my MBNA debt been through every DCA in the book - now link chasing

[ncm-000]

I really do not see how it matters whether or not the debts are sold individually or in bulk as a 'portfolio'

 

If the bank declares them as bad and sells then at say 10p in the pound the remaining 90p in the pound is offset against profits and therefore corporation tax is not paid on that 90p in the pound.

 

That must limit the actions the purchaser can take particularly with regard to the civil court and reasonableness, as the saying goes 'what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus' think of the banks / debt collectors getting two bites at the cherry.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As said all this has been argued many times and it does not have any practical merit, the bank sells the accounts, at a price then they write the debts off their books, the accounts are then assets of the debt purchaser for tax purposes.

The purchaser inherits the total account the obligations and rights so they can initiate court action/sell the account on again. but they can never change the original default date!!

The banks are selling delinquent accounts not bad debts in the sense you imply. Been proposed argued for many years by people looking for a way out and who can blame them but it just does NOT work.

[the tinkerman]

I agree whether it be individual for £100 or bulk for £100000 surely the OC will still get their pound of flesh and not just the 10 or 20p in the pound that they sell them for in bulk.

 

I Think Brig its not the fact that we are looking for a way out of our obligations, I think what ncm is getting at is the fact that the OC is not just getting the 10 or 20p in the pound that they sell bulk debts for but also the fact that the purchaser can then still claim the whole amount which surely is IMMORAL

Edited April 11, 2013 by the tinkerman

[ncm-000]

Been proposed argued for many years by people looking for a way out and who can blame them but it just does NOT work.

 

Interesting - thank you.

 

Do you know if this argument has been tested in court, or just chewed over theoretically?

[spamheed]

the "writing off" of a debt has a direct effect on the liability held by the bank, effectively the bank posts profits which are basically calculated by offsetting credits and debits against one another. As such, the account is effectively devalued for accounting purposes in a particular accounting period - all legal and above board.

 

However the defaulted account still has value and can be sold....in the same way a tangible asset can be devalued completely or amortised to a zero value, it still has value even though the balance sheet would correctly state that it has no value in the current period.

 

The defaulted account can then be sold to a Debt buyer, or another agent, or whoever, for whatever value is deemed appropriate between the parties, HMRC has no interest as it is effectively the sale of a depreciated or amortised asset, the tax implications have already been accounted for in the reporting of the Original Creditor

[ncm-000]

@Spamheed: I think I understand the financial arguments after your and the Brigs explanation.

 

I am coning at this from a different angle particularly with regard to the civil court and reasonableness, as the saying goes 'what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus' think of the banks / debt collectors getting two bites at the cherry.

 

Also I Asked Do you know if this argument has been tested in court, or just chewed over theoretically?

[spamheed]

I think if we examined the moral and ethical arguments surrounding the behaviour of the Financial Institutions and the links between them and the DCAs without looking at the laws which governed them, I think the whole lot would be shut down and disassembled.

 

Maybe that's why the financial institutions include MPs and other senior politicians on their boards and it is this that leads me to believe that these board members will not allow their gravy train to become derailed

[ncm-000]

I think if we examined the moral and ethical arguments surrounding the behaviour of the Financial Institutions and the links between them and the DCAs without looking at the laws which governed them, I think the whole lot would be shut down and disassembled.

 

Maybe that's why the financial institutions include MPs and other senior politicians on their boards and it is this that leads me to believe that these board members will not allow their gravy train to become derailed

 

I agree that the lenders and the DCAs are totally immoral and have only contempt for the 'punter' and the Law.

However, the main differences between Criminal and Civil law are the burden of proof and that Civil Judges are supposed to take into account 'reasonableness' hence 'the what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus think' test.

Which is why I persist with my question has this been tested in court?

[ncm-000]

Bump

[ncm-000]

FAO A Moderator.

 

I have hijacked this thread and I apologise to both you and the OP GardenBench

 

Would it be possible and appropriate to move the offending posts and their answers to my Debt Questions thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387230-Debt-Questions./page2

 

P.S. I am going away for a week so the 'Big Guns' who bear the brunt of my P.I.T.A questions can breathe a sigh of relief ( well for a week at least)

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Bump

 

For most people this is probably the warmest and driest weekend for months so the volunteers are probably busy elsewhere.

The explanation it as said 6 years is considered ample time to start any court action, the feasibility

of starting any action would be tested at the time of any such proposed action.

[ncm-000]

I received an NoA from Arrow Global Guernsey Ltd for an alleged debt with MBNA.

 

I have played letter tennis with there ****** bottom feeding DCAs for a while now and I now want to send a Cease and Desist letter to their Company Secretary.

 

Thereby hangs the problem.

 

The NoA gives the address :-

La Plaiderie House,

La Plaiderie,

St Peter Port, Guernsey.

GY1 1WG

 

Their Web site says

Mailing address:

Arrow Global

Belvedere

12 Booth Street

Manchester M2 4AW

United Kingdom

 

Registered Office:

20-22 Bedford Row

London WC1R 4JS UK

 

 

The website also says

 

Following the buyout in January 2009, Arrow Global is now owned jointly by the RBS Special Opportunities Fund and management.No Company Secretary is listed in the corporate officers section

 

 

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/arrow-global

says the Company Secretary Stewart David Hamilton

 

Address

 

ATTN OF MDD/DCC ASHURST LLP BROADWALK HOUSE 5 APPO

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

EC2A 2HA

141 other people also use EC2A 2HA in their address (this is probably a mail forwarding service address)

44 companies are also registered at EC2A 2HA

 

-----------

 

http://www.dellam.com/08200522-ARROW%20GLOBAL%20GUERNSEY%20LIMITED.html

 

Says the following :-

Date of Incorporation: 4 September 2012

Share Capital: £1

Registered Office: Flat 5, 241 Dickenson Road, Manchester, M13 0YW

Director Mohammad Afzal-6 September 2012

Registered Office changed on 6 September 2012 from

46 Mary Road

Handsworth

Birmingham

B21 0RH

 

HELP !

 

 

Sorry about the layout - cut and paste form various sources.

[ncm-000]

Thanks again Brig, I have asked the moderator to move some posts from another thread to here

The Bump was to move it to the top form 5 pages down - to help the Mod find it.

 

However I do appreciate your reply

Do we have any past experience to know if judges allow such things and what criteria they use?

 

I am away nest week (I can hear your shouts of "Thank Goodness" from here) So arespite from the P.I.T.A questions.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Now you are asking for the ''judgement of Solomon'' every case would be considered on its merits, and the fairness and reasonableness of the application to restart a case, in my experience it is rarely allowed and then only in exceptional circumstances.

 

To start an action on case where 6 years have elapsed since the cause of action (the default/closure of the account) would be treated similarly.

[ncm-000]

Like I said P.I.T.A questions.

 

But if you don't ask you don't find out.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Like I said P.I.T.A questions.

 

But if you don't ask you don't find out.

How true, sometimes the answers are not what one wants to hear though!!

[ncm-000]

I would rather have bad news than no news

As ever I always appreciate your resonses

[maroondevo52]

Post moved here from this thread...................

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388089-Remove-a-Charging-Order/page2

[ncm-000]

Post moved here from this thread...................

 

Thank you for your assistance

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

THE Manchester address will get the letter to the right place you need to address it to the COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR.

[Old Cogger]

Mr Mohammad Afzal is the Current Officer Name!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Mr Mohammad Afzal is the Current Officer Name!

Compliance officer only? Not sure of his actual status.

[ncm-000]

THE Manchester address will get the letter to the right place you need to address it to the COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR.

 

 

Do a Google earth for that address - they cannot be serious

 

Just what sort of a tinpot organisation are we dealing with and have you compared it to their web site.

 

Something is very wrong here.

 

Arrow Global is now owned jointly by the RBS oh yes are we talking about the same company here ?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

RBS but just a member company of the ''group'' not associated with the retail banking side in anyway.

[postggj]

Arrow global are highly litigious and use Mortimer Clark to put the claims through the court process