Consumer Credit Licence

[lookinforinfo]

It's the old adage-Say something often enough and people come to believe

it. You know Tbern that DCAs are the last to be considered as arbiters of the Law given their record and what we know of them on this forum.

The Judge is the final arbiter, and he will look at the CCA and make his

decision based on that. I have no doubt that when one buys a debt from

another, reason alone would dictate that you are then owed money and that

is the definition of a creditor and it is confirmed in the Act. Obviously not

the original creditor, but a creditor nevertheless.

 

The Act also confirms that when you have a debt assigned to you, the duties

ARE conferred to you, along with the rights. And the duties are that you have to abide by the terms and conditions laid down in the original agreement

and observe any legal conditions that apply within the Act. It would be

interesting to see how the OFT would react to a DCA stating that they did not inherit the duties , just the rights. It would appear that their knowledge

of the Act is such, that a new Data Controller is required, since the current

one is woefully lacking in ability to be fit to be controlling a Consumer Credit

Licence.

 

I confess only to have read a small part of the Unadkhat case. Well found by

the way. However as I look at that site a fair bit myself, I am used to the

keywords being highlighted which assists me in reading the relevant section

more quickly, rather than ploughing through the whole case.

[pmhcfc]

My main goal is to establish if when a debt is assigned to a Debt Collecttion Agency do they become the creditor.

 

I know the act says rights & duties, but DCA's say that as only the rights have been assigned they are not the creditor.

 

& in this context would suggest that they have to be assigned together for the DCA to become a creditor.

 

However, I have found this case, not a DCA, but it confirms in the eyes of the law that when a debt is assigned the assignee becomes the creditor.

 

http://alpha.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/2785.html&query="debt+assignment"&method=boolean

 

UNADKAT & Co (ACCOUNTANTS) LTD And ASHOK BHARDWAJ

.V.

The TREASURY SOLICITOR

 

Unadkhat & Co (Accountants) Ltd ("the Accountants") were (by virtue of a debt assignment) a creditor of Isher

 

 

I am still looking, but what are peoples thoughts ?

 

 

Tbern...I hope to be finding out this soon (red bit)..Explanation as to how I hope to achieve this is posted elsewhere

[Seahorse]

Elsewhere? You sneaky person.

 

Been there, read it.

 

And not a MIB in sight.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

For what it's worth, a couple of years ago I started a claim against Paragon Personal Finance who had been collecting payments from me for years under an agreement originally made with a company called Universal Credit Ltd.

 

In around 1998, the Paragon Group of Companies bought out Universal Credit Ltd and PPF started to collect on the agreements.

 

I started my claim against PPF as I thought then that they had bought the debt from UCL but found that I was wrong when PPF initially defended my claim by stating that I had sued the wrong creditor. I should have sued UCL and had to amend my claim because PPF stated that UCL was still in existence as a company (although non-trading) and that the agreement had not been assigned to PPF or the Paragon group so they were not the creditors, UCL still was.

 

The point I am making is that PPF used the non-assignment of the debt to show that they were not the creditor - whilst acknowledging at the same time that if it had been assigned they would have been the new creditors and would have been the correct defendant for my claim.

 

Is any of this making sense?

 

Regards, Pam

[Seahorse]

It is making sense Pam. But as the debt is admitted as having been bought by Kings Hill/Cabot, the assignment is admitted, as well as their having stated that the rights (but not the duties, as far as they are concerned) have been assigned to them also. So I don't think there is any danger of them being able to turn up in court and say, Sorry guvor, not us. Not without looking like complete and utter liars and cheats.

[rosierose]

Hi

 

North London Securities v Meadows

 

This may be a bit late perhaps, but this was a pretty siminal case in terms of CCA unenforceable agreements.

 

The Claimant was not the original lender and no one who gave evidence had been involved in the transaction from the point of view of the original lender, or as broker. Over fifteen years had elapsed...