Taking Cabot to court for failing to supply HSBC CCA + Distress etc

[tbern123]

Sorry, I have been quiet on here the last couple of days, I am just working on a few things.

 

Anyway, not to be outdone by Seahorse lol, I thought it was time to send another email to Mr Maynard and Mr Spencer of Hodsons....

 

2nd March 2007

Your Ref: CAB2/11/DSS/pal

 

Mr Dean Spencer

Hodsons Solicitors

Glebe house

2 Clifton Road

Rugby

CV21 3PX

 

Dear Mr Spencer

 

Thank you for your letter of 20 February 2007, please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in providing you with a written response. I would like to draw you attention to your letter:

 

"We have now been instructed by our client company to respond to your latest communication"

 

Can you please clarify, which company you actually represent. As I am sure you will appreciate that there is confusion in relation to this matter. As you are fully aware the named Defendant is Kings Hill (No.1) Ltd, now known as Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. However, in the defence you filed in relation to my claim, you refer to Cabot as the Defendant.

 

6. Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd is a company which administers accounts acquired by the Dependent (Cabot)

 

In your letter of 20 February 2007, you go on to say:

 

"Dealing firstly with your claim reference 1465790, this is a pending litigation matter which is proceeding, as you point out, in Dartford County Court. We are currently awaiting directions from the Court as to the conduct of that litigation."

 

As ordered by District Judge Grand, my claim has been allocated to the Small Claims Track. Unless, I receive settlement of my concerns, as ordered I will file and serve my fully pleaded particulars of claim on or before 12th March 2007.

 

"You have chosen to file a reply to the Defence as is your right. The case will ultimately be heard by the Court and all written material will be available to the Judge when the case is listed for hearing"

 

I wonder if you would be so kind as to elaborate on this statement. Following the receipt of my Subject Access Request documentation. I can confirm that in relation to the alleged HSBC debt, the defendant is not in possession of any written material, which can either establish the validity of this debt or can establish the enforceability of this debt.

 

"The proper and appropriate forum for your "concerns" to be addressed is within the existing litigation following the making of the appropriate directions by the Court"

 

Please forgive me, for my apparent incorrect assumption. I assumed that the Court would prefer for this matter to be resolved without the requirement to attend court. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you, as stated in my email sent to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited , on 2nd January 2007, the existing litigation is only in relation to the HSBC account, their ref: 1465790. I feel that, it is most beneficial to remind you of this, as in your letter you have referred to other accounts which may be subject to future litigation. However, I will take this opportunity to continue to respond to your letter.

 

"However, of the 3 accounts which were held by our client relating to you, they no longer have any interest in the Barclaycard or HSBC accounts, those having been returned to the respective originators. Therefore, in relation to those two accounts our client has no legal or beneficial interest in them and would not be in a position to enforce them or apply to enforce them in any event".

 

Would you please be so kind as to confirm the reasons why, these two accounts were returned to the respective originator. To prevent any possible confusion, I would like to refer you to the documentation I received in relation to my Subject Access Request.

 

HSBC

On 4th December 2006, Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited, sent an email to HSBC. This email asked for them to recall this account as they were unable to provide a copy of a application form. On 18th December 2006, HSBC confirmed that they would in fact recall this account.

 

Barclaycard

On 6th November 2006, Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited, telephoned Barclaycard in relation to the improperly executed credit agreement, they had previously provided me with. On 20 November 2006, Barclaycard, sent an email to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited, confirming to the issues that have been raised in relation to the enforcement of the agreement they would agree to recall the account.

 

I am sure you will share both my disappointment and amazement that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited had owned the Barclaycard account since 1st November 2004 and the HSBC account since 2nd May 2006. In that time, they bombarded me with nearly 20 letters and 80 phone calls., including telephone calls to places I used to work and to my neighbours. I would have assumed that as a responsible Debt Collection Agency, you client would have taken steps to first establish the validity of a debt. As confirmed by my Subject Access Request, your client took no action to verify each account, until I had made a formal complaint.

 

As I have been preoccupied with resolving the alleged HSBC and Barclaycard debts, I have not had the opportunity to fully investigate the alleged Bank of Scotland debt. However, as you have referred to this account in your letter, I will take this opportunity to raise my concerns in relation to this account.

 

"The Bank of Scotland account remains in our client’s possession. In relation to that account the application form which constitutes the agreement. together with account statements, were sent to you in November of last year"

 

I would respectfully ask you to revert to your client for clarification in relation to this matter. I can confirm that I am in receipt of a one page document, which does not contain any terms and conditions and does not constitute the agreement. Furthermore, I am not in possession of all the statements relating to this alleged debt.

 

As confirmed in a letter of 7 February 2007 from Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited, a statement was enclosed with this letter. I would very much appreciate your comments in relation to information that was disclosed in my Subject Access Request.

 

"184, I adv pp and that stmt of acct needed urgently , is one avail? does not look like it otherwise we would have recd by now. will put together a stmt on their headed paper giving details of pmts recd and to whom"

 

Can you please tell me, if Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd, regulary produce documention, on other companies headed paper, giving the impression that this documentation is authentic and from the original creditor ? I would also like to stress that I am not in receipt of the terms and conditions or of all the statements for this account.

 

"Where a creditor fails to provide information requested in accordance with S.77, 78 or 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 what the Act does is to prevent the creditor from enforcing the Agreement until the creditor provides the information. The Act states "the creditor is not entitled, while the default continues to enforce the Agreement"

 

As Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, have failed to fulfil my requests under S77, 78 and 97 or the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I feel obligated to remind you that in addition to your quote, the act also states:

 

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed -sum credit agreement

(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

97 Duty to give information

(3) If the creditor fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

Taking into consideration that I first made my request on 8 September 2006 and to date, I have still not received the information requested. I am sure you will not refute, a serious offence has been committed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

"That does not mean that the debtor ceases to be liable to repay the debt in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, nor does it mean that the debtor’s failure to meet his or her obligations under the Agreement should no longer be recorded by the credit reference agencies. What it means is that, until the credit provides the information, the creditor cannot enforce the debt by issuing legal proceedings unless the Court otherwise directs."

 

Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is contracted to act as an agent for Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (formerly Kings Hill (No.1) Limited). Your subject access request sent to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited was passed to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited in order to process the request. We are instructed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited does not hold any data to which your request relates. It will not have escaped your attention that the correspondence you have received from our client was from Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited and not Cabot Financial(UK) Limited or under its former name of Kings Hill (No.!) Limited."

 

As you have confirmed that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, does not hold any information relating to myself, I must assume that Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is acting as a Data Controller, can you please confirm that this is the case.

 

I have raised my concerns with the Information Commissioners Office, please find below an extract of their response:

"It may be the case that Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd has simply misinterpreted their role as a data controller under the Act. After all, Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd and Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd are both registered with the Commissioner as separate data controllers under the Act.

If you remain dissatisfied, I can only suggest you complete a data protection complaint form which is available from our website ICO – Information Commissioner's Office. If you decide to pursue a formal complaint with our Office, please include copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the organisation concerned, together with the completed form, in order to support your case."

If your client declines to settle my concerns, I will not hesitate in making a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

"Any damage that must have been suffered by the a debtor in order for him or her to received compensation under the Data Protection Act, must be actual pecuniary loss, where a debtor is refused credit by reason of adverse but accurate credit history, or where an accurate adverse credit history causes a lender to offer a loan at a higher rate of interest than it would offer to a person with a less adverse credit history, it is the adverse credit history which causes any such losses the debtor may suffer."

Thank you for confirming your understanding in relation to compensation. Please refer to my email of 13 February 2007, this is the basis of my claim for compensation in relation to the Barclaycard account and will form the basis of any possible future litigation.

I hereby give your client until Friday 9th March to agree to settle my claim for compensation in relation to the HSBC account and to consider my claim for compensation in relation to the Barclaycard account. Failure to reach a resolution will result in the submission of my fully pleased Particulars of Claim and the instigation of further litigation in relation to the Barclaycard account.

 

Regards

 

Mr tbern123

[andrew1]

You've been one hell of a busy boy tbern. Our friends in West Malling won't have time for anyone else So I wonder what they'll be doing when they get mine - hire a temp I guess !

[Seahorse]

HOHO. A temp couldn't do a worse job than the efforts we've seen from them so far.

 

Nice one, tbern me old son.

[Rhia]

Will post this elsewhere but the Independent have now had this battle of the banks as their front page lead. This is today's story about how they are trying to dodge giving us info. Perhaps we should intoduce them to Cabot...that would give them a rich seam of lead stories.

 

Independent Online Edition > Business News

[Seahorse]

Eric Leenders, executive director of the BBA, suggested the public had only themselves to blame for delays if they invoked the Data Protection Act to reclaim their charges. He said: "If you are using the data subject request, there are going to be delays because the banks haven't necessarily geared themselves to the use of data subject requests in that manner."

Ahhhh. So it's OUR fault that they, rather incompetently, can't get their sh*t together, despite the fact that they have had months to see where this was all leading.

 

Sorry for the OT tbern.

 

And Rhia, you WOULDN'T DARE!!!!

[elizabeth1]

Ahhhh. So it's OUR fault that they, rather incompetently, can't get their sh*t together, despite the fact that they have had months to see where this was all leading.

 

Sorry for the OT tbern.

 

And Rhia, you WOULDN'T DARE!!!!

 

Seems like an awful lot of busy banks?? they sure going to have some busy days ahead? These companies should have seen this coming months ago!!!

[tbern123]

Oh dear, Mr Maynard, Mr Willem and Mr Spencer.....

 

Looks like, it is not an industry accepted fact that a Deed of Assignment in relation to a Debt, only assigns the Rights but not the Duties of the Creditor...

 

For their benefit, I will break the news gently to them.. Don't want to put a downer on anyones weekend......

 

Ok, here we go

 

1) This extract is taken from Compactlaw

Assignment of Debt

 

 

Where a debt owed to a party is assigned (sold) by that party to another. The party who owes the money then pays the new lender. Notice of assignment of a debt should be in writing.

 

(so when a debt is assigned (sold) the new owner becomes the lender)

 

2) This extract is taken from payplan

Glossary of Debt Terms | Payplan

 

 

Assignment

If a creditor sells the debt to another company, this is assignment and shouldn't be confused with a creditor passing the debt to a collection agency that acts on behalf of the creditor.

 

(for the benefit of the previously named individuals, you have previously confirmed that the debt has been assigned to yourselves and that you own the debt... So, I hope this clarifies your confusion)

 

3) Seahorse and the other fanclub members will love this site:

B-MAG - Debt Advice

 

For those not familiar with B_mag:

 

B-MAG is a specialist level provider of debt advice, sometimes called money advice or debt counselling. We have a licence from the Office of Fair Trading to offer this service.

 

Now, the reason I would like to draw you attention to this website is because of this document:

 

www.b-mag.org.uk/memos/Cascading%20Memo%2032.doc

 

Assignment of debts

 

 

Assignment is a process whereby debts are sold on to another organisation, and is common practice within the industry.

 

 

For an assignment of a debt to be legally effective, it is necessary to assign both the rights and the responsibilities of the creditor under the agreement.

 

 

Partial assignment which, in effect, assigns the right to enforce but not the associated responsibilities will be invalid and will preclude the assignee from enforcing the debt.

 

I rest my case

[Guest jamesroberts]

Oh dear, Mr Maynard, Mr Willem and Mr Spencer.....

 

Looks like, it is not an industry accepted fact that a Deed of Assignment in relation to a Debt, only assigns the Rights but not the Duties of the Creditor...

 

For their benefit, I will break the news gently to them.. Don't want to put a downer on anyones weekend......

 

Ok, here we go

 

1) This extract is taken from Compactlaw

Assignment of Debt

 

 

Where a debt owed to a party is assigned (sold) by that party to another. The party who owes the money then pays the new lender. Notice of assignment of a debt should be in writing.

 

(so when a debt is assigned (sold) the new owner becomes the lender)

 

2) This extract is taken from payplan

Glossary of Debt Terms | Payplan

 

 

Assignment

If a creditor sells the debt to another company, this is assignment and shouldn't be confused with a creditor passing the debt to a collection agency that acts on behalf of the creditor.

 

(for the benefit of the previously named individuals, you have previously confirmed that the debt has been assigned to yourselves and that you own the debt... So, I hope this clarifies your confusion)

 

3) Seahorse and the other fanclub members will love this site:

B-MAG - Debt Advice

 

For those not familiar with B_mag:

 

B-MAG is a specialist level provider of debt advice, sometimes called money advice or debt counselling. We have a licence from the Office of Fair Trading to offer this service.

 

Now, the reason I would like to draw you attention to this website is because of this document:

 

www.b-mag.org.uk/memos/Cascading%20Memo%2032.doc

 

Assignment of debts

 

 

Assignment is a process whereby debts are sold on to another organisation, and is common practice within the industry.

 

 

For an assignment of a debt to be legally effective, it is necessary to assign both the rights and the responsibilities of the creditor under the agreement.

 

 

Partial assignment which, in effect, assigns the right to enforce but not the associated responsibilities will be invalid and will preclude the assignee from enforcing the debt.

 

I rest my case

 

Now, Mr Tbern,

Whats wrong with you man!

 

These poor misunderstood dca's are purely trying to make a dishonest living and you are trying to deny them this right.

They have in the past enjoyed making huge profits from the misery and hardship of thousands of people and you don't seem to be happy with the situation, I don't know whats wrong with you.

So, they lie, cheat, break the law, refuse to answer to the relevant bodies, dodge difficult questions and go out of their way to intimidate and be unhelpful but all of that aside I am sure they mean well.

[Seahorse]

Combine these well known words and phrases with words of your own to make a sentence...

 

Done up

Kipper

 

tbern, you are a star.

[Seahorse]

I particularly like this one from the compactlaw site...

 

Vexatious Litigant

 

A person who regularly brings worthless court cases against another person or people. A court may make an order that the vexatious litigant is unable to start any future court actions without the prior permission of the court.

 

I wonder if that would apply to certain people we know? Might do in the future if they insist on carrying on the way they are going.

[tbern123]

Combine these well known words and phrases with words of your own to make a sentence...

 

Done up

Kipper

 

tbern, you are a star.

 

Thanks Seahorse,

 

I have been doing some research into Deeds of Assignment. A debtor can not pass the debt onto someone else as liabilities cannot not be transferred by deed of assignment. Cabot have wrongly interpreted our rights as a contract liability.

 

The transfers of the duties and not the rights would be unfair as this would be more benefical to the new party than the debtor.

 

We have to remember, just because some DCA's interpret their responsibilities in a way that suits them, it does not make it law.

 

As for the Law of Property Act that they base they understanding on, they have to remember that this was introduced in 1925 and since that date new legislation such as the CCA and DPA have been introduced. They have based their assumption on legislation that was introduced over 80 years ago, as this is the only legislation that works in their favour....

 

I have a couple of more tricks up my sleve... I am just waiting on their response !!!!!

[tbern123]

Now, Mr Tbern,

Whats wrong with you man!

 

These poor misunderstood dca's are purely trying to make a dishonest living and you are trying to deny them this right.

They have in the past enjoyed making huge profits from the misery and hardship of thousands of people and you don't seem to be happy with the situation, I don't know whats wrong with you.

So, they lie, cheat, break the law, refuse to answer to the relevant bodies, dodge difficult questions and go out of their way to intimidate and be unhelpful but all of that aside I am sure they mean well.

 

They will regret the day they tried their bully by tactics on me, it is just like being at school... Someone bullies you, you have to stand up for yourself or they will walk all over you.......

[andrew1]

Thanks Seahorse,

 

I have been doing some research into Deeds of Assignment. A debtor can not pass the debt onto someone else as liabilities cannot not be transferred by deed of assignment. Cabot have wrongly interpreted our rights as a contract liability.

 

The transfers of the duties and not the rights would be unfair as this would be more benefical to the new party than the debtor.

 

We have to remember, just because some DCA's interpret their responsibilities in a way that suits them, it does not make it law.

 

As for the Law of Property Act that they base they understanding on, they have to remember that this was introduced in 1925 and since that date new legislation such as the CCA and DPA have been introduced. They have based their assumption on legislation that was introduced over 80 years ago, as this is the only legislation that works in their favour....

 

I have a couple of more tricks up my sleve... I am just waiting on their response !!!!!

 

 

 

 

"A debtor can not pass the debt onto someone else as liabilities cannot not be transferred by deed of assignment."

 

 

The "Debtor" tbern is YOU not Cabot, Cabot /bank/CC is the Creditor.. sorry matey...

[tbern123]

"A debtor can not pass the debt onto someone else as liabilities cannot not be transferred by deed of assignment."

 

 

The "Debtor" tbern is YOU not Cabot, Cabot /bank/CC is the Creditor.. sorry matey...

 

 

lol, thanks Andrew1...

 

The point I was trying to make was that as the debtor cannot pass on the liabilities of the agreement, Cabot have chosen to take this to mean that neither can the creditor and that they have classed our rights as the debtor, as a liability of the agreement.

 

Sorry for any confusion

[Rhia]

Tbern...excellent bit of research here. There are a number of us who will find this extremely useful. For people who are "professionals" they seem to have only a superficial knowledge of the laws involved. Keep it coming. Next instalment eagerly awaited.

 

Oh and SeaHorse yes I would dare...

[elizabeth1]

I particularly like this one from the compactlaw site...

 

 

 

I wonder if that would apply to certain people we know? Might do in the future if they insist on carrying on the way they are going.

 

Vexacious Litigant - Me thinks our friend Mr DSS had better start learning this stuff and being very careful how he handles his claims in future!!! I have spent sometime looking at this angle as I don't see that this DSS guy is any less responsible for his actions than the company he is filing his cases for!!

 

Tbern this is brilliant stuff - made my day!!!!

[InKogneeToh]

Hi all

 

It has just occurred to me that maybe Cabot (and perhaps other DCAs) does only buy the debt from the banks/creditors and that there is no formal assignment of the consumer credit agreement.

 

It just seems quite odd that none of the DCA's seem to have a copy of the credit agreement for the accounts they are chasing. Surely if they had been legally assigned the entire agreement and therefore the right to enforce it, then they would hold a copy of that important document??

 

It would explain why they seem to think they have no duties under the agreement and why they do not consider themselves to be the creditor - because maybe they're not!!

 

They may just be buying charged off debts that they know were originally accrued under a credit agreement!?

 

This of course means that they do not, in fact, have the right to legally enforce the debt. They could just be relying on us not knowing that!

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Regards, Pam

[tbern123]

Hi all

 

It has just occurred to me that maybe Cabot (and perhaps other DCAs) does only buy the debt from the banks/creditors and that there is no formal assignment of the consumer credit agreement.

 

It just seems quite odd that none of the DCA's seem to have a copy of the credit agreement for the accounts they are chasing. Surely if they had been legally assigned the entire agreement and therefore the right to enforce it, then they would hold a copy of that important document??

 

It would explain why they seem to think they have no duties under the agreement and why they do not consider themselves to be the creditor - because maybe they're not!!

 

They may just be buying charged off debts that they know were originally accrued under a credit agreement!?

 

This of course means that they do not, in fact, have the right to legally enforce the debt. They could just be relying on us not knowing that!

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hello Pam,

 

That may be the case in some circumstances. However, in my own situation I have letters stating that the account has been assigned to Kings Hill (No.1) and that they are effectively the owners of the account.

[humbleman]

 

It just seems quite odd that none of the DCA's seem to have a copy of the credit agreement for the accounts they are chasing.

 

This of course means that they do not, in fact, have the right to legally enforce the debt. They could just be relying on us not knowing that!

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Regards, Pam

 

The hole is getting bigger, since they have already confirmed to a lot of CAG members that they do not hold the CCA in question, and yet they own the debt.

[InKogneeToh]

Hello Pam,

 

That may be the case in some circumstances. However, in my own situation I have letters stating that the account has been assigned to Kings Hill (No.1) and that they are effectively the owners of the account.

 

Hi tbern

 

Yes, I understand they are the owners of the account but my point is does this simply mean they have purchased just an outstanding debt on the 'account' (e.g. like an account I might have at a builders merchants or at small local store). These example debts could be sold on for collection and the buyer could assert a right to collect the overdue sums but they would not have any legal duties to the debtor. I'm just wondering if this is actually what's happening here.

 

Regards, Pam

[tbern123]

In the case of Cabot and my situation, they have confirmed in writing that the debts were assigned to them by a deed of assignment, but they don't have to provide with a copy of the deed of assignment due to Section 25 of the Law of Property Act.

 

It may be different in other situations, but in this instance Cabot have kindly confirmed that a deed of assignment exists.

 

I understand where you are coming from, in relation to only the debt being sold and as confirmed in letters to Seahorse and myself this is the position of Cabot.

 

However, this would mean that only the rights (i.e to chase the debt) has been assigned and not the duties to the debtor. As per the link to B-Mag this isn't the case.

[tbern123]

Hi tbern

 

Yes, I understand they are the owners of the account but my point is does this simply mean they have purchased just an outstanding debt on the 'account' (e.g. like an account I might have at a builders merchants or at small local store). These example debts could be sold on for collection and the buyer could assert a right to collect the overdue sums but they would not have any legal duties to the debtor. I'm just wondering if this is actually what's happening here.

 

Regards, Pam

 

I think what you mean is called equity assignment, where only the title to the flow of funds from the debt is sold to a buyer.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

I have just trawled through the Law of Property Act 1925 and the only section that could possibly have any relevance is this:

136. Legal assignments of things in action.- (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and

© the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

This only means that a written assignment of a debt to an assignee give the assignee a legal right to that debt (and we all know that anyway!)

 

Section 25 says the following - and has no relevance whatsoever:

 

25. Power to postpone sale. - (1) A power to postpone sale shall, in the case of every trust for sale of land, be implied unless a contrary intention appears.

 

(2) Where there is a power to postpone the sale, then (subject to any express direction to the contrary in the instrument, if any, creating the trust for sale) the trustees for sale shall not be liable in any way for postponing the sale, in the exercise of their discretion, for any indefinite period; nor shall a purchaser of a legal estate be concerned in any case with any directions respecting the postponement of a sale.

 

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section apply whether the trust for sale is created before or after the commencement or by virtue of this Act.

 

(4) Where a disposition or settlement coming into operation after the commencement of this Act contains a trust either to retain or sell land the same shall be construed as a trust to sell the land with power to postpone the sale.

 

So what they are relying on, I presume, is the fact that a written assignment of a debt gives them the right to enforce it. Their reference to this Act further ignites my suspicions that they have been assigned only the debt ( or at least THINK they have)!

 

Regards, Pam

[debt_mountain]

Tbern my friend, you really need to get out more, you should be in the pub at the weekend not studying up on rights and duties....ok I am lying. What an excellent couple of finds, well done once more.

[tbern123]

Hi

 

I have just trawled through the Law of Property Act 1925 and the only section that could possibly have any relevance is this:

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.- (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

 

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and

© the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

 

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

This only means that a written assignment of a debt to an assignee give the assignee a legal right to that debt (and we all know that anyway!)

 

Section 25 says the following - and has no relevance whatsoever:

 

25. Power to postpone sale. - (1) A power to postpone sale shall, in the case of every trust for sale of land, be implied unless a contrary intention appears.

 

(2) Where there is a power to postpone the sale, then (subject to any express direction to the contrary in the instrument, if any, creating the trust for sale) the trustees for sale shall not be liable in any way for postponing the sale, in the exercise of their discretion, for any indefinite period; nor shall a purchaser of a legal estate be concerned in any case with any directions respecting the postponement of a sale.

 

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section apply whether the trust for sale is created before or after the commencement or by virtue of this Act.

 

(4) Where a disposition or settlement coming into operation after the commencement of this Act contains a trust either to retain or sell land the same shall be construed as a trust to sell the land with power to postpone the sale.

 

So what they are relying on, I presume, is the fact that a written assignment of a debt gives them the right to enforce it. Their reference to this Act further ignites my suspicions that they have been assigned only the debt ( or at least THINK they have)!

 

Regards, Pam

 

lol Welcome to the land of confusion Pam..

 

This is a quote from one of their letters:

 

"This letter constituted written notice of the assignemnt under section 25 of the Law or Property Act and therefore we have no need to provide a copy of the assignment deed itself"

 

Mr Maynard CEO of Cabot Financial thinks:

 

"In addition, Citizens Advice is currently pursuing a series of court cases which challenge the right of debt purchasers to pursue a regulated debt through the courts. They argue that according to the definition of ‘creditor’ under section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a purchaser must prove that he has acquired the duties as well as the rights to a consumer credit agreement before he can become the ‘creditor’ and therefore pursue the right to sue for the debt. This goes against the general industry belief that section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925 applies in the case of debt purchase, which only requires that written notice of the assignment is given to the debtor in order to complete a legal assignment of a debt, and again has serious implications for the industry."