Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[hisholinessthepope]

I do not profess to have sufficient knowledge of the various laws to determine exactly how these assignments happen. However, I will remain of the opinion that the industry is being a little careful with the full story.

 

The general consenus, indeed agreed by Richard (to which I also agree) is that to comply with S189 of the consumer credit act the rights & duties cannot be separated.

 

“creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

 

Being as many believe the rights & duties have been separated solely by assignment under S136 of LoP, instead of arguing “duties” cannot be separated is it not easier to say that there is no longer a creditor by virtue of S189 CCA? If the industry wants to collect money on behalf of an apparent non-existant creditor, is it not about time they clearly explain why they believe there is a creditor under S189 CCA, after all that is the very legislation they are attempting to collect under by virtue of a consumer credit agreement?

 

Welcome Tbern.

 

aktiv,

 

in the infamous Wilson car case Lord Nicholls said concerning the precluding of the court from enforcing a credit agreement

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be side-stepped by recourse to a pledge or other form of security furnished in support of the debtor's obligations under the agreement. The security is not enforceable to a greater extent than the loan: section 113. Where an application for an enforcement order is dismissed, except on technical grounds only, or the court makes a declaration under section 142 that the agreement is not enforceable, any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement 'shall be treated as never having effect': section 106(a). Property lodged with the creditor by way of security has to be returned by him 'forthwith'.

Whilst I appreciate he is specifically refering to the car, I think the sentiment could be carried over to all aspect of the Consumer Credit Act. It is the CONSUMER credit act not the Creditor consumer act!

 

Regards

[hisholinessthepope]

Thank you whoever tipped my scales, it is appreciated.

 

And Richard Spud thank you for some further bedtime reading, your posts are always eagerly awaited.

[hisholinessthepope]

aktiv,

 

as Wilson went all the way to the House or Lords, I do not believe they can not have a second bite of the cherry.

 

If these companies wish to move away from the CCA, that is surely all the more reason for us to retain our position with the CCA!

 

Time for another read of Wilson I think.

[hisholinessthepope]

On that note remus I have started a new thread and wish to bring it to the attention of contributors to this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/94309-no-cca-agreement-unenforceable.html#post868021

[hisholinessthepope]

I agree Rhia the CCA indeed rules and can not be side stepped according to the House of Lords.