Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[Vampyra]

I used the template CCA letter from the library and didn't ask for a Deed of Assignment from my DCA's. Can I ask for them in a seperate letter? And will I have to send them another £1.00?

[diskmandave]

There's no obligation to send a copy of the DOA. You could try asking for a copy of the letter informing you that the debt had been sold and assigned to................

 

Regards, Dave.

[Zimmie]

Hi Vamp, from what I've read in various threads a DCA isn't obliged to provide you with a copy of the DoA. I'm not sure of the origin of this info but I've seen it stated several times.

Unless someone else knows different!!!

Lowells just sent me a copy of a letter that they had sent me previously stating they had bought the debt...didn't have same date or amount, but I really am at the mo more interested in the agreement, so haven't questioned it.

 

Regards,

Zim.

[diskmandave]

There's no obligation to supply the actual (copy) DOA.

 

http://www.crw.gov.uk/resources/consumercreditact1974.pdf

[Vampyra]

Just been reading the other thread that's talking about DoA - I think it's difficult for them to provide a DoA anyhow if it is bought in bulk. But saying that, how can anyone be sure the debt has really been purchased? And not somehow purloined?

 

It's obviously a grey area, but like the phone calls - the DPA should be valid? How can you start paying someone money without absolute proof that the debt has been purchased in it's entirity from the original creditor? Afterall one could reasonably argue that without cast iron proof a debt and identity could have been stolen from somewhere.

[make them aktiv runners]

It only matters if CCA arrives too and payments do not show it as statute barred. Send a letter to the original creditor asking if it has been sold and if so to whom.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[dannyboy660]

Richard Spud,

 

I don't know how you managed to find that, but very well done indeed.

 

Adds a little weight to what I've been trying to explain for some time.....(but not doing a very good job)......namely requesting CCA's, DOA's etc merely personalises the process to you, and is acknowledgment for the purposes of a CCJ, or worse.

 

By going through the process for them, you are making sure a purchaser has the necessary documentation from the OC (vendor) and the correspondence from you, to take it all the way.

 

Interesting they mention the Law of Property 1925 - caveat emptor legal definition of caveat emptor. caveat emptor synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

Seems my theories may not be quite so wide of the mark after all.

 

I'm all for paying the OC, or even an agent collecting on behalf of the OC,.... but debt purchase??....after charge off??? :-o It might work in the US but shouldn't be allowed here.

 

All the best.

[Vampyra]

This is extremely interesting. Thank you Richard Spud.

 

Dannyboy:

Can you please explain what you mean by debt purchase and after charge off? Are you effectively saying that by applying for CCA's we are admitting liability to the debts? When in fact, one should not do so til it is proved in a Court that the debts are yours?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not legally trained.

[dannyboy660]

In the 'goode olde dayes' if you defaulted the creditor would pass the debt to their in-house collection team who would pursue the debt, in court if necessary, until the creditor got their money back. Of course, this could often take several years if people could only afford a few quid a month, but it was simple and straightforward as all the documents were on paper and easily at hand.

 

Fast forward to more recent times and the practise of 'charge off' comes into play. When the debtor missed xxx amont of payments it was possible to write off/charge off a debt and claim some cash back from the taxman and the underwriters to recover some/most of the loss, thereby reducing the lenders risk and guaranteeing a return. A clever accountancy trick. The OC can't collect anymore because they've had their money from the taxpayer.....but a "separate" company might still just get away with it, so there's even more money to be made. Boomtime for lenders.

 

With the encroachment of the financial institutions of our American cousins, came the practise of Debt purchase. It works OK across the pond (in some States) because US law takes it into account. In the UK however, it's questionable as whether it is compatible with CCA '74, which is just one reason why it had to change.

 

The purchaser approaches the lending institutions and offers them immediate payment for a portfolio of their bad debts. The temptation is then for the OC to charge off any accounts where a few payments have been skipped (for whatever reason) far sooner than they would have done normally, claim tax relief etc, and make another wad by 'selling' the accounts to the purchasers we all know and love. This is where it gets interesting (yawn) and perhaps a little complicated in the grey shadows of a legal mist.

 

These accounts will almost certainly be transferred electronically, i.e without paperwork, and may have been through one or more agencies/companies before, but pursuit will begin instantly. The data received may be outdated, inaccurate or just plain wrong which is why mistakes do often happen, contrary to what they will have you believe.

 

On first contact many people will panic, even if they genuinely do not owe the debt. To make contact by telephone confirms you are receiving their correspondence, and they have you in their sights. From now on, they won't believe a word you say and they are going to pester you regardless. By requesting CCA/DOA you are on the defensive and they are preparing a case against you by gathering the paperwork knowing you are going to be a problem, and from which direction any defence will be coming.

 

But what if you don't question the debts existence, but it's outright ownership?? On signing CCA'74 in it's original form you agree to the recovery of a debt by the OC's assignees in the event of default, but not outright sale of the debt and your personal details to an unconnected party, for a fraction of the face value. That's completely illogical.

 

Anyway to cut an extremely long story short, I'm sure you can already see where I'm coming from, and heading to. Never admit liabilty, or even an interest by telephone or letter to a debt purchase company. When they threaten you with court, take it, because you have the opportunity to question the legality of their ownership, and it's value, as a large portion of the debt is already settled. If a court does rule against you, you get a blot on your record which is not the end of the world by any means, the debt is frozen, you get to pay it off at a rate you can afford, and you have protection from the purchaser. They don't like that.

 

Incidentally, on the thread of "Getting DCA's to hang up" ...it should be mentioned that you could tell the caller you have no intention of paying a debt which they have already paid for you through their income tax. That might annoy them a bit. :D

 

The whole thing is just another way to con the consumer/taxpayer out of their cash, for the profits of the greedy few. :mad:

 

 

 

Wow, that's the longest post ever.

[Vampyra]

Wow, that is a really interesting and eye opening post! So I guess doing nothing is good as long as you make sure you get to go to court and not have a CCJ slung at you, like I and many others have?

 

Thank you very much for explaining that.

 

I have to say, most of my debts are from my student days and date back to mid 90's early 00's and I am hoping the CCA's which I have now applied for, maybe stupidly, will have been lost and that will end that. However, taking your points into consideration, court is obviously not something to ever be frightened of as long as one gets one's right of redress by attendance at the court.

 

No wonder these companies often cannot produce the documents required because the OC obviously believes they have sold off the debt with a profit and it is no longer their concern.

 

So anyway, in short, the OC is paid by the tax man in a charge off and the DCA and the ordinary tax payer foots the bill.

 

How very cheeky!

 

Makes you realise how totally bloodsucking these OC's REALLY are. That's low - very low. They don't even deserve us bothering with them really.

[make them aktiv runners]

COPY OF DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF A DEBT

 

It may help if I suggest that while there is no obligation for a Creditor Assignee to provide a copy of a DOA when a request is made by a Debtor under ss.77,78 of the CCA 1974, there is no restriction on requesting the voluntary production in support of a claim of assignment. However, I doubt if a Creditor Assignee (or indeed the Assignor) would provide this information as the DOA would undoubtedly contain the consideration (the sum) paid by the Assignee.

 

My point was not to ask the original creditor for the deed of assignment but merely write to ascertain if they had sold "the debt" and if so to whom. The reason for this being that many on here are getting letters on the original creditors paper but appear to have been written by the DCA. Also it seems people are simply not getting "goodbye" letters when these debts are allegedly sold, which bearing in mind the aggresive attitude many are facing from DCA's makes people wonder if the DCA is indeed the true owner.

 

So why are there no goodbye letters arriving, ok the most obvious reason is that the DCA have a current address whereas the finance company have not, DCA will not pass address to finance company due to them being the new owners and data protection prevents them from doing so, fine it does explain why companies are passing on blank letterheads BUT it does not explain why the original creditor cannot produce the letter themselves and pass it to DCA at the point of sale of the debt, this does not breach data protection and the DCA is free to add an address.

[make them aktiv runners]

Fast forward to more recent times and the practise of 'charge off' comes into play. When the debtor missed xxx amont of payments it was possible to write off/charge off a debt and claim some cash back from the taxman and the underwriters to recover some/most of the loss, thereby reducing the lenders risk and guaranteeing a return. A clever accountancy trick. The OC can't collect anymore because they've had their money from the taxpayer.....but a "separate" company might still just get away with it, so there's even more money to be made. Boomtime for lenders.

 

The purchaser approaches the lending institutions and offers them immediate payment for a portfolio of their bad debts. The temptation is then for the OC to charge off any accounts where a few payments have been skipped (for whatever reason) far sooner than they would have done normally, claim tax relief etc, and make another wad by 'selling' the accounts to the purchasers we all know and love. This is where it gets interesting (yawn) and perhaps a little complicated in the grey shadows of a legal mist.

 

On first contact many people will panic, even if they genuinely do not owe the debt. To make contact by telephone confirms you are receiving their correspondence, and they have you in their sights. From now on, they won't believe a word you say and they are going to pester you regardless. By requesting CCA/DOA you are on the defensive and they are preparing a case against you by gathering the paperwork knowing you are going to be a problem, and from which direction any defence will be coming.

 

But what if you don't question the debts existence, but it's outright ownership?? On signing CCA'74 in it's original form you agree to the recovery of a debt by the OC's assignees in the event of default, but not outright sale of the debt and your personal details to an unconnected party, for a fraction of the face value. That's completely illogical.

 

The whole thing is just another way to con the consumer/taxpayer out of their cash, for the profits of the greedy few. :mad:

 

I agree.

 

I do see people's points in holding DCA's at bay by proving no CCA exists. However, my point in a nutshell is why do you have to apply in the first place. Yes the CCA 74 allows you to BUT the DCA also has a duty to prove their claim to you in the first place, as you do not know me would you pay me £10 if I claimed you owed me it, furthermore would you send me a CCA request, so why chase for information and risk them using the £1 against the "debt" just to mess your credit record up?

 

I certainly think that once the debt is written off and tax reclaimed it is wrong to then sell it, especially when some of the purchasers are subsidiaries of the same company!

[dannyboy660]

I think we're on the same wavelength, but I can't help thinking in some cases, by requesting the CCA/DOA people are building their own scaffold, because once the DCA/Purchaser produces 'a document' of some kind many posters seem to be completely stumped as to what it is, or what it means. The threads are currently littered with them.

 

Had they refused to acknowledge the involvement or legality of the purchasers rights in the first instant, it would be a completely different ball game, with the onus on the purchaser to pay for and prove their case in court. What better protection can you get than from the 'man in the wig' ??? (perhaps Ronnie and Reggie, but they're long gone )

[Vampyra]

OK so with that information now at hand and clearly put - thank you - how does that leave us who have CCA'd the DCA's?

[dannyboy660]

Hi there,

 

sorry, I'm rambling away and not really getting to the point you wanted answered (that's me) but in my opinion, I think once you start down that road with CCA's etc, you just have to hope and pray they don't have the docs necessary to nail you.

 

They now know who you are, they have an address for service of documents, and they also know you are worried enough to try and trip them up with a CCA request in the hope they can't produce. That could be seen as an admission (although not necessarily in law). All that without even a doorstep visit!!! That's the magic of modern tech and 'collections'. Maybe they can't produce - but the danger is if they send you something, with all due respect, what can you do next??.........except surrender really, and probably on their terms. Is it still possible to fight on??

 

As I said before, I am of the opinion if it's an agency collecting on behalf of the OC then it's not a defeat because you will be paying those who lent you the money in the first place. Fair and square. But if it's a purchaser.....well......it may have done less harm to stand your ground and challenge them to take you to court, at their own expense, and prove beyond doubt they own the debt, and how much it is actually worth. Even if they did take a risk on court action, it's possible to offer a plausible defence for the reasons mentioned above.

 

Has anyone actually tested this in court?? I'm really not sure. People tend to take the CCA route every time.

 

I'm keeping everything crossed for you. See what they come up with (hopefully nothing) and perhaps we can think of a plan B.

 

All the best.

[make them aktiv runners]

I have not studied CCA 74 from thread to needle yet. My main concern is that a judge may still be willing to hear a case without the CCA in some cases unless 74 act totally outrules a judge's intervention in decision making. I will PM you a reason Vampyra (do not want to give any DCA's ideas). However that said a DCA is much less likely to take court action without the CCA as it is 50/50 whehter they would win (they only like near certainities).

 

If the CCA does turn up, just write to the original creditor and ask them to confirm if they have indeed sold and to whom.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Vampyra]

Richard

I'm going to send you a private message if I may just to clarify something.

I hope you are not upset by this as I know some people don't like private messages.

[dannyboy660]

Richard Spud,

 

That is an outstanding post.

 

There is some hope after all.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

There is definately some batch processing of DoA's going on. I will get round to scanning my ones and believe me it's quite obvious.

It was mentioned in this thread that you shouldn't really chase them up for documents, but what if like me you have a DCA (CapQuest) who has bought a debt (which has actually been paid fully!!!) who then produce no documents and actually keep adding interest at a daily rate? They should by all rights send you a complete new contract with the interest rate on it assuming your contract ended with the original creditor.

Surely by asking for your CCA you can then at least question why their interest is extortionate (SP).

Actually no, Ive changed my mind. Let them prove EVERYTHING if they decide to take you to court.

[make them aktiv runners]

nitrousOxide you can always get some more proof ready for if they take you to court - SAR the CRA's. I thought it would produce nothing but see this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/59830-equifax-r-subject-access.html

[tifo]

some interesting points raised here.

 

however, by making a s.78 CCA request, we get to see application forms or agreements which have not been signed by the creditor, therefore unenforceable.

 

we also get to see some DCAs use silly arguments after not being able to provide anything.

 

some lucky people get to see their debts wiped off.

 

this is all the result of the s.78 CCA request yet this thread is stating we should not be doing it?

 

also, it is not clear how a DCA can say we owe them money using LoP 1925 s.136 yet claim they are not the creditor under s.189 CCA, as Cabot do? (I haven't had this from any other DCA).

 

this is all ambiguous, a bit like stating people should start claiming contractual interest when 95% of them have no idea how to and no bank even considers it. This makes people see £s and waste time when they could have got charges + stat 8% a long time ago.

 

people are gonna get all confused again about CCA requests.

[dannyboy660]

some interesting points raised here.

 

however, by making a s.78 CCA request, we get to see application forms or agreements which have not been signed by the creditor, therefore unenforceable.

 

we also get to see some DCAs use silly arguments after not being able to provide anything.

 

some lucky people get to see their debts wiped off.

 

this is all the result of the s.78 CCA request yet this thread is stating we should not be doing it?

 

also, it is not clear how a DCA can say we owe them money using LoP 1925 s.136 yet claim they are not the creditor under s.189 CCA, as Cabot do? (I haven't had this from any other DCA).

 

this is all ambiguous, a bit like stating people should start claiming contractual interest when 95% of them have no idea how to and no bank even considers it. This makes people see £s and waste time when they could have got charges + stat 8% a long time ago.

 

people are gonna get all confused again about CCA requests.

 

 

Of course you can ask for a CCA if you want to. But is there really any point?? What are you going to do when you get it, or something like it??

 

If the agency you request it from can not produce within the time limit but the docs come to light at a later date, they will simply sell it to another purchaser and let them pursue instead. As long as it's within the six years there's nothing to stop them, and they have everything ready at your own request, even a legitimate, or at least individual, DOA.

 

I think what you may have failed to take on board is that these debts are sold in bulk, using a general all encompassing DOA worth nothing to the individual. If you do not request a CCA, and do not co-operate with purchaser they have no option but to take you to court, or drop it. If you contest the amount, and question the legality of ownership as already discussed they have to produce ALL necessary within the timescale under the direction of the court........will they risk it??? Can they even do it, with a bulk impersonal "unsigned" DOA which will refer to thousands of accounts?? The more you think you about it, the more it makes sense to go on the offensive rather than defensive, and use it to get it buried once and for all.

 

There is no real right or wrong answer. The whole thing is a matter of personal choice/risk but I will not be at all surprised if over the coming months the boards begin to fill with people who've requested CCA's etc, and celebrated as the deadline passes by, only to see it come back in another disguise in a few months.......only this time there will be no way out, the bumps have already been ironed out for the pursuer.

[Vampyra]

I think there is a lot of ambiguity in both arguements. One can hope that by ignoring nothing happens. Trust me I would not like a CCJ entered at one a year for the next 6 years, I already have one!

 

I think what IS being missed here is that if one is sent a CA which is not an agreement but an application, it is highly likely that the CA is lost and gone hopefully forever. If a CA is produced and then a validity and proof of who the debt is owed to is questioned and either proved as an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment, then at least one knows who they are REALLY paying.

 

If the debt has been bought outright by a DCA and is a Legal Assignment, then I guess if nothing else, you know you are paying the right person. If the DCA is acting on the OC behalf and the debt is an Equitable Assignment, then one can chose, if one wishes to by-pass the DCA or at least not feel threatened by them.

 

If the OC and the DCA cannot produce documents to prove the debt anymore, I guess one can question the validity of the debt, especially if it is an older debt.

 

What one has to understand is that a CCA and SAR are NOT a free ticket to debt write-off. However, they are a legal thing the debtor can do to confirm unlawful charges which the debtor has a right to fight for and to find out who the debt is owned by.

 

To do nothing is ok but to say answering just confirms the debt is yours. No. To do a CCA and find out it's lost doesn't mean it's an admission of the debt. Afterall people who have no debt and are being persued for a debt they don't have have to do a CCA request too. If there is no CA doing a CCA isn't going to make you guilty and liable for the debt. You are asking the company to prove this debt exists in your name. Afterall, mistakes occur regularly. I, apparently created an alias name a few years ago - no I didn't, but it's on a computer record somewhere and needs removing. Does this mean the debt in that alias name was mine? Did one of the DCA's, seeing I had quite a bit of student debt, create the name and pull out a card in that name and somehow spend the money and it's now attributed to me?

 

You tell me it couldn't happen!

 

At the end of the day we are here because we have debts. All of us would like them cleared. If the OC's and DCA's didn't do their homework properly and lost important paperwork which proves we had the debt in the first place, is that our problem?

 

I for one am not scared anymore. If I have to pay the debt, so be it, but if it's wiped or reduced, bonus. But I feel I have a voice and that instead of the DCA's being threatening to me, they now are asking me to "bear with us" and "you will appreciate it's not our fault" and such.

 

If I get a CCJ form - I'll go to court. If they threaten court action, I'll let them take me.

 

I can't hide my existance. I vote, I have a bank account, I get my benefits as a carer, I have a Rewards card and all manner of things which link me to this address. I'm not going to hide away like some shrinking violet because I have debts. They can't harm me anymore!