongst the pigeons lol

ohhhhh I like it!!!!

 

Use some of the CAG funds for a nice high profile reason!

 

Ha ha ha ha!

[patrickq1]

oops started something here peter lol everyones joining in keep it up

[andrew1]

Peter, two things:

 

1 - if there is no 'credit' as such, then how can a DCA register defaults or change your credit file through a CRA? Surely they shouldn't be able to have any access to that file what-so-ever?

 

2 - if the DCA are in effect saying they only own the money, not the actual credit agreement, but are adding their own interest, whether based on the original APR or not, wouldn't there need to be some form of CCA between the person and the DCA? How else could they apply interest of any kind to the money...unless they have taken over the original CCA (which is what it always says in the Banks/CCards T&Cs anyway!)

 

My head hurts now!

 

Peter

 

 

Now, you are going to get me going - Interest and a dca's right to it.

 

Consider this: DCA buy a debt from say (x) bank at somewhere between 7 and 12% of its face value - not supposition - FACT.

 

So a £1000 debt is bought for £100 ( lets keep it simple @ 10%)

 

The DCA then writes to you asking for the £1000 so please pay up or make an arrangement. You make an arrangement. £5 a month for ( ever! ) You forget to pay one month or you are skint and don't pay. DCA charges you 12% interest on full £1000.

 

 

Their outlay and cost £100

 

This to me is immoral. The DCA never financed £1000, lent you £1000 or borrowed £1000 to give to you, but they charge you interest on £1000.

 

Figure out what to do about that? Where in the CCA either the Agreement or the Act does it entitle them to do this?

[un1boy]

thanks uni good thread ,it is a shame that the mods at cag act as a group and temporary buy these defaults for a penny each (we can all chuck in a few pence) and then instigate imediate bankrupcty against the big boys that ll set the cat amongst the pigeons lol

 

I'm sorry Patrick I don't understand, lol

[un1boy]

oh yeh i do pat mate

[pjdavies2000]

Brilliantly put!

 

So either way its rubbish with or without CCA.

 

In a way they have financed a penalty clause loan for us, on our behalf, but without any agreement.

 

It's laughable really when you think about it!

[patrickq1]

more like a hidden clause making you party to their i presume an unlawful act

[patrickq1]

and my sugestion uni boy could be the same as i said perhaps if cag as a group bought our debts the same terms as said 1 penny (they fight this case tooth and nail but failure goes back 10 % for a fightin fund on a win or lose whatever they agree too abide by )to the unfortunate ones)as the DCA only dirrefence their it was an agreement of their own negotiated third party to enter on a legal basis

[Peterbard]

Peter, two things:

 

1 - if there is no 'credit' as such, then how can a DCA register defaults or change your credit file through a CRA? Surely they shouldn't be able to have any access to that file what-so-ever?

 

2 - if the DCA are in effect saying they only own the money, not the actual credit agreement, but are adding their own interest, whether based on the original APR or not, wouldn't there need to be some form of CCA between the person and the DCA? How else could they apply interest of any kind to the money...unless they have taken over the original CCA (which is what it always says in the Banks/CCards T&Cs anyway!)

 

My head hurts now!

 

HI

I didn't want to risk upsetting the mods or anyone else by posting on here rather than the original thread but since you brave lot have done it for me.

For what it is worth when you take on the credit the agreement is made beteen the debtor and the creditor this is the way the act refers to the the two main protagonists.

The term creditor doesn't only refer to the fact that credit is given but it is the generic title of the person or organisation giving the credit or owning the debt.

So if you accept this then secton 189 is only half the story and if the person the debt is assigned to rejects the title of creditor they also reject owning the debt.

 

 

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

Regarding the above

Ifi was to argue this point in court i would point out that shedule 1 of the regulations Part one Assigns the personal details of the creditor and debtor to the title "Creditor and Debtor". Thereafter this is the way that the two bodies are refered to inthe agreement.

 

So it is clear that the term creditor is not only a discription of the function of one of the parties but is the title of the party owning the rights to the debt.

 

Hmmm

 

Peter

[patrickq1]

mmmmm damm stuck with that one peter lol but im am looking it up lol

RHS Title » Title Dictionary

[maybelline]

still confused (or is that not just temporary!?) anyway, I have an agreement I want to challenge, the orginal creditor has registered a default, despite my continuing to pay, albeit reduced on agreement rate, having missed a few instalments, however the default is status 8, this means does it not, that the agreement has ended and I have failed to reach any agreement to make payment?? so this appears wrong and seems inextricably linked to the question of at what point does the agreement end with the creditor, is it when it is assigned to a dca, and this is when is officially considered ended thus opening the door for the default registered on file?

[patrickq1]

hi may ,peter am i right in thinking then that the DCA and the Bank are inextricabley linked to the same contract and i have asigned my rights away by agreeing to a non negotiated contract,but in the beleif that the passing of data was to THE COURTS/POLICE & INLAND REVENUE AND GOVERMENT DEPT..have i not innocently signed this contract/agreement by mistake to all the facts on this clause to asign my personal data without some form of legal chance to challenge this non negotiated contract/agreement...based on fairness this is not i hasten to add...will read your thread may i thought you had already one your case but will go through your threads

patrickq1

[conradsfate]

hi, everyone. someone told me to post here as they said you might help.

 

ive had a credit agreement from black horse. wanted to know if it is one and what to do next on it. tried to enlarge it more but not having much luck.

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/tan123/rescanbhorse.jpg

 

 

also have one that came from littlewoods could someone have a look at this too. thanks.

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/tan123/lwoodscca.jpg

[maybelline]

patickq1, yes, a different one, I have one left, the biggest and most difficult, arrggghhhh!

[patrickq1]

leave the worst to the last lol ha ha ive not even done one yet till after october then i can act on all mine

[Seahorse]

I still think that the rights and duties issue is designed to confuse and deflect attention from the matter at hand... and that is, whether the new owner accepts that he has duties by way of assignment or not, one fact remains constant. . .

 

if they want to prove a debt is enforcable, they NEED to have the original agreement, and it must be properly executed, containing all the prescribed terms. Because THAT is the document that was allegedly signed. And without it, they are stuffed. Because any alleged debt would have been regulated by the CCA, so THAT is what counts.

 

The Law of Property Act is all smoke and mirrors, as far as I'm concerned.

[un1boy]

and my sugestion uni boy could be the same as i said perhaps if cag as a group bought our debts the same terms as said 1 penny (they fight this case tooth and nail but failure goes back 10 % for a fightin fund on a win or lose whatever they agree too abide by )to the unfortunate ones)as the DCA only dirrefence their it was an agreement of their own negotiated third party to enter on a legal basis

 

i see, thanks for clarifying!!

[elizabeth1]

I still think that the rights and duties issue is designed to confuse and deflect attention from the matter at hand... and that is, whether the new owner accepts that he has duties by way of assignment or not, one fact remains constant. . .

 

if they want to prove a debt is enforcable, they NEED to have the original agreement, and it must be properly executed, containing all the prescribed terms. Because THAT is the document that was allegedly signed. And without it, they are stuffed. Because any alleged debt would have been regulated by the CCA, so THAT is what counts.

 

The Law of Property Act is all smoke and mirrors, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!

 

This company really do need to sit down and do some reading before they make a bigger mess for themselves than they are already in - me thinks our friends are a little bit confused and struggling to cover their naughty ways up

[un1boy]

Elizabeth, i don't think they are confused - i think they [probably] know exactly what they can and can't do. And the reason for saying they can enforce/enter defaults etc/that they aren't the original creditor is [probably] because they hope that we don't know enough about the power of the CCA and therefore hope to "bully"/frighten us into maitaining payments.

 

I hope the above makes sense.

[MoonHawk]

Hi all

 

I believe they are using the Law Of Property Act (LoP) hoping that we do not understand it and pay up out of ignorance and/or fear. Aktiv Kapital are also using the same argument. They claim that they are a "Debt Purchase Company" and as such only buy the debt and not the agreement.

 

What they fail to say is that in order to trade they have to hold a CCA license (on the bottom of the letters as far as Aktiv Kapital is concerned). Trading Standards have told me to forward my letter to the OFT and ask it to be taken into consideration when their license is up for review.

 

Also they quoted to me section 136 of the LoP which states:

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-

 

(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.

Notice that it states "absolute assignment" (thanks to tomterm8 for pointing that out), which means that for it to be legal the duties of the contract/agreement also apply. So in effect they are getting themselves tied in knots and admitting that the CCA applies.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk