Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[make them aktiv runners]

I must admit I find Danny does have a valid point. The worrying thing is that many of these companies are producing the document before the CCA, ie application form. If the application form is on file then are the odds of the CCA not existing anymore really nil?

[make them aktiv runners]

To match up data received in your SAR why not SAR the CRA too, there must be some paper/email backup to validate where/when/by who entries were made. Seems credit report itself does not produce enough - see this thread.

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

[dannyboy660]

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.

 

I'm not too sure about that bit. I'm mainly here on CAG because I was pursued by Lowell for a debt that wasn't mine. But I didn't CCA - I did the obvious thing and complained.

 

I ignored them for a while thinking it was a genuine mistake and only contacted them when they started pestering my Mum at a completely unconnected address. I think my experience is well covered elsewhere, but the moment I contacted them to complain, the attitude was "well you've obviously been getting our correspondence and now you've contacted us, we know who you are, where you are, and now you're going to pay this debt". WRONG.

 

I went to OFT. With my Credit reports in hand and a pile of letters from Lowell/Hamptons, OFT actually thought I was incredibly naive to think they would stop pestering simply because I told them it wasn't my debt and it was up to them to prove it. I challenged Lowell several times to take me to court - they backed down*. If they were so sure they knew who I was, where I live, how much I owe to whom, and they had bought the debt....why wouldn't they do anything about it???

 

That got me thinking in the first place, and I picked up a few things from the people at OFT along the way. How many people are so scared of going to court or getting a CCJ they will pay up, rather than do the right thing and let the purchaser prove they own a debt that you definitely owe???

 

I'm off on one of my rambles again, but you have to remember these people are very determined and whether they legally own the debt or not it won't stop them applying incredible pressure or bu**ering about with your credit record to provoke you into contact or just buckling under pressure.

 

I can seriously see the benefit of a court hearing to test validity of ownership. Let them pay for it, and if they can't produce the docs in time that's too bad. If they do, study them carefully because somewhere there will be a gaping hole and we know what to look for!!

 

 

* 'backed down' = as in nothing happened. I still got regular threats of court, bankruptcy, execution, three hours of compulsory "Home and Away" viewing......but nothing happened.

[PeteT]

Authorities to check:

 

Law of Property Act 1925 s.136

Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1;

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476 [1973] 1 WLR 757

 

My fiancee just gave me these.

If anyone wants them, PM me your email address and I'll send them to you.

 

 

Pete

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[make them aktiv runners]

There is a sub-forum for Cabot (they are that popular!). This is a very brief summary (hope I have got the 2 Cabot's the right way round!).

 

Several are taking them to court because of the problems with "ownership". Cabot's main line is this, CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED purchase debts and CABOT FINANCIAL (EUROPE) LIMITED collect payments/dispatch letters etc, they also claim that they have not bought the "duties" only "rights" so the "rights" remain with OC, however OC claims to have sold the lot. Cabot are effectively using 1925 property act rather than CCA.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[installspark]

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.

 

There are also times when requesting a DOA can prove to be very useful. For instance Aktiv Kapital sending a DOA that was dated 15 months before the date of the signed agreement, needless to say that got the case thrown out at court as they couldn't prove ownership of the debt

[dannyboy660]

Installspark,

 

Thanks.

 

That's an excellent example of the point being made. Those less "in the know" who are just reading these threads for opinions or are told to request docs in advance in their first few postings, might buckle on receipt of an apparently legitimate proof of debt and/or proof of ownership.

 

Without that all important Court ruling, what would have stopped Aktiv continuing to press for payment, including the constant threats, phone calls at home/work, and contacting friends/relatives??? Nothing at all. They just carry on and try to wear you down.

 

Requesting docs in advance may, or not produce them. If not, it does not stop them chasing at a later date by selling it on again. Some are lucky on that score, but don't forget those who are not so lucky.

 

Going on the offensive and forcing them to take the Court option at an early stage may not only produce the 'no valid docs' scenario, it may also give the option to question ownership and the real value, bearing in mind purchasers take charged off debts and OC can not collect if HMRC or underwriters have already settled. That would amount to fraud, and lenders have to protect their good name.

 

It's a matter of choice really, and what your ultimate intention or goal is. Personally, I say stand your ground. Courts are nothing to be afraid of and once the purchaser messes up, the problem is dead and buried and can't come back to haunt you.

 

If they've got the docs, they may have to reveal how much they paid to establish the value to the court. You have a right to know how much you actually owe. Is that possible from a bulk purchase of thousands of debts?? I think not.

 

There's no real answer. Each one is down to the individual, how much pressure you can take, and how far you're prepared to go to question ownership and put up a fight.

[tifo]

If they've got the docs, they may have to reveal how much they paid to establish the value to the court. You have a right to know how much you actually owe.

 

If this is right, do you think we have an argument to state that we will pay only what the DCA have paid to buy the debt, as the rest of the debt has been 'charged off' and therefore paid for by the taxman?

 

I would have thought the banks charge off the amount left after the sale of the debt, and it is a DCAs business to buy low and receive high and that if we state we will only pay the purchasing price, then the DCA would not be making any profit as a business.

[dannyboy660]

This is pretty much the crux of my argument, and something which needs to be established beyond doubt, to see if what I'm driving at has any real validity.

 

After charge off the OC relinquish their right to payment. If they've had a chunk from the HMRC and/or underwriters, and continue to claim from you, then I would imagine that would amount to fraud. As far as the OC is concerned the debt is no longer their problem, non-existant. Looks good on the balance sheets. ;-)

 

They sell the debt (and your personal details,..... another side issue, but just as relevant) to a completely unconnected outside party, the purchaser, for a fraction of it's face value. This is normally done in bulk to save time and expense. Imagine going through thousands of accounts individually, dotting i's crossing T's, checking dates, signatures and then getting a witness to sign etc, etc, etc,

 

At court, can they prove beyond doubt they legally own the debt, bearing in mind what Richard Spud has produced for us earlier?? What is the Value of the debt?? OC can't get involved - they've received outside payment, and the purchasers rightful claim is therefore only a fraction of face value. And remember....this was part of a bulk transaction without individual amounts agreed, signed, witnessed etc, etc at the time of assignment.

 

I'm starting to go over old ground again, but I feel this is an issue that should be thrown open to debate in the forum. Someone somewhere will have the answers.

[tifo]

After charge off the OC relinquish their right to payment. If they've had a chunk from the HMRC and/or underwriters, and continue to claim from you, then I would imagine that would amount to fraud. As far as the OC is concerned the debt is no longer their problem, non-existant. Looks good on the balance sheets.

 

I'm starting to go over old ground again, but I feel this is an issue that should be thrown open to debate in the forum. Someone somewhere will have the answers.

 

Why doesn't someone open a separate thread for this? Maybe someone who has some knowledge on the matter.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[tifo]

thanks Richard, i get your point.

 

i am grasping the concept slowly as i am no legal mind (actually an IT one).

[Vampyra]

Tifo, same here - IT mind!

 

I actually think reading these posts that actually Dannyboy and I are reading from the same hymnsheet just with slightly differing emphasis on what we are looking at. Basically that they have to prove it outright and court is the place for that.

 

Just a quick post for now as I'm off out but I am finding this debate enthralling and very interesting. Thank you all.

[dannyboy660]

I think we can now safely say there is a severe danger of a CCA request coming back to bite some people on the backside.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/59620-diskmandave-lowell-finacial-capone-5.html#post753205

 

Posts 92/93.

 

So, if they don't produce CCA within the timescale and nothing is done.....it could have the 'boomerang effect' I've been warning about. I think those who have gone away from CAG after the 12+30 days thinking everything's rosy, may get a nasty shock in the not too distant future. But what does this actually prove?? Perhaps nothing, but by requesting CCA etc and then doing nothing, people leave themselves wide open to the possibility of being nailed in the future, and the next time the result could be quite nasty.

 

Rather than just use the blanket CCA approach to all who ask for help, I would suggest future advice takes into account some of the facts which have come to light on this (and other) thread. First and foremost is it a collection agency or a purchaser who claims to own/collect the debt??

 

Those who get no response to CCA requests should be encouraged to complain about the DCA who failed to comply, rather than leave things in the air, and I would still very much like see those confronted by purchasers make them prove their ownership, and the debt value under the protection of a court.

 

I'm turning into a whining old phart on this subject, and I think I'll step back and let things develop....let someone else have a say!!!!

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

I see where you are going with this.

I've just checked an account I have that has been purchased and it indeed says "charged off" AND the interest was wiped off. Now I'm pretty sure you cannot reclaim on a charged off account, to do so would be fraud. Not only that but the DCA has actually readded the interest back on. You should in effect only still have to pay the loss on the account I.E. What the DCA buys it for!!

Someone must know more.

[tifo]

its a good angle and needs to be looked at more.

 

but there's no way a DCA is gonna let us get away with any money using the 'charged off' argument. There's also no way they're gonna tell us what the purchase price is.

 

In the end it depends how strong this argument is within the law, and i for one wouldn't risk taking it to court.

 

dannyboy does make sense that the DCA is in a way asking for money that the bank has 'charged off' and received tax relief on and this shouldn't be allowed.

 

but, the DCA is a business and they will need to make profit on the risky purchases they make. I think any judge would see it this way and this would be a DCAs defense.

[PriorityOne]

Those who get no response to CCA requests should be encouraged to complain about the DCA who failed to comply, rather than leave things in the air, and I would still very much like see those confronted by purchasers make them prove their ownership, and the debt value under the protection of a court.

 

 

 

Let me give you a scenario for your thoughts....

 

One of my DCAs was issued with a CCA request in January and I have heard nothing since. I know it was received because it was signed for by rec. delivery. Once the 12 day default went passed, I cancelled the Standing Order.... yet despite 3 payment dates going by, I still heard absolutely nothing ! I had been paying this DCA for 4 years before discovering this site, so they had a fair whack out of me, but because there is no CCA... did they really have a right to collect it ? Apparently the Deed of Assignment would prove the existence of a debt if I was to take them to court in pursuit of a refund.... so it's a gamble that I haven't taken.

 

However, the account that they have been collecting on only had a small outstanding balance. I have since discovered that the original creditor sold 3 of my accounts amalgamated into one referenced account for the DCA. I assume that the DCA could only have got this account number if it had been supplied on the Deed of Assignment by the original creditor and it is the only account number that has ever been quoted. Since all payments and correspondence were made/sent under the same ref. account number.... was this one account actually entered upon the Deed of Assignment to cover the entire outstanding balance on 3 accounts and if so, would this make the Deed of Assignment... and all subsequent collections by the DCA invalid/unlawful if I was to take it all the way to court ?

 

Any thoughts ?

[Vampyra]

I just wrote a very long and profound post and lost it! D'oh! LOL

 

I'm too tired now, will write tomorrow

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Vampyra]

I had a call from a really helpful and great bloke at the TS in my area today. He was very complimentory of my knowledge, which I had gleened from this site - so a big THANK YOU to everyone who has been advising and helping me and to other posters for their useful threads.

 

He told me an interesting thing.

 

"When a DCA states, even in writing that they own your debt, please read this as they are employed by the OC to collect the debt".

 

He thought they were moot and yet untried grey areas re the L&P Act 1925 as regards ownership, but he also said that it was fair comment a if the need arises try using it. It is a legal act afterall.

 

It would appear it is generally accepted that DCA's don't purchase debts and if they do they generally are not concerned about proving it as they have nothing to hide.

[dannyboy660]

You'll find this quite interesting then:-

 

DEBT PURCHASE - financial services by East-West Debt

 

Do they, don't they........and why the hell are they passing our personal information around to people who may, or may not want to 'buy' a debt??. Why not just advertise in the business section of the Telegraph?? Makes me so bloody angry.

 

"It would appear it is generally accepted that DCA's don't purchase debts and if they do they generally are not concerned about proving it as they have nothing to hide."

 

If this was the case, not only would writing to you telling you they had bought the debt be a breach of OFT guidelines, it would be blatant fraud!!. What is to stop me taking names and addresses from the electoral roll and writing/phoning saying I'd bought a debt from the local council, pay me, or I'll take you to court??? This gives more weight the argument as to why it is best to ignore them in the first place, because it wouldn't be possible for them to take you to court anyway!!

 

"When a DCA states, even in writing that they own your debt, please read this as they are employed by the OC to collect the debt".

 

....and that I certainly do take exception to. Written English is plain English, and if they say they own it, they are saying they own it. Basically it is a lie to obtain money and therefore illegal. I think I'll write to the bank and tell them I own The Statue of Liberty!!!.

 

Doesn't this just make you want to kick back even more??

[Vampyra]

I fully agree and the TS guy was with us all the way. He was just imparting the view that they may say it but it isn't necessarily so!

 

With regards those who may genuinely own the debt - I think he is making the point that they will prove it because they can - right or wrong, whereas those who can't prove it cause untold fuss. He was speaking from his experience of dealing with them over the years.

 

Interesting Debt Company. Notice the .co.uk web addy and the Belgium address. Wonder, if being out of the UK, if the DPA applies when they scan the debts to see if they want to take them on?

 

Of couse, whilst assessing debt, they could steal the info.

 

Jolly good!

[dannyboy660]

The more I think about it, the more I realise it would be better to just ignore these people completely.

 

'Credit Today' online was warning some time ago that the knock-on effect of the 'reclaim bank charges campaign' would be absolutely enormous and the shock waves would go right through the collection/purchase sectors too. I think we're seeing the early stages of it.

 

How many people are beginning to question the true amount of debt they have, given that much of it is artificially inflated by the lenders, and then their own collection agents?? ....and why would a creditor sell a debt when it would be far easier and more logical for them to take court action, than an unrelated third party. Purchasers.....fight them all the way, or ignore them completely.

 

Looking through the registers at Companies House (online) today I was quite interested to see Lowell Portfolio II have been tagged because their accounts report is long overdue. Problems perhaps? (). Ironically, their Credit rating has been quite seriously dented in the business world. ( :-D ) All this is information in the public domain and I'm not divulging anything new. (Credit ratings are at Checksure)

 

Debt purchase is already a cut-throat business and the future is looking bleak for some.