Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[hitback]

Danny boy perhaps you should write a basic letter that outlines/explains what you are suggesting here.

 

A draft letter would I have no doubt be a big help to members.

 

Just a thought.....

[make them aktiv runners]

A CCA I have states “We may assign or transfer our rights and/or obligations under this agreement.”

 

Richard could you kindly explain what the statement really means they can do (it is obviously a lot differently worded to CCA 74). Also does the fact that this statement appear automatically allow for a novated agreement with a DCA or even a different finance company?

I agree it is logical to transfer the lot, but as much as the DCA's are lying etc over the phone I would be surprised if their standard letters were indeed factually incorrect (some state outright rights but not duties, while others refer to their client).

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Vampyra]

What Richard and Aktiv have posted now makes far more sense. Do excuse the crude and basic outline of this - I have flu and can't be bothered to go all "curley wurley" as I call it - do excuse my term!

 

The Duties appear to be being handed over to DCA's, i.e. a duty to collect the debt, a duty to find a lost debtor, etc, but when it comes to exercising the rights of a Credit Agreement, that can only be done by the OC. Hence the "client" aspect of most letters which these DCA's write claiming ownership of the debts.

 

Does this mean they bought the 'Duties' whether via DOA or just being hired by the OC?

 

I still question if someone, anyone states in writing they own something, they must own it in entirity, especially if the wording relates to "we purchased this debt from...". Maybe they mean "we purchased the right to collect the debt on behalf of..."? If so, this brings around again the arguement of if it was purchased, was it part of a "charge off" system?

 

Thinksmart made some reference to the tax man and a pound of flesh. I also maintain not one of these banks, building societies or credit card companies will lose a penny over any debt. If it is "charged off" and then a fee/sum/token payment/toffee wrapper is made by a potential Assignee in return for the Contractual Duties of the renumeration of the debt, surely any payment made by any debtor is subject to tax. That tax would then be taken from the Assignee. One question I would like to ask is, is it morally correct for tax to be paid twice on a sum of money which may already have been subject to "charge off" and only by the sum being "virtually" changing hands and in fact remaining in the hands of the OC at all times.

 

Thus the OC gets tax relief and no loss of debt and the Assignee has to pay tax on the amount paid.

 

Someone else mentioned something about the banks making errors in favour of the unlawful bank charges, could it be there lies here some immoral and unlawful tax evasion practices by the banks?

 

If I'm wrong, ignore me, I have flu and maybe imagining things!

[make them aktiv runners]

Thanks Richard. I took "duties" and "obligations" as being the same,just wanted to be 100% sure.

 

I deleted some of the other thread information because it offended a few people.

 

I have copied below the explanation about "novation" for if anyone is interested.

 

According to Wikipedia (link below) definition for assignment, rights pass to assignee but obligations usually remain with OC. There is a link to a definition for “novation”. The difference between the 2 appears to be that for “assignment” OC retains obligations as debtor is not party to the agreement (it is forced), whereas for novation, debtor would give consent (not in a month of Sundays everyone says!).

 

Assignment (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Vampyra]

Dear Richard

Is this for debts covered under CCA 1974?

 

Does this then mean unless a DCA catagorically proves they own the Legal Assignment as per LPA s125 (?), a DCA cannot enforce the debt? If so, does this mean all action taken against an alleged debtor must always be done in the name of and not on behalf of the OC?

 

Sorry I'm tired and ill I'm not clear headed today.

[make them aktiv runners]

Read it previously, vaguely remember asking some-one else, as assignee could not enforce then could OC, but they declined to answer (would guess that both AC & OC had to be parties to any court action).

[Vampyra]

Activ is this CCA 1974?

 

I know I'm not on the case tonight but I'm trying to ask questions

[make them aktiv runners]

Kind of. CCA 74 mentions "rights and duties" (appear unseparable) whereas terms & conditions on CCA contracts say "rights and/or duties"

[hitback]

Hi Everyone,

 

While there are obviously some very well-informed people on this forum, it all getting a bit high-brow, verging on legalise and just a tad difficult to understand.

 

If I get the gist of this string surely its about finding out the relationship between the OC and the DCA - In effect WHO OWNS THE DEBT?

 

Wouldnt it be better for someone just to scribe a letter that would get to the heart of the matter - and help people on this site to take the initiative and hopefully settle at a price thats suits all?

 

Asking the DCA if they in fact own the debt or are just acting on behalf of the OC/Client?

 

If the OC has been paid, and taxes are paid, etc, etc - and the DCA has in fact bought a debt for pennies in the pound there is room for the debtor (if of course they can raise any capital to satify the debt) rather than small payments for years, court appearances, or an IVA???

 

Just thought but I would be interested in your replies (in plain English;)

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Guest Mincemeat]

Having read this entire thread through three times now I would like to say a big thankyou to Richard for his efforts and expertise on this subject. I think it would be prudent for us to discuss the ramifications of his posts and where applicable, scribe the relevant letters ourselves. I think a resource as precious as Richard should not be asked to create such a letter (but if we were to present one to him for his perusal, I would hope he would be gracious enough to cast his eye over it).

[hitback]

I agree Hitback. There appears to be a continual asking of the same questions on this subject, about which I believe I have made my opinions known in previous postings. Therefore, I do not feel it would be of any benefit for me to contribute any further.

 

Thanks Richard but I do hope you will have a look at anything that is produced, your experience would be hugely advantageous..

 

 

Having read this entire thread through three times now I would like to say a big thankyou to Richard for his efforts and expertise on this subject. I think it would be prudent for us to discuss the ramifications of his posts and where applicable, scribe the relevant letters ourselves. I think a resource as precious as Richard should not be asked to create such a letter (but if we were to present one to him for his perusal, I would hope he would be gracious enough to cast his eye over it).

 

HOORAY! - And while we're at it with the experience that is available on CAB we should have a drop down list for EVERY type of letter required to help those in debt who are members of this forum, not unlike what they ahve on another great site which is the National Debtline National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice

 

What do you all think - and more to the point who is going to be first to have a go at this particular letter??

[Vampyra]

Dear Richard

Please do not feel disheartened. Some people and this is not to cast dispursions, find it a little difficult to look at answers laterally and see what is being said. I also, as have previously told you, ask questions til I really understand what the answer is.

Your help has been invaluable and please do not think any of us are asking the same question over and over to be annoying. Some people cannot fathom more legal jargon and this is not their fault - you know this anyhow, and because of such, repeat questions which have already been answered, myself included. I get late night wafflings and basically write how I see it with a view to someone correcting me if I'm wrong.

 

I wonder maybe if it would be more sensible if a few of us got together to create a bullet point post on this subject, to condense and put in clear English all the points you have generously answered? Maybe you could then cast an eye just to confirm we have got this correct?

 

Many of us are more than happy to take these situations on ourselves without having to bother you continuously, but as I'm sure you can appreciate we want to be completely correct in our use of Law and would hate to mis-inform other and future CAG users by our lack of knowledge.

 

We humbly thank you for all your advice and pointers and hope you do not feel us in any way clawing or ungreatful for you precious time you offer us.

Vampy

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[rory32]

I think you've covered that nicelly tomterm.

[Rhia]

Since I have not had sight of the Document Of assignment I would ask you to clarify your letter, which I take to be a notice of assignment as required under the Law Of Property Act 1925.

 

 

I'm not sure I would say in writing that I take it to be a notice of assignment as it could be deemed you are admitting this and it may come back and bite you. How about:

Since I have not had sight of the Document Of assignment as required under the Law Of Property Act 1925, I would ask you to fully clarify the implications of your letter.

Just my ten cents as I know how snake-like are the actions of these creatures.

[Vampyra]

Yes I agree Rhia.

 

Great letter Tomterm

[Rhia]

I wonder maybe if it would be more sensible if a few of us got together to create a bullet point post on this subject, to condense and put in clear English all the points you have generously answered? Maybe you could then cast an eye just to confirm we have got this correct?

 

 

Vamp I think this is an excellent idea as I, like you, keep asking the questions over and over (often to myself) until I fully understand. After all if you are mounting your own litigation or conductinga defence you really need to be confident in your understanding.

[Vampyra]

Yeha I just PM'd Rory about that - hopeless to go to Court and:

 

Judge: Why did you feel this debt was subject to LPA s125, blah, blah?

 

CAGer: I was told to send that letter!

 

Not helpful really! LOL

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[Vampyra]

Tomterm, sorry to be a pain but in reading this paragraph:

 

Since I have not had sight of the Document Of assignment I would ask you to clarify your letter, which I take to be a notice of assignment as required under the Law Of Property Act 1925.

 

I'm reading this as the letter they sent you, you are taking as a notice of assignment as required by Law. Call me stupid but in reading this they may say, "well you have agreed it is the notice of assignment and we have complied with the Law."

 

Just looking a bit laterally at how they may stall or confuse matters.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[Vampyra]

I think I just altered the letter as you were posting. One of the joys of online editing and a useless computer:)

 

LOL!

 

Yeah we'll all get there in the end!