Discussion / Debate for Bill of Exchange v Law of Property Act.

[Jason Toulmin]

I am not sure if this has been asked before as I have been off here for some time however I was watching a program on Sky last week and 2 guys from a site called ****

were being interviewed.

 

What they were stating during the interview pricked my interest as they were stating that there is an act from 1882 called the Bills Of Exchange Act

that can be utilsed as an argument against DCA's who come at people with debts they have bought from the original lender.

 

Very basically they are saying that a debt is extinguished through either sale or transer, in other words the debt is then void and that this law overules any T&Cs that you may agree to when you sign on the dotted line.

 

It appears that they initially came across this information via Veronica Chapman.

 

 

I would really like to see what people on here have to say about this.

Edited January 15, 2013 by dx100uk
sri no ext links

[Old Cogger]

a lot of cases reported, there is one going to court very soon, so people await the outcome, of this case, unless anybody can point into direction where a case file exist at present? heard this on another site forum.

[sequenci]

Very basically they are saying that a debt is extinguished through either sale or transer, in other words the debt is then void and that this law overules any T&Cs that you may agree to when you sign on the dotted line.

 

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is, but debts can be assigned under the Law of Property Act 1925.

[cerberusalert]

In the matter of Patricia Jones v Link Financial Limited, http://www.bllaw.co.uk/sectors/finance/news_and_updates/consumer_credit_act_agreements.aspx

[huggy41]

In the matter of Patricia Jones v Link Financial Limited, http://www.bllaw.co.uk/sectors/finan...greements.aspx

 

ahh i understand now .

[sillygirl1]

Sorry, but the bit about contacting you more than 3 times is enough to get them shut down is total rubbish.

 

That goes along with the 'when the debt is sold to a DCA it is no longer a valid debt' rubbish.

 

I've had many agencies contact me more than 3 times a day and nothing has been done.

[NiteHawk2003]

That goes along with the 'when the debt is sold to a DCA it is no longer a valid debt' rubbish.

 

Technically on a purely law point of view you can argue that once a DCA buys a debt the act of buying that debt is the same as paying it and once a debt is paid you cannot be asked to pay it again.

 

It's all in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

[postggj]

LETS NOT GET INTO THIS FREEMEN STUFF, PLEASE

 

It is very dangerous, the correct legislation is the Law of Property Act 1925, and not this Bills of Exchange Act 1882

 

It is irresponsible to state any different, but i do respect your views. Show me a single case where this Bills of Exchanges Act has been used as a defence and i will withdraw my comments

Edited March 28, 2013 by squaddie

[renegadeimp]

Technically? Um no. This has already been tried in high court and been laughed at. Fotl crap has no place in reality.

[rinfrance]

Hi, OK IF you get demands over 3 times then with the proof go to the Financial Services Ombudsman with it.

 

The law is that if the person is serious about you owing the debt then they HAVE to take legal action depending on how much is involved, not harass you.

 

Now the bit about the debt being sold, well you still owe the monies, however, you can still pay it to the original person or organisation to whom the debt was owed. So say you owed Barclaycard £500 and they sold it to Moorcroft, then you can still send the monies to Barclaycard irrespective of what any person says. Now as far as I am aware though, the debt purchaser cannot get a CCJ against you, only the person to whom the debt is owed can do that.

 

So if you are cute you COULD if the debt were sold, force the issue. To wit, go to the Financial Ombudsman Service Tel 020 7964 1148 with the fact that you are being harassed, give them all the info. Now as I have said, as the debt purchaser cannot go to the County Court he will possibly forced to shut up.

 

The object of the debt collecting agencies is to get some monies from you, the agencies like Moorcroft take the pxxs out of the collectors as well, the agent finds and gets the client to pay and collects, after 2 or three collects the agency then writes to the debtor saying pay in direct to Moorcroft and then the agent gets spit. So he has found the debtor, got them to pay, and accept the debt and then he gets sweet fanny Adams. So do realise that they are taking the wee wee out of him as well. Arrange ONLY to pay the agent if you are going to pay, tell the agent that when he calls, refuse any further comms with the agency except the agent, and do remember that the agency cannot contact you repeatedly.

 

I have been there, done that.

 

Now should you happen to live in a council house or rented then go bankrupt, thats if the amount is worth it. Sure you will not be able to purchase a house for example, nor have loads of assets, still you cannot if you have CCJ's anyway. However do contact the people to whom you owe monies to BEFORE the sh1t hits the fan.( I was seriously injured, certain agencies did not want to talk to my wife, so she said OK then I will contact the FOS as you have deemed that the debt does not need to be paid. THAT brings them around. B/C were magic and helped, another was bloody minded, so were we.

 

SO B/C got its monies asap, the other as we felt! It was pointless for them to get a CCJ as we would have just got B/C to write about the account with them, scratch one CCJ possibility!)

 

All debts are cancelled from the time of bankruptcy, any further communication with you by any agency reference the aforesaid debt is now illegal! (Remember to pay your rent up to date (and ONLY the RENT) BEFORE the bankruptcy hearing!)

 

It is actually imprisonable to contact a bankrupt about a debt as the court has to receive all monies.

 

So remember, the agency involved MUST comply with the terms of their licence, he is obligated to send you a copy if you ask for it. The FSO will adjudicate if you get harassed, that is illegal. do not speak on the phone, only by letter and or emails. Never admit a debt to a collection agency, only to the original organisation. So if a company rings up and says that they are calling about your debt with XYZ, say what debt, and how much do "they" owe you.

 

That puts them on the back foot and then put the phone down!

Edited March 30, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[postggj]

Can we please stop this Mis-information

 

RINFRANCE

 

i realise your intentions are honorable but please look up

 

1/ Absolute Assignment

2/ Equitable Assignments

 

Before continuing posting on such matters

[rinfrance]

Hi, the thing is that a debt can be assigned, that is true, however, the debt then cannot be claimed by way of court action. It is the same with a gambling debt(I was once told that actually a bought debt was in fact a gamble and treated as such, how true I do not know) . The original person can get a CCJ and then sell it on, that is fair enough, however many agencies and companies do not realise that, cannot be bothered as the debt is too small, or they realise that chasing someone in debt like that is a waste of time, they can also PAY for an agency to chase it (most of which I did although I worked for Moorcroft for a very short while and Crilleys who ran very close to the wire) I used to charge a percentage of that which I recovered, thereby giving the original person legal title to the debt.

 

 

Now some of the debt collecting agencies, pay nickels for a debt so anything they get is a bonus (often as little as £100 for £100,000 of debts), as the client often does not know the law.

 

 

One has to be very exact on what the debt is for, who the debt is against etc.

 

However, I maintain that which I have said, unless of course you are trying to tell me that the documents that I had to read, sign, etc both as a bailiff and as a licensed debt collecter, and someone who has had to take several people to court to bankrupt them in allegiance with the then Inland Revenue were totally incorrect.

The biggest case I was involved with was a Crown court case of £13,000 with a Vietnamese "builder" I expect that was wrong also!

 

 

For other info for example, I have had a police escort into a property to take goods. It may also be of interest that a business does not need any licence to chase its own debts, but must still comply with the law, that most do not understand and therefore erroneously sell the debt before any enforceable legal proceedings!

Certainly the then Eastern Electricity found out the hard way, they came within an inch of being suspended from Trading in the mid '90's.

 

 

So sure I shall not bother with your site again, I am guessing but you did not ascertain your facts about absolute assignments etc. I would therefore suggest that people in serious debt arrange to see either the CAB or a solicitor, to fail to do so can seriously damage your wealth.

You can also get a copy of the licence for debt collecting from the various agencies.

 

 

Former Bailiff, Debt collector, small business owner taking several to CC and also (erroneously) had the other end as well!!!

Edited March 30, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[renegadeimp]

The debt CAN be claimed by way of court action by the new owner. It happens all the time and is 100% legal no matter what you "freeman" try and say. Your ideas have no basis in law or reality and have been shut down in many courts and cases including the high court AND court of appeal.

 

Just give it up.

[postggj]

i am with renegadeimp on this 100 %

 

as i have stated

 

show me where in a court of law this Bills of Exchanges Act has been successful as a defence

 

Their is none, in fact, a judge in his summing up asked a defendant if he wished to carry on with that line of a defence, just before awarding judgement against him.

[sillygirl1]

This is the sort of thing the Rankine couple were trying to use in their failed campaigns.

 

I also understand that the older bills were recinded by the CCA act and other acts....

[postggj]

Law Of Property Act 1925 being one

[sillygirl1]

The history of the origins of the LOP 1925 act go back to the First World War, it was drawn up to help establish title to the estates where they had lost a couple of generations of people during the war, and subsequently has been hijacked by the mortgage companies to make courts believe they can evict people when they have little cause to do so.

[postggj]

The point being made is that the Law of Property Act became statutory in 1925

 

The Bills of Exchanges Act became Statutory in 1882

 

So to our freeman friend, which act and date now takes precedence in proceedings

[rinfrance]

Each case is different and without reading all of the case one cannot give an idea of probable adjudication on anything. For example, if the new debt collector took over from another by means of taking all the business and the original was acting as an agent yes they can pursue the debt, but if the original purchased the debt then they cannot. It is very complex and I suggest that one must research each case and go to a specialist, and believe me I am not. In fact if the debt had been purchased, then the purchaser could in all probability not show all relevant papers. For example the total of the credit card transactions as that would be illegal under information act. How about the original credit card slip, or the original contract. NOT a photo copy!

 

 

As I stated, it is not straightforward for a buyer of a debt and they frequently are sailing a flyer, getting the punter to accept the debt then allows futher legal proceedings however should you say I know nought then the buyer of the debt has to prove the debt and if he bought it he frequently cannot! Well only with difficulty. Believe me I know that of old, get the punter to accept the debt and you have cracked it, if they tell you words to the effect "what are you on about, **** off" then that is that, get them to county court you cannot prove your debt the sale of the debt to you is not proof of the debt.

 

 

Frankly if someone comes up to you and says you owe money to XYZ and you say Ok then you have accepted their inference and your liability, but if not then they have no legal proof for the above reason.

 

 

If they are though, an agent, then that is a different matter, or if there is a court order. I can find no case whereby a person not admitting a debt to a debt collecter that has bought a debt having been held to pay.

 

 

I would be very interested if you can show me one along with all the details!

 

 

I have chased people around the UK for my debts and others, some going as far as to "moving" several times, I always got my clients to sign to say I was working for them and that I had not "bought the debt" as I was not allowed to submit others documentation, only mine or that of clients.

 

 

One rarely "won", as the costs rack up, but nor did the debtor. Only the legal things won, being told after a case I had just "won" his name being Crook (really, no lie) "Fcuk off you will not get a penny from me" I never did but I certainly screwed him and his wife up financially. (do remember, a CCJ, well no rental property, no mortgage, possibly no job, no legal assets.)

 

 

So to all those who try to infer the above is wrong, I suggest that those that ARE in the manure do go and see someone legal, never admit liability, keep all letters, never talk on the phone, try to arrange an amicable settlement BEFORE the **** hits the proverbial. What ever any other person tells you, you read etc. always but always do remember every situation is different.

 

 

The part supposedly relevant is :-

 

"A holder (whether for value or not), who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it, has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder."

However he cannot but must produce all original documents, hence the reason to get the debtor to admit the liability.

 

 

Incidentally a certain large agency was "chasing a debt" but no one had contacted the person for over 6 years therefore it had gone, I actually got 2 fairly big ones back that were strictly "dead" so do not tell me that its not a gamble by "flying a kite" by the buyers of debt! I just had a bit of paper saying XXYZ owed £x,000 to Access, a copy of the card number and the original address. They had married, got divorced, married again. She then admitted it. Yippee.

 

What is a freeman friend, is it like a fishermans friend!!! me, I was a bailiff and a licensed debt collector, what were you, just in debt!

Edited March 30, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[sillygirl1]

Okay rinfrance, how about this case

 

I was chased (17 texts, 9 phone calls,unknown calls to previous workplace and previous landline, plus letters to address over 5 years old) for a debt which did not exist.

 

I have a letter received today from said company stating that the debt was paid and they were sorry to have chased me - sent back not satisfied and I want financial compensation.

 

If you were their 'licenced debt collector' and had come round to a property i had not lived at for 5 years what would you have done? And what would you do now if you found out that I am classed as vulnerable as I am on strong medication and financially skint?

 

What work are you doing now? Still working for the 'debt industry'? or have you run off abroad as your username might suggest.

[postggj]

I have now given up on this freeman drivel rinfrance

 

i have stated the relevant statutory obligations on the question of debt purchasing

 

now please, no long winded expalnations to try and justify your reasoning, just please give

 

A SINGLE COURT CASE THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN WHAT YOU STATE

 

THAT IS ALL I ASK AND I WILL GIVE AN APOLOGY IF DUE

 

you also mention "Illegal under information act"

 

That is a new one on me, explanation on what this ACT is please

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Might want to read up on case law rifrance!!!

[dx100uk]

fotl posts removed.

 

dx

[filrobbo]

Do we know the out come yet

[postggj]

i am getting truly fed up with this Bills of Exchanges Act being used to con people into believing they can wipe out there debts by this freeman garbage

 

The Bills of Exchanges Act is 1882

 

Debts are now assigned under the Law of Property Act 1925