DCA enforcement of supposed 'debts' (only purchased debts)

[lilyx0xmunster]

I have recently been doing some research into legalities of purchasing debts and enforcing them..

From what i've read online and social media sites

When a DCA purchases your debt you do not have a contract with them.

 

you run up a bill with BT avoid paying for 3-4 years then lowell/cabot etc crawl out of the woodwork

and decide to chase you for said debt....

 

however technically you never entered into a contract with lowell/cabot etc only the original creditor

when you ask for documentation regarding your contract with said DCA

they can only provide you with copies of the original contract with the original creditor

which is no longer your debt as the DCA has purchased said debt.

 

in effect the DCA has paid your debt off for you you have no contract with the DCA therefor do you have to pay?..

 

.. i challenged Lowell a few weeks back and guess what they agreed that my account was indeed paid off

and no longer worth them chasing me for it,

it wasn't statute barred by any means just me challenging them..

 

 

I can post the letter I received from Lowell to show you how i did it

and if someone could give me their input on what i've done

or simply remove my post if moderators do not agree with it

[dx100uk]

think you were just lucky for other reasons

not for following the freeman of the land twaddle.

[Guest]

yes, statutory legislation ie re assignment.

and, 'buyers' sometimes return a debt to the original creditor. either themselves, or under instruction from the fos for eg.

but of course if any of that can be challenged in any way, please say so. help us all.

[renegadeimp]

Dont start following freeman of the land crap. Youll end up in MUCH more trouble if you do.

 

under the law of property act 1925, a creditor can sell and transfer all rights and obligations to a new owner. The new owner inherits ALL rights and obligations towards the debt, so they can chase you as if they were the original creditor.

 

FOTL arguments fall back upon an 1800's law which was rescinded and replaced by the 1925 act.

 

And if those idiots start spouting magna carta rubbish, pretty much every rule under it has been overwritten since.

[Guest]

.

but of course if any of that can be challenged in any way, please say so. help us all.

meant to say 'legitimately challenged in any way.....'

[lilyx0xmunster]

I'm not 'into' freeman of the land crap as you put it renegadeimp..

. this was merely using what i have learned here in CAG and researching online.

 

 

. yes companies can legally buy debt.

. but after consulting with bulk centre for ccj processing recently

they confimed as did a legal advisor that on a technicality

you can indeed challenge the legality of the purchase

(not acting on behalf of client mind you)

as you were only ever in a contract with the original creditor.

 

 

in theory Lowell/Cabot have purchased your debt from your cc company or catalogue company

and very generously paid it off for you.

 

 

I indeed have challenged this theory and have several debts returned to zero

just recently i can add photo's to show this as well as letters i sent

 

 

I was merely researching the legality of the debt purchase and contracts...

 

this was a £700+ debt to Lowell as they had purchased from Provident personal credit..

 

 

I also used this same challenge with Lowell against a relatives old talk talk account..

I'm not saying it would work on every occasion and indeed i may have been extremely lucky

I was merely challenging the legality of the purchase

[silverfox1961]

Much better.

 

Can you say what you wrote to the Leeds Losers to elicit that reply.

 

My thinking is that they didn't have full documentation to back up any claim so did the only thing they could. Lie and close the account.

 

They did something similar to me back in 08 and a few letters back and forth saw them off.

[lilyx0xmunster]

This is what a legal friend and I came up with after reading lots of stuff online and questioned the legality of assigned deeds we worked on the assumption that lowell had no deed assigned to them with my permission

 

 

Reference Number:

 

Dear [Person who wrote to you],

 

 

Thank you for your recent contact dated [Date In Full], the contents of which I note, but do not accept.

 

 

I hereby request that communication from this point forward be made in writing only,

and that you do not attempt to contact me by any other method

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this notice does not constitute a complaint, and should not be treated as one.

 

I wish to verify whether any claim made against me is lawful.

I therefore request that you provide evidence of my liability.

I am happy to effect payment upon receipt of the following documents:

 

 

 

1. The original instrument of indebtedness, or proof that said instrument still exists.
   
2. Either of the following;
   


1. If this is a demand for payment under the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, copies of any bi-lateral or tri-lateral contracts which create obligations on each party to perform, including any delegated Instrument of Novation, signed and sealed in a tripartite contract and a signed invoice in accordance with said act OR
   
2. If this is an assignment of a legal thing in action under the Law of Property Act 1925, a Deed of Assignment (not a notice of assignment). This should be executed as a Deed, granted by the grantor or original creditor and endorsed by instrumentary witnesses in solemn form.
    
   On and for the record, I am willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to myself is apparent.
    
   Should you not be in possession of any of the aforementioned documents, or should you terminate your claim against me without first providing proof of legitimacy, then you will be deemed to be party to a fraudulent act
   

[dx100uk]

sorry that is FMoTl

 

"endorsed by instrumentary witnesses in solemn form."

 

"reading lots of stuff online and questioned the legality of assigned deeds we worked on the assumption that Lowell

had no deed assigned to them with my permission "

 

"Bill of Exchange Act 1882"

 

"a Deed of Assignment (not a notice of assignment)."

 

 

 

 

they prob dropped it because they knew they had No CCA.

prob pennies anyway

 

 

dx

[AndyOrch]

All readers of this thread are advised not to use or copy the above letter in post#8.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[lilyx0xmunster]

It was for £789 to be honest and it was through a friend who is a legal advisor that helped pen it together fmotl is not something i have read up on tbh.. He only deals with bank debts through a charity advice centre so i dont get why you would insist i have used fmotl

[dx100uk]

no charity advice centre would ever allow such a letter to be used on their behalf

or a 'solicitor' that worked for them to use those highlighted issues in my post above..

 

anyway.

the reason why lowells decided to drop both debts

would have been because 99% of privy doorstep loans are totally unenforceable anyway

and

a mobile phone debt of that size

will either be disputed call charges

or

cost to end of contract

neither of which a court would judge upon in lowells favour.

 

 

bet they had a good giggle at the letter.

 

 

that sols want shooting.

 

 

dx

[lilyx0xmunster]

thanks for your input

[Old Cogger]

no charity advice centre would ever allow such a letter to be used on their behalf

or a 'solicitor' that worked for them to use those highlighted issues in my post above..

 

anyway.

the reason why lowells decided to drop both debts

would have been because 99% of privy doorstep loans are totally unenforceable anyway

and

a mobile phone debt of that size

will either be disputed call charges

or

cost to end of contract

neither of which a court would judge upon in lowells favour.

 

 

bet they had a good giggle at the letter.

 

 

that sols want shooting.

 

 

dx

 

More like a Playground Lawyer! - dangerous!

[lilyx0xmunster]

Not a lawyer just a legal advisor who does thing by the book in a charity based advice centre this was something we came up with together outside of this arrangement after i read lots of stuff online using what i used here previously and just challenged the legality of the debt with the dca x my

Stance was i hadn't signed a contract with the dca and thats what i argued with them over the debt x i guess i was lucky is all x

[Old Cogger]

AAAHHHH!!! A DCA is an admin company usually only been appointed to chase and collect monies Alleged owed & act on behalf of Owner, A debt purchaser buys an alledged debt and becomes the owner, therefore your idea that a DCA needs a contract with you to chase is void, as they act on behalf of the originator.

[lilyx0xmunster]

AAAHHHH!!! A DCA is an admin company usually only been appointed to chase and collect monies Alleged owed & act on behalf of Owner, A debt purchaser buys an alledged debt and becomes the owner, therefore your idea that a DCA needs a contract with you to chase is void, as they act on behalf of the originator.

 

Like i said i did some reading online and with some help challenged i'm not saying its correct and maybe like someone else mentioned they didn't have a cca to begin with, hence i got lucky..

[Corki]

Much better.

 

Can you say what you wrote to the Leeds Losers to elicit that reply.

 

My thinking is that they didn't have full documentation to back up any claim so did the only thing they could. Lie and close the account.

 

They did something similar to me back in 08 and a few letters back and forth saw them off.

 

Sounds about right.

 

I asked for a copy of original agreements for one of the accounts they held. Was told they didn't have it and they closed the account and wrote to me saying they would not chase me for that or any other debt they held (total of 3).

 

Makes me wonder if they hold any documentation.

[dx100uk]

no they never do

all they get in the portfolios they buy and sell

[we call them phishing lists]

is one line in a spreadsheet

 

 

that's put in the computer

and it sends out automatic threat-o-grams

to see if they can spoof mugs into coughing up.

 

 

sadly 99% of people do

hence these lists are potentially worth £M's

 

 

the day people realise that a DCA has no more powers than you or I

- can only try for a CCJ - as that's all we can do on debt

the UK will be a far wealthier place.