Deed of assignment help needed!

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

Just subscribing.... What Cabot are saying is complete nonsense! When an assignment is effected, the rights and obligations pass with said assignment. A further point to strengthen arguments against assignment is applicable under the Consumer Regulations 1999. The debtor, under the original agreement has no right of assignment, which contravenes the mirror image principle. That is, the creditor under the T&C's is afforded a particular right, which is denied the debtor, which would be regarded as unfair. So it can be argued that the assignment itself is unlawful, where the same right is not conferred to the debtor also in the contract.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Hi Poet,

 

I am not convinced that the price paid (the consideration) by a DCA is an angle that can be be pursued. Notwithstanding the Regs 1999, an assignment can be effected between two parties without the consent of the debtor, so I don't believe a Court would take into account what financial arrangement the creditor and prospective DCA enter into. IMO it is better to look at whether Notice was received of said assignment and argue the validity of it with reference to the Consumer Regs 1999.

 

I don't think it's that I am so popular, LOL, more likely attributable to laziness in emptying inbox!

 

Sequenci,

 

I abbreviate everything where possible, but yes I was referring to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

i understood most of what you state above .....

 

your position seems to be that Cabot (or any other creditor) are correct in using s.136 of LoP Act 1925 as this is how debts are legally assigned.

 

However, as the agreements are all regulated by the CCA 1974, why and when does this cease to be the case when the debt is assigned under the above s.136?

 

You are confusing the assignment of a debt which is governed by the LOP Act 1925 with the contract itself, which is regulated by the CCA 1974. These two pieces of legislation cover different things. Just as if you were to find unfair terms in the contract, you would look to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, for example. Not all aspects of an agreement regulated by the CCA 1974 are actually covered by the Act! If the Act did cover every eventuality it might make understanding one's rights more straightforward, but that's not how it works. When a debt is assigned, it is still governed by the provisions of the CCA 1974, that does not change by virtue of the debt being sold to a third party.

 

Also, it is not yet clear whether the duties and obligations pass to a creditor under s.136 LoP or just the right to collect but not provide anything else as required by CCA 1974.

 

As I have previously stated in this post, when a debt is sold to a third party, the rights and obligations pass to the new owner. Can I ask where this view has stemmed from that one party retains the rights and the other the obligations? It would simply make no sense for one party to enjoy the benefit of a contract and the other party the burden of the contract. That would be illogical.

 

This would mean we have one creditor with the duties (LoP 1925) and another with the obligations (CCA 1974) so no wonder we are all confused.

 

I don't understand the apparent confusion, to effect an assignment, the rights and obligations both pass to the new creditor. Whether the assignment is lawful from the perspective of allowing the creditor to assign his rights, but denying the debtor the same privilege, is in all likelihood an unfair contract term, in breach of the Consumer Regs 1999 and can be argued vigorously in any court claim. Additionally, such a contract term would not have been individually negotiated with the debtor, which is also in breach of said regulations.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Hi Tifo,

 

I haven't read the threads you refer to, but I do know that DCA's are incapable of telling the truth! They do not want to do anything other than squeeze money out of people. So a vaguely palatable fob off excuse that they are under no obligation to furnish the info requested, sounds like the standard tripe metered out by these parasites. If they told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe it, I would verify it for myself!

 

If you are in contact with people that have been told this load of nonsense by Cabot, I would tell them next time they are in conversation with one of their plebs...oops I mean reps, to firstly ask if the agreement has been assigned as per the terms and conditions of (bank's name) contract? When the affirmative answer is given, I would ask the pleb/rep to confirm where in said T&C's the assignment states that the assignee will enjoy the benefit of the contract without having to shoulder the obligations.......? I predict a deafening silence will follow!!!

 

If debts are being written off purely on the basis of s77-78 requests, it's probably because of the inconsequential amount paid for the debt. They want hassle free debt collecting, anything else is going to cost them money, much simpler for them to cut their losses.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Hi Tifo,

 

Why would you assume that everyone on here has read Tberns thread? There aren't enough hours in day or weeks in a year to read all the excellent threads on here, particularly when one has other things to do as well.....!:o

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.