Debt Assignment

[dadofholly]

james

 

It is about knowing your case - and arguing the points. rdm2006 isonly partly correct - the issues can be argued in court - even the carey ruling can be challenged in part. The Carey ruling accepted a recon agreement as compliance with a s.77/78 request. NOT that you can use a recon in Court to enforce a debt.

[Jamesx81x]

Now i understand the Carey ruling more, i took it as the courts were allowing creditors to enforce agreements in court without been able to provide the correct documentation or recons

 

Thats the agreement side covered what about default notices? Is it still the case that to terminate, take further action etc a vlaid notice must have been supplied?

 

We see no end of people complaining about default entries been registered on file without ever recalling reveiving one or the creditor been able to send a copy. Then it is much more harder for the consumer to get the info removed than it is for a creditor to place it there. Again my point of the balance been weighed in the creditors favour.

 

Thanks

[Jamesx81x]

Yes you are probably right there but you get people now who will try and ride out the 6 years then it will be statute barred! You will always get those people!

 

The creditor is quite entitled to take those who will not pay to court therefore securing the full sum and the consumer loses the opportunity of a discount.

 

Those who genuinely cant afford to pay, keep in contact with creditors and can prove their financial standing should receive such offers.

 

It is easy for a company to differentiate between who is ignoring them and who is in genuine hardship.

 

But as said before creditors will not entertain the fact but maybe should be forced to.

 

Its a case of differentiating the non payers from those in hardship - its not hard for them to do.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

The Default marker on a credit file is just a marker that you have failed to make payments according to the contract. For me the issue is that the CRA is used as a powerful tool to, these days, prevent anyone getting a mortgage BUT it can be trashed on the say so of a lender without any proof of debt required. In this respect you are right about the weight imbalance and in marked contrast to this country's fundamental principle of criminal law in that you are deemed automatically guilty of defaulting on a debt and not presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

[coledog]

A far worse abuse is the use of credit checks is in the job market - as it is used to discriminate and prevent perfectly honest and capable , if unfortunate, individuals taking up employment even in the most low paid work!

[Michelangelo48]

Exactly! Dont like people being "holier than thou" people may need help against these Bar stewards in court! There may be unlawfukl charges on their account with compound interest on them stretching back 10 years! People who dont acually have a debt with unfair charges and fees attached should stay silent!!! The Idea Of This Site is to help and encourage people who may face overwhelming odds!

[dadofholly]

Now i understand the Carey ruling more, i took it as the courts were allowing creditors to enforce agreements in court without been able to provide the correct documentation or recons Unfortunatley not only have courts been doing this - they still are. In many cases judges are being hoodwinked into thiking that a recon is a valid agreement due to DCA's and their sols misquoting Carey. The Recon agreement in Carey was for a s.77/78 request. If a creditor cannot fulfill a s.77/78 request they cannot enforce the debt. However they must still produce a copy of the original in Court - but most judges dont know this - and there are even many people here on Cag who will tell you that a recon can be used aswell, because cases have been lost. (My info came from a sols and a barrister who defended a case on my behalf) - Each case has it's own arguments.

Thats the agreement side covered what about default notices? Is it still the case that to terminate, take further action etc a vlaid notice must have been supplied? Yes - the court cannot enforce an agreement on the back of a faulty DN. The creditor though can just issue a new DN.

 

We see no end of people complaining about default entries been registered on file without ever recalling reveiving one or the creditor been able to send a copy. Then it is much more harder for the consumer to get the info removed than it is for a creditor to place it there. Again my point of the balance been weighed in the creditors favour.

Unfortunatley you are correct - 'don't get me started on CRA's' - those were the words of Michael Meacher MP when i had a conversation with him at a Banking Reform Conference and i think it is a similar sentiment for most of us on CAG (though there is the occasional person who seems to think they are whiter than white).

 

Thanks

 

James - response above in red.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

People who dont acually have a debt with unfair charges and fees attached should stay silent!!! The Idea Of This Site is to help and encourage people who may face overwhelming odds!

I agree with the second part of your sentence above but not the first. Lots of people have helped over the years I have been on this site and not all of them have debts - although most do - or did - because that's how they found the site. Some of us are coming out of the worst but stay here to help others just beginning. Its a self-help site and people can pick and choose according to their circumstances. Stay and play, or cut and run is the choice all members have. The site team do try and weed out the odd Troll that pops up occasionally with mis-leading and eroneous advice and from what I have seen do a darn good job too. The CRA needs serious overhaul as it is not regulated and seriously abused - I think we all agree on that.

[alangee]

We see no end of people complaining about default entries been registered on file without ever recalling reveiving one or the creditor been able to send a copy. Then it is much more harder for the consumer to get the info removed than it is for a creditor to place it there. Again my point of the balance been weighed in the creditors favour.

 

James

 

I used to think exactly the same as you until someone explained that a Default Notice and a default entry on your credit file are two different things.

 

The Default Notice is purely to allow the creditor to take the next step - enforcement of the debt. The default entry on your credit file is to denote that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor has broken down. Thus you could have your credit file in default without receiving a Default Notice.

 

The confusion arises because both of the above are normally enclosed in the Default Notice - i.e. threatening to take further enforcement action, and informing you they will inform the CRA's. Although this is the norm, I am told that they could be dealt with as separate issues.

 

Alan

Edited April 12, 2012 by alangee

[Michelangelo48]

Utterly agree here! People want to be treated fairly-s14 CCA.1974-BCoB R5.1.1. Regs 6, 7 and 8.COBS PCUTR2008 "NEG TERMS" Judge not lest ye be Judged! MATT 6 V6,7

[dadofholly]

Have you got a link to the MATT case?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Try the New Testament DoH:madgrin:

[Conniff]

One to think about.

 

You take out a credit agreement and it says you agree to your details etc being passed to a third party. Ok, that's standard, but has anyone ever signed anything that says a cra can pass your details to another? who gave them permission to transfer personal data?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

One to think about.

 

You take out a credit agreement and it says you agree to your details etc being passed to a third party. Ok, that's standard, but has anyone ever signed anything that says a cra can pass your details to another? who gave them permission to transfer personal data?

 

That has been tested the basis is that when the account is sold the purhaser

inherits the rights and obligations of the contract however many times it is sold.

[Conniff]

I wasn't thinking of a dca I was thinking of cra passing details to enquirers as to someones past. Who gave the cra permission to pass on your personal data.

[dadofholly]

I wasn't thinking of a dca I was thinking of cra passing details to enquirers as to someones past. Who gave the cra permission to pass on your personal data.

 

Very good question.

[intend]

Agree - has anyone knowledge that this has been challenged??

[Michelangelo48]

Thanks for the info guys!

[rdm2006]

Thats the agreement side covered what about default notices? Is it still the case that to terminate, take further action etc a vlaid notice must have been supplied? Yes - the court cannot enforce an agreement on the back of a faulty DN. The creditor though can just issue a new DN.

 

Unless it has been terminated - you cant default a terminated account (sure I've seen that on here somewhere)

[Jamesx81x]

Yes i went through court with that argument rdm

 

If an account is closed then no a default cannot be issued afterwards.

 

However if they terminate the account on the back of a dodgy default, they in fact lost the right to terminate or take you to court etc so they account goes back to its live state.

 

They can then issue a further correct default against you

[Jamesx81x]

I think the argument with the CRA's is that if it is a DCA that searches your file you have given them permsiion as mentioned in previous posts. Its my personal view that only the orignal creditor should be allowed to do so no DCA or solictor should hold the right, but thats just my view and by law they do

 

As for the info appearing on file etc they seem to have a cut and paste answer of each of our clients signs up to strict policies blah blah basically meaning the CRA's take the creditors word as gospel as they have signed up to these so called conditions.

 

I have asked before what happens to the the creditors who it is proved have entered information in breach of the DPA and of course they refused to answer.

 

They hold too much power of peoples data and that one wrong piece of info can really bugger somone up.

 

As for the CRA's selling info and passing it on i too would like to know who gives them permssion

Edited April 13, 2012 by Jamesx81x

[Jamesx81x]

Another question i have about the Carey case.

 

Now have established that it relates to a creditor can give a reconstitued agreement under Setion 77/78 but what about when the case is going to court. Does CPR 31.14 still apply in the inspection of documents as i dare say creditors will try getting around it with the above, but not to provide you with the information they rely on is preventing you from properly defending your case is it not?

[rockwell304]

Yes i went through court with that argument rdm

 

If an account is closed then no a default cannot be issued afterwards.

 

However if they terminate the account on the back of a dodgy default, they in fact lost the right to terminate or take you to court etc so they account goes back to its live state.

 

They can then issue a further correct default against you

 

I'm a little confused! I assume an account is closed if it is sold on by the OC to a DCA/debt purchasor. If the OC failed to send a DN or indeed sent an invalid DN does this mean the debt purchasor would be unable to proceed to court? I'm just trying to establish some facts relating to my own situation where Mercers issued a faulty DN on behalf of Barclaycard. Although the fact that Mercers have issued the DN and not BC may make it worthless in any event!

[rdm2006]

Yes i went through court with that argument rdm

 

If an account is closed then no a default cannot be issued afterwards.

 

However if they terminate the account on the back of a dodgy default, they in fact lost the right to terminate or take you to court etc so they account goes back to its live state.

 

They can then issue a further correct default against you

 

 

Not sure about that, the case i had seen was won due to the fact that a dodgy default was dated after the termination. I didnt see anything about a dodgy default means they cant terminate

like i said not sure so that could be wrong

[Jamesx81x]

When a debt is transferred it becomes the legal right of the purchaser as discussed at begining of this thread.

 

Between the 2 parties they have to agree who will maintain the info that goes on the credit file, only one can do it not both. Although the account may become closed with the original creditor it remains live with the pruchaser.

 

What i meant by if an account is closed is if a creditor completely closes an account doesnt transfer the rights just closes it then a default notice cannot be issued afterwards as there is no longer an account to do so.

 

If the default notice mercers have issued is faulty then they currently hold no right to take legal action against you and if they did you could defend in full. What they can do is rectify the default notice then proceed against you.