Debt Assignment

[Fred Bassett]

You have a financial obligation to whoever purchased the debt because you signed an agreement saying that the OC could sell. assign or share the data.

The agreement has been sold with ALL the rights and obligations of that agreement.

Your argument fails on this point, it may not be ''right'' but it fact.

 

How do I know this when the OC can't provide a true copy of the original agreement? This of course is what it is all about.

[reginald perrin]

Funny old thing debt isn't it.

I have had to endure in excess of 5 years of unrelenting pressure from persons whom have no idea of my situation but infer they do.

We have all been there to start with, the lady indoors bought to tears, the threats of what could/might happen if you don't rollover etc.

Managed to get most of it sorted but health matters more in the forfront now, but guess what? Because it is now just over five years since

the start, all the original creditors have started to sell their debts onto DCA's and the whole scenario is about to start again.

This time though Ihave CAG and I have learnt enough with the help of the site team and others to point me in the right direction of how to deal

correctly with them and ensure they do likewise.

The point of this, I like many others reckon I owe a large amount to many companies and never going to be able to pay it back as much as I

wish I could, due to age.

That amount though has been obtained for a fraction of its value.

The difference now is that a new set of creditors are once are about to treat me and her indoors as absolute lowlife and no doubt others as well.

I have been paying my way to the original OC's quite happily for years (probably shouldn't have done but old school).

Now I have been informed I have some strange company attempting to make a vast amount of money from me for nothing.

They have been supplied with all knowledge of my private and personal affairs such as they are but they are not going to fare very well from my

pocket in the future. One got it seriously wrong. They don't like court do they.

So yes! I would very much like to know everything about what has been passed on and how it is held on file and the price paid for it to ensure that

no one is taking adavntage again. At the moment I have seen nothing to persaude me that my own personal debt information should be kept secret

especially when I am making the payments that can only be personal to me and no others.

[phaitun]

I thought that i was correct regarding Human rights having a higher status than any commercial 'secret' after all, the Police cant even check what cars are on a criminals driveway in order to gain 'private information' on that criminal without a written authority from a superintendent, and if they want to go onto the driveway to check whats parked out the back they need permission from the chief constable.

 

It cannot be right that anybody with nothing more than the say so of a debt collection agency can infringe on someones privacy without firstly checking they have a lawful right to do so and without any regulation.

 

The DCA's use a large number of tools that are commercially available to trace debtors, they resort to surveillance and other tactics to track the debtor down. The Authorities are bound by clear legal restrictions that prevent them from doing the same at their own behest.

 

The way to fight them is by using the ECHR regulations to our advantage. Does anybody know any further stated cases regarding debtors using ECHR legislation to claim or fight DCA's or similar?

[Fred Bassett]

I sympathise with you and that's the bit that really gets my goat - the fact that these accounts are sold on to absolute **** who have done nothing to try and engender any kind of trust or financial relationship but simply go in hard with both jackbooted feet in an attempt to pressure you. Once this happens, as far as I'm concerned, any moral obligation to pay the bastards goes clean out of the window and I will use any legal means possible to avoid paying them. I really don't have any scruples about this because I didn't ask them for a loan or a credit card and as far as I'm concerned, they can whistle.

[Fred Bassett]

I thought that i was correct regarding Human rights having a higher status than any commercial 'secret' after all,

 

Generally speaking, human rights in this country applies to people who don't deserve them or who want to kill the same people they are claiming dole money from. Don't expect any level of common sense on this matter because it emanates from Europe.

[phaitun]

Also 'secrecy' regarding any information held on an individual by any agency or body private or public is only allowed to be 'tolerated' under the auspices of whether it is in the 'public interest' to reveal the information or not.

 

Under ECHR legislaton we have been given the data protection act, RIPA, ICO, Freedom of Information Act, it is my opinion that we arent using it enough to give the DCA'S and their agents a much harder time.

 

Thats why there is such a huge issue with the press at the moment. They just cant do what they did for years without any fear anymore!

[Jamesx81x]

Not sure ho many cases have been taken using ECHR legislation but would be interesting to see it go that way.

 

This is an issue the likes of the OFT and ICO should be taking on.

 

The Commercially Sensitive Info subject is there for a reason. It stops information going out that may be detrimental to a business which is fair enough.

 

But can the law fairly argue the same applies to individual consumers who want to know what information a company holds on them? I dont think it it can and shouldnt do.

 

What does a DCA stand to lose exactly? They buy the debt for peanuts then claim the full balance from you.

 

Someone tell me what they stand to lose buy it been revealed they bought a debt for £200 then receivce £200 from the debtor? Nothing they simply do not set to profit from it.

 

Look at it carefully and there is a massive difference as to where Commercially Sensitive applies and doesnt really apply.

[Michelangelo48]

Brigader!stop trying to win arguments and actually try to help people for a change!

[Michelangelo48]

Yes Guys! Agree with all of this stuff! DCAs and such creeps n such barstewards cannot keep our info a secret-and should not profit from SB'd unlawful debt littering Old accounts-which also are usually littered with £35 unfair charges

[reginald perrin]

Why should the OC need to sell the debt on anyway. I was under the impression they got thier money back through insurance anyway, or is that more duff

information from a University lecturerer at speakers corner. If this is the case how much do they need to keep taking.

[Jamesx81x]

Snippets taken from the ICO's own publication. There is a diffrence between commercial and financial interests. A DCA's interestes are only that of a financial nature so it would be up to them to prove what affect it would have on them.

 

Section 43 of the Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if:

the information requested is a trade secret, or

release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of anyperson. (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself

or any other legal entity.)

There is an important distinction to be drawn between commercial interests and financial interests. While there will be many cases where prejudice to the financial interests of a public authority may affect its commercial interests, this is not necessarily the case.

[Fred Bassett]

Not sure ho many cases have been taken using ECHR legislation but would be interesting to see it go that way.

 

This is an issue the likes of the OFT and ICO should be taking on.

 

The Commercially Sensitive Info subject is there for a reason. It stops information going out that may be detrimental to a business which is fair enough.

 

But can the law fairly argue the same applies to individual consumers who want to know what information a company holds on them? I dont think it it can and shouldnt do.

 

What does a DCA stand to lose exactly? They buy the debt for peanuts then claim the full balance from you.

 

Someone tell me what they stand to lose buy it been revealed they bought a debt for £200 then receivce £200 from the debtor? Nothing they simply do not set to profit from it.

 

Look at it carefully and there is a massive difference as to where Commercially Sensitive applies and doesnt really apply.

 

 

At the moment, although we all know what robbing bastards they are we can't quite prove it. Life would be very much more uncomfortable for these scumbags if they were in front of a court trying to justify getting a mark up of several thousand percent. Anything that we can do therefore to make this common knowledge is a good thing. It is legal usury. There is no other description for it.

[Michelangelo48]

Exactly-at 40%tax! And the loan is underwritten by an underwriting insurer against default by the debtor! Assignor of debt makes 10/20%more by selling to 3rd party dca-who then makes 100% plus interest charges and fees! How Corrupt!!!

[dadofholly]

Here is another one for you:-

 

You S.A.R. for copies of ALL correspondence etc they have on you,!!! BUT I.C.O. etc say that a copy of CCA on payment of GBP1.00, why not in the S.A.R.? again double standards?

 

You should be sent a copy of the agreement in response to an SAR - if you are not then they have not complied with your SAR. An SAR is made under the data protection act. (If they do not have a copy then they do not need to send it you to comply - they only have to send what they actually have).

 

The £1 payment is for a legal request made under the Consumer Credit Act - and is specifically for the Agreement. (If they fail to comply with this request then they are barred from enforcing the agreement).

Edited April 10, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

Excellent-Human Rights 2000. Article. 6 does take precedence over commercial Interest! EUlaw- Credit Directive 43 Reg36.16 creditor to provide information on debt in a transparent, unambiguous, clear way! S14 CCA 1974 Fairness, COBS principles 6,7,8,BCOBS Reg 5.1.1-Fairness PCUTR 2008! FOI 2000- All domestic legislation UNDER EU Law-this why Laws change!

 

All this says is that you should be informed about the debt - which you are - should imagine if you have an agreement you are aware of the debt and the repayment schedule etc.

 

That does not mean you should be informed of the price it is sold for. A loan agreement is legaly considered an assett - and is owned by the creditor. like any assett it can be bought and sold. We may not like it - it may not be moraly right - but then neither is the whole banking system. Unfortunatley though it is legal.

[dadofholly]

Snippets taken from the ICO's own publication. There is a diffrence between commercial and financial interests. A DCA's interestes are only that of a financial nature so it would be up to them to prove what affect it would have on them.

 

Section 43 of the Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if:

 

 

the information requested is a trade secret, or

release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of anyperson. (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself

or any other legal entity.)

There is an important distinction to be drawn between commercial interests and financial interests. While there will be many cases where prejudice to the financial interests of a public authority may affect its commercial interests, this is not necessarily the case.

 

 

That refers to 'public authorities' - and public bodies - the businesses we are talking about are private businesses.

Edited April 10, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

Did I say you 'did' or that you 'should' big difference

 

Who cares how much Tesco pays for their beans! Their beans are not involved in a debtors personal sensitive information

 

Any information someone holds about you should be made available to you simple as that Any information about you will/or should be made available to you. But the price paid for the purchase of an asset is not about you - it is about the asset.

 

And like i said in my last post that is more of a side issue to my main point

 

I have been involved in cases where it has been necessary to prove a good reason to get sight of the deed of sale - and had to fight for it by showing good cause for the defence. Unfortunatley i can not envisage any DJ being convinced of the need to know the price. it is accepted that these debts are bought for pennies in the pound.

[Jamesx81x]

And as said before what right do they have to sell when it's not stated within the t&c's?

 

An agreement is only legal if it is set out as required and you are only bound by terms and conditions that you sign for not what is not included

[dadofholly]

And as said before what right do they have to sell when it's not stated within the t&c's?

 

An agreement is only legal if it is set out as required and you are only bound by terms and conditions that you sign for not what is not included

 

It does not need to be included in the T&C's - the T&C's are for the agreement between you and them - for the financial transaction between you both.

 

they do not need your agreement to sell the agreement.

[Jamesx81x]

So they need your permission to pass on your personal information but they do not it to sell your personal information??

 

How is that then? It is people's personal info not a product

[dadofholly]

Are you saying you have an agreement that does not state that they can share your information with 3rd parties?

[Jamesx81x]

They cannot claim a debt without an agreement but they can sell one even if they have no proof if it??

 

Come on please

[Jamesx81x]

Share and sell are different very different

 

Sharing is sending it to agencies such as CRA's and the like

[dadofholly]

Share and sell are different very different

 

Sharing is sending it to agencies such as CRA's and the like

 

No difference - what is the difference? Sharing means passing on

[dadofholly]

They cannot claim a debt without an agreement but they can sell one even if they have no proof if it??

 

Come on please

 

If they dont have an agreement why worry who owns it? they can't claim on it.