Debt Assignment

[dadofholly]

And dont forget they are not selling your data - only the agreement - they are simply sharing the data that relates to the asset they have sold.

 

Look up the law of property act as regards assignments.

[Jamesx81x]

No sharing is sharing selling is selling

 

I share my house sometimes with family does that mean i have sold it them?

 

Why worry? am not worrying its the principle of how they operate. You said they can sell on an agreement without having the agreement. How so? If there is no proof of an agreement how can they sell it?

 

Can you sell a car when you cant prove you own it - No!

 

And its Consumer Law not property law so it is irrelevant

[Conniff]

To put it as simply as I can, when an account is defaulted it is put in a box, after so long that box gets in the way so they offer it and the content to debt collecting agencies on highest bid wins the lot. Some of the stuff in that box has been there for years, all the bank knows it that if all the agreements in the box were paid up, they would be worth xxx pounds. The DCAs bids and the winner takes the box away for sorting out.

 

Now it could be that the amount of uncollectable agreements in the box far outnumber the collectable ones and it could be that the dca has in fact paid more for your account than is outstanding. It's swings and roundabouts, but in the main, they don't have a fixed price they paid for one defaulted agreement, so couldn't say we paid xx pounds for it.

 

Statute barred debts are still legitimate debts to pursue and always remain that way. The SB means that they cannot use the courts to enforce the collection but they can continue to chase it forever.

 

Some judges have been ignoring the fact there is no agreement with a signature on and have issued a ccj on the 'why have you been paying £xx per month if there is no agreement' basis, you wouldn't be paying if there was no agreement so there must have been one at some time.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Conniff

[Jamesx81x]

Yep understand everything you said their Coniff

 

Lets forget about finding how much they buy a debt for as it just comes to a dead end and is too complex

 

What irritates me is when people start saying this is same as this and that whn it quite clearly isnt

 

I also know that judges have been passing CCJ's uisng the argument you mentioned above but in my view when a creditor fails to provide a valid agreement and default notice i fail to see how they can when the law is quite clear that if terms on agreements are not set out as per regulations they cannot be enforced, same applies to default notices, one has to be issued in the perscribed form for further action to be taken.

 

It is not a case of trying to say the debt doesnt exist as i believe they should be paid one way or other. What my answer would be is how can a creditor 100% state in court that everything was in the perscribed form as per the CCA. If they cannot prove this they should not be allowed to take further action until they do so.

 

Same goes for selling of agreements, if they cannot prove an agreement was in place then they should be barred from selling that debt as what evidence other than their word do they have of the original balance , APR total charge and payments etc

 

 

My main 2 points and quite valid that i dont want to get lost in all this are:

• It should be clearly written into terms and conditions or on the agreement itself that a creditor may sell on the balance to a third party in the event of default
  
• If the creditr is willing to accept a reduced fee from a DCA then that fee should be first offered to the consumer to be given the chance to clear it
  

[Conniff]

They would probably make a lot more money if they were to offer it at 50% of the outstanding amount and give 30 days to pay that amount. I think it shows that they don't give one hoot about joe public, customers are just a commodity like the agreements, if you have to borrow then you are a peasant and as such we will treat you as one, so we would rather sell your outstanding agreement to a ****** company for a tenner than to you for fifty.

 

Be it tragedy or unemployment that caused the default, they just don't care "not my problem".

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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

For your informnation I am not trying to win arguments just trying to get the simple facts over to the users on here especially when

some of the statment/ claims etc., are fundamentally worong.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

No sharing is sharing selling is selling

 

I share my house sometimes with family does that mean i have sold it them?

 

Why worry? am not worrying its the principle of how they operate. You said they can sell on an agreement without having the agreement. How so? If there is no proof of an agreement how can they sell it?

 

Can you sell a car when you cant prove you own it - No!

 

And its Consumer Law not property law so it is irrelevant

 

The sale and purchase of the debt is under the Law of Property act.

Also there in no obligation on the creditor to supply a copy of any agreement

with a SAR as this is dealt with sects.77/78 etc CCA1974

[alangee]

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).

 

You can use the SAR to find out if the document sent in reply to a s77-79 request is a genuine copy. Under an SAR the creditor has to send a copy of the document - not a reconstituted copy. This will probably be a copy of the application, but at least you will know what the OC has.

 

Alan

[alangee]

The sale and purchase of the debt is under the Law of Property act.

Also there in no obligation on the creditor to supply a copy of any agreement

with a SAR as this is dealt with sects.77/78 etc CCA1974

 

 

Brigadier

 

According to the people I have spoken to at the ICO, the agreement is personal data, and should be included in any SAR package, if they still have it.

 

Alan

[Jamesx81x]

When have i mentioned a SAR?

[Michelangelo48]

Exactly-as MBNA say "..unless you can prove "Bank Error"- A default will be overturned..!"

[Michelangelo48]

Exactly-as MBNA say "..unless you can prove "Bank Error"- A default will be overturned..!And we can sell your account at any time without telling you"

[dadofholly]

No sharing is sharing selling is selling

 

I share my house sometimes with family does that mean i have sold it them?

 

Why worry? am not worrying its the principle of how they operate. You said they can sell on an agreement without having the agreement. How so? If there is no proof of an agreement how can they sell it? Because the agreement exists.

 

Can you sell a car when you cant prove you own it - No!

 

And its Consumer Law not property law so it is irrelevant

Erm i am afraid you need to research assignments..

 

The sale of an agreement is covered by the law of property act - Fact.

I and many others have researched assignments for over 2 years - look up hfo and see what work has been done on this subject.

 

If you are so sure of your arguement find one case history or peice of legislation that states your point. If you tried to go into court with these arguments i am afraid you would lose - simple as.

 

It is law - if you don't like the law - lobby to change it - but if you are looking for holes in this you are not going to find any i am afraid.

Edited April 10, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

Brigadier

 

According to the people I have spoken to at the ICO, the agreement is personal data, and should be included in any SAR package, if they still have it.

 

Alan

 

You are correct Alan - but if they dont have a copy they can't send it (i have been down this route personaly).

 

However a s. 77/78 request is a different matter.

[dadofholly]

When have i mentioned a SAR?

 

You have not - others have and are responded to.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Some creditors will send an agreement with a SAR others will not unless a seperate request

with a £1 fee is paid.

[dadofholly]

 

My main 2 points and quite valid that i dont want to get lost in all this are:

 

• It should be clearly written into terms and conditions or on the agreement itself that a creditor may sell on the balance to a third party in the event of default The problem is that the agreement is financial - you borrow and agree to pay back - it has nothing to do with who owns the agreement - they are two different issues and are covered by two different acts of parliament (The CCA and Law of Property Act.
   
  You need to split in your mind the issue of an agreement - and ownership of the agreement - as the law does (like it or not)
   
  
  
• If the creditr is willing to accept a reduced fee from a DCA then that fee should be first offered to the consumer to be given the chance to clear it This is a good idea and i doubt you would find anyone against it on these boards. But Finance industry will not go for it.
   
  The problem is people may simply click on - refuse to pay their debts knowing full well that they can just cough up half as a settlement at a later date.
  

 

Above in red.

Edited April 10, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

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!

 

The problems with this argument is we are talking about private companies here - profit making businesses.

 

It is not secrecey - it is their right to keep their private business transactions private.

 

Businesses are not in the habit of advertising commercial information to their competitors. The sale price of the debt is not necessary to defend a case in court - if it was the judge would order it.

 

Judges have ordered the deed of sale to be provided in court. If the sale price is relevant - and you can argue why it is - then a Judge will order it. But what is arguement for the request?

[dadofholly]

The sale and purchase of the debt is under the Law of Property act.

Also there in no obligation on the creditor to supply a copy of any agreement

with a SAR as this is dealt with sects.77/78 etc CCA1974

 

Disagree on the last point Brig - and have had this confirmed by ICO - had long arguments over this. An SAR is for ALL data they hold on you including the agreement - but if they dont have it they dont need to supply it with an SAR.

[dadofholly]

Exactly-as MBNA say "..unless you can prove "Bank Error"- A default will be overturned..!And we can sell your account at any time without telling you"

 

If they sell your account you have to be informed by a notice of assignment.

[Jamesx81x]

An agreement may exist but the regulations are clear.

 

An agreement has to be set out in the perscribed form and accompanied by a default notice set out in the perscribed form for further action to be taken on defaulted accounts.

 

It is clear as day and if these regulations stipulate the presence of an agreement is needed between two parties and defualt notices set out as persribed are required then whats the point in having such regulations if they just get ignored.

 

A creditor should be required to provide substantial proof of everything contained within the agreement and relevant default notices before it is passed on to who ever.

 

I see now they seem to rely on the fact they have accounts and judges take that as enough to warrant CCJ's been issued. I can go on excel now and knock up all kinds of agreements for different people but without proof how do i substantiate anything exists between us - i dont.

 

As for the T&C's they maybe different acts of parliament but it is a consumers personal information we are talking about here, on which the ICO is very clear on how it should be dealt with. How can a company need your permission to pass on your info to CRA's, Solicitors etc but they can just go sell all your personal details to anyone they like?

 

Where is the Data Protection in that exactly?

[dadofholly]

James i have already covered that - Most, (if not all), agreements will have a clause stating that you agree to you details being passed on. No it does not say sold - nor does it say provided free of charge.

 

YOU - believe there is a difference - the nuances of law do not.

 

The sale of the agreement is covered by the Law of property act - and so can be lawfully sold.

 

the data is covered by the DPA - and can be passed on as agreed.

 

The issue of proving the existence of the agreement is covered by the CCA - (and they Carey Ruling) This issue can be argued in court.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

So you are saying get credit use the facility, don't pay for

it and then rely on the non production of a document that you

signed and were given a copy of at the time when you are

pressed for payment, the creditor has statements showing

traceable use of the credit facility and you contended you are

not going to pay be cause the creditor can't supply something

that you have already been given.?????????????

[alangee]

Is it nice to be Holier than Thou, Brigadier?

 

Alan

[Jamesx81x]

Who said dont pay its you thats saying that.

 

But if a creditor can go to court with no documentation, cannot even prove that the default notice is issued as perscribed and in accordance with the CCA get a CJJ against the debtor where is the protection for the consumer in that?

 

Is the CCA that clearly states it nothing to do with what i beleive, think you need to stop asuming people are trying to avoid their debts and see that regulations have been wriiten for a reason - to stop things like above

 

If a company canot be bothered to keep their documentation in order with all the systems that are in place this day an age why should they get the easy ride in court?