Debt ownership

[Shirts]

Sorry this site has become very large and difficult to find things, I came across a letter template to a DCA requesting that they inform me who owns the debt did they buy it or were they acting as an agent. Can anyone point me in the right direction please

[dx100uk]

your cra file will tell you who owns a debt

 

see below

 

dx

[Peterbard]

You should have received a Notice of Assignment. This will make it clear whether the DCA is acting as the agent for the OC, or has bought the debt with all its rights and duties effectively making it the OC to all intents and purposes. The burden of contract always stays with the OC and can never be assigned.

 

Have a look through the letters you've had to find the NOA and all should be clear.

[renegadeimp]

Unfortunately, with DCA's a NoA is rarely ever sent. Especially with a lot of backstreet DCA's. A credit record check is normally the most reliable way to find out who owns the debt.

[Peterbard]

Unfortunately, with DCA's a NoA is rarely ever sent. Especially with a lot of backstreet DCA's. A credit record check is normally the most reliable way to find out who owns the debt.

 

Really?

[renegadeimp]

Unfortunately yes. We have had hundreds of reports about DCA's and the OC's stating that the debt has been sold but no NoA was ever sent/received. Thats why dx stated that the best way to check is the credit record. Whatever name is on the entry is who you should be paying.

[Peterbard]

Is this not unlawful under Section 189 of the CCA, as per Jones v Link (2012)?

[renegadeimp]

Most likely yes. But the regulators dont do anything about it. The creditors simply say that one was sent and their system shows it as sent.

[dx100uk]

don't forget also

 

most NoA's are the DCA using [p'haps by licence]

 

a 'copy' of the OC's letterhead.

 

both are typically enclosed in the same envelope that come from the dca too...urmm.....

 

always puzzled me that one.

 

dx

[Peterbard]

don't forget also

 

most NoA's are the DCA using [p'haps by licence]

 

a 'copy' of the OC's letterhead.

 

both are typically enclosed in the same envelope that come from the dca too...urmm.....

 

always puzzled me that one.

 

dx

 

Why? It is legal.

[Peterbard]

Most likely yes. But the regulators dont do anything about it. The creditors simply say that one was sent and their system shows it as sent.

 

Ah right - thank you. So despite it being unlawful, nothing can be done about it?

[Mike_hawk]

Ah right - thank you. So despite it being unlawful, nothing can be done about it?

 

That would be a matter for the regulator, given that if it hadn't been served and without the benefit of a crystal ball the debtor would unlikely be in a position to file a complaint absent disclosure within a trial scenario.... Even a wild stab in the dark would suggest that it wouldn't be at the forefront of a defendant's mind to complain faced with overwhelming 'witness' evidence to the contrary.

[dx100uk]

more to do with default notices

 

not sure on any concrete rules with NoA's

 

which is why DCA's get away with using OC letterhead copies.

 

dx

[Peterbard]

more to do with default notices

 

not sure on any concrete rules with NoA's

 

which is why DCA's get away with using OC letterhead copies.

 

dx

 

So nothing to do with assignments as such? I just wondered if there was law about assignments and whether this may vary between a legal (absolute) assignment and an equitable assignment?

[dx100uk]

is not eq just the dca collecting on behalf of the OC?

so no NoA is needed anyhow

 

basically they are just being the dogs, hoping the debtor falls for it

 

if they don't own the debt, the dca is totally powerless

 

hence the use of if,but,might,could,instructed,etc etc.

 

i'm sure upon absolute

 

there are many instances here that if the correct pre action protocol

has not been carried out, the court case has collapsed

for want of a diff word.

 

dx

[sequenci]

A credit file will only give you the information if it has been correctly updated - which more often than not doesn't seem to be the case.

 

In fact I dare say for many individuals seeking out a copy of a credit file could do more harm than good - especially with debts which have been dormant a number of years.

 

The Law of Property Act is very clear in relation to how debts, as a 'thing in action', should be sold or transferred.

 

It still puzzles me that the EU thinks that it's proper than the onus should be on the new creditor to inform the debtor of the assignment - that's just open to massive abuse IMO.

[Peterbard]

I agree Sequenci, and of course my questions re assignment were rhetorical. I was trying to make the point that there are other channels that can, and in my opinion should, be followed, other than the ones bandied about by so many here.

[oleg]

I too for myriad reasons advocate not going down the cra route.

In any case I don't see the problem. Almost all letters from DCAs list EITHER a "Client", who are the debt's current owners, often the original creditor, OR an "Original creditor" meaning the debt has been sold and the letter is from either the new owner or their agents. Even if it is a letter from the assignee's agents, the assignee is invariably identified.

Or am I missing something?