Jump to content



Deed of assignment help needed!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4512 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Sequenci,

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

 

i thought so :p

 

cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i think tbern123 is making progress in his(her?) case against Cabot so keep an eye on his(her?) thread. The s.136 argument has been used by Cabot.

 

On my own two accounts with Cabot and after my s.78 request, they are giving me the same 'we are not the creditor' argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a Deed of Assignment is drawn up by the original creditor, does it have the account number(s) that the debt relates to on it... or just the amount outstanding ? Does anyone know ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by tifo

 

This is the 'Cabot' argument and we are still not sure if s.136/s.139 of the LoP 1925 applies as they state they are the owner of the debt as they have been assigned the 'duties' but are not the creditor as they have not taken on the 'obligations'. So how do we pay someone who says they are not the creditor under the CCA 1974 definition (which is the Act that regulates our agreements) but we owe them money?

 

 

 

Just popped in on this thread, but if they (DCA) have not obligations, then why oblige them, talk to the origional creditor. lol

Good luck to each and all.

All comments are personal opinion only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

s.139

 

Leases and Tenancies

139 Effect of extinguishment of reversion

 

(1) Where a reversion expectant on a lease of land is surrendered or merged, the estate or interest which as against the lessee for the time being confers the next vested right to the land, shall be deemed the reversion for the purpose of preserving the same incidents and obligations as would have affected the original reversion had there been no surrender or merger thereof.

(2) This section applies to surrenders or mergers effected after the first day of October, eighteen hundred and forty-five.

 

eh?

 

why would this be relevent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

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.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Laiste, i was referring to the Cabot letters to every person who asks for documents under s.78 CCA1974. This states that they have been assigned the duties under s.136 LoP 1925 but not the obligations under CCA 1974 and are not the creditor as defined by s.189 CCA 1974, so don't have to supply anything other than a letter of assignment to prove they own the debt, which they and every other DCA normally send.

 

You will be aware of the 'tbern123' and 'seahorse' threads on Cabot which also fight on this very point.

 

If every alleged creditor gave this answer then that makes a s.78 CCA 1974 request of no use at all as it would not apply anymore. This again makes no sense because a lot of people are having debts written off or unenforceable as a result of this request (including me).

 

Therefore either they have been assigned the obligations as well as the duties and CCA 1974 still regulates the debt or ......... well, we don't have answer for the 'or'.

 

Make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tifo,

 

I haven't read the threads you refer to, but I do know that DCA's are incapable of telling the truth!

 

If you are in contact with people that have been told this load of nonsense by Cabot

 

I thought everyone on here had read tberns excellent thread on Cabot.

 

I myself have received the letters i mentioned from Cabot for two accounts and they state as i have explained. I'm waiting for an answer to the reply i sent but nothing yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, it is my opinion that under these circumstances, the DCA would have no authority to pass your information onto third parties under the CCA, and that any action such as placing a default on your credit file might consitute a criminal offence.

 

Cabot are already maintaining 2 defaults (1 for each account i have with them).

 

I'm going to try and get these removed by the CRAs (though Experian is difficult to deal with).

 

But, if s.136 LoP 1925 does not give them the right then under what right are they doing this? They cannot be using CCA 1974 as they state none of its obligations apply to them.

 

Does it state anywhere that they are able to collect and default me under s.136 LoP 1925 as a 'duty'?

 

See why this is so confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the excellent post Richard,

 

I'll wait for their response to my letters and then write back using some of the info i have since acquired.

 

The letters are signed by their 'legal counsel/legal director' Willem Wellinghoff (WW for short) and he seems to reply to all debtors who dispute accounts with Cabot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard.

 

If my reading is correct then in order to be a data processor (for updating credit records) they must be able to supply the very document that gives that permission, ie executed copy of the CCA.

 

Perhaps the CCA request letter should be amended to include a paragraph on data processing? What does everyone else think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...