Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[rory32]

"If that is the case, then I wear my badge with pride."

And so say all of us!!

[caro]

I do not class my self as a debt evader and have always maintained regular contact and regular payments with all of my creditors/DCAs until the beginning of this year. However, if withholding further payments when a debt cannot be substantiated with a CCA is evading.... if sending a CCA request to an original creditor, when that creditor ignores the responsibility shown towards a debt with regular payments over several years... deciding instead to go for a CCJ and threatening a property charge... is evading and.... if sending a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to clarify if any unlawful charges have been applied is evading what is claimed to be owed by creditors/DCAs, then I must be one of the huge number of debt "evaders" that Rameses has such a deep-rooted hatred for, after all.

 

 

I have no problem with this and do not see it as debt evasion either. As far as I'm concerned penalty charges are not a debt. I am merely referring to the actual loans that some people have taken out, and appear to want to avoid paying if they can. If you borrow the money, and the terms of it are lawful, the contract is lawful, the interest rate is reasonable, and you know you owe it, then you should pay it if you can. If not, then the contact as you suggest is entirely appropriate.

[gerryb2]

PriorityOne - Can I have one of your badges too:)

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

I thought I would pass on some information that hopefully will prove useful to those who have had debts sold by banks/ c/c's to third parties.

 

As you know, express notice in writing must be given to a debtor for it to be effective, under s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, if said notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid. Reasons for the amount stated being incorrect will of course amongst other things include the stupidity of DCA's (no surprise there:wink:),the inclusion of penalty charges, interest on penalty charges, collection charges, charges imposed by the DCA not expressly provided for in the original contract...you get the picture! You cannot include charges that are unlawful in the amount requested. That said, even if the amount is simply misstated and not as a result of any charges it will still be invalid. A case which supports this position is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

 

Further on this matter, if the date detailed in the notice is incorrect it is also legally invalid. An incorrect date may become apparent if you ask for a copy of the DoA and a document is furnished purporting to be said DoA, which includes the date of execution of the assignment which differs from that in the notice. Additionally, where a notice is sent advising that an assignment will be effected at a particular date in the future, the notice is invalid because it should detail an assignment that has already been executed, not one to be executed at some specified, or even unspecified date in the future. The above quoted case also refers to notices with an incorrect date. There are other cases which I will detail and other particulars that will render a notice invalid, which I will detail when I have a little more time!

 

I hope this information is helpful for people.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[rory32]

Thanks Laiste.....you are ancabsolute star!!

[Jeff2000]

Hi everyone,

 

I thought I would pass on some information that hopefully will prove useful to those who have had debts sold by banks/ c/c's to third parties.

 

As you know, express notice in writing must be given to a debtor for it to be effective, under s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, if said notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid. Reasons for the amount stated being incorrect will of course amongst other things include the stupidity of DCA's (no surprise there:wink:),the inclusion of penalty charges, interest on penalty charges, collection charges, charges imposed by the DCA not expressly provided for in the original contract...you get the picture! You cannot include charges that are unlawful in the amount requested. That said, even if the amount is simply misstated and not as a result of any charges it will still be invalid. A case which supports this position is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

 

Further on this matter, if the date detailed in the notice is incorrect it is also legally invalid. An incorrect date may become apparent if you ask for a copy of the DoA and a document is furnished purporting to be said DoA, which includes the date of execution of the assignment which differs from that in the notice. Additionally, where a notice is sent advising that an assignment will be effected at a particular date in the future, the notice is invalid because it should detail an assignment that has already been executed, not one to be executed at some specified, or even unspecified date in the future. The above quoted case also refers to notices with an incorrect date. There are other cases which I will detail and other particulars that will render a notice invalid, which I will detail when I have a little more time!

 

I hope this information is helpful for people.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

 

 

 

Thanks for that info Laiste!

 

 

This should hopefully prove very useful!

 

I have a t least two debts with DCA's which show an incorrect amount!

 

I'll have to double check the notice of assignment for each of these debts to make sure.

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[remus]

I am wearing my badge with pride too:p

 

Have spent all afternoon reading this thread, and it has been a real eye opener from Vampyra's first post to the last.

 

Amazing information all the way, not to be used to evade debt, but to know my rights when the DCA are screaming at me down the phone threatning a charging order because I can only afford x amount at this moment in my life, or another £30 charge cos we love you really and you have to be shown the error of your ways:rolleyes:

 

It will take my tiny brain days to really get to grips with it all, but I am stiil reading and getting there.

 

Can I just say I am in awe of Richard Spud and all of you on this thread to be able to formulate your questions in such a way as to bring forth much brain aching information to acheive the answers.

 

Humbly yours:D

[tifo]

As you know, express notice in writing must be given to a debtor for it to be effective, under s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, if said notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid. Reasons for the amount stated being incorrect will of course amongst other things include the stupidity of DCA's (no surprise there:wink:),the inclusion of penalty charges, interest on penalty charges, collection charges, charges imposed by the DCA not expressly provided for in the original contract...you get the picture! You cannot include charges that are unlawful in the amount requested. That said, even if the amount is simply misstated and not as a result of any charges it will still be invalid. A case which supports this position is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

 

Thanks.

 

In my case, all my accounts have unlawful charges, though i have not yet received a penny back.

[Dougal16T]

Just a 'silly question' - if you owe X to Company A and miss a payment or three, and they sell your X to Company B, but 'write off' your debt of X in their books: then would this not mean that yor debt is cleared? Especially as they are claiming a benefit from the Inland Revenue?

 

If this is not the case then surely you are entitled to

(a) Knowing how much - all I assume - of yor debt has been sold, and (b) how much for?

 

The somewhat strange reasoning I submit is that if B pay A an amount for yor debt of X, does that then mean that your 'new' debt to B is only the amont they paid, and where do they get the right to say to you 'our clients will accept a reduced sum for early payment', when the clients they refer to are themselves.....this amounts to a deception I think?

 

What say you great people out there.....am I potty or what?

 

My best wishes to everyone fed up with being bullied by these institutions.

[andrew1]

Potty Dougal - totally Potty :D

 

Now the serious stuff:

 

There are a number of us with the same line of thinking and one must not be confused by the premise that just because company A sell your debt to Company B for 10% of its face value that that lets you off the hook. If they didn't sell it, you'd have to pay the full amount anyway or some negotiated settlement if you had the funds. It is a business deal like you buying something for a tenner and selling it on ebay for £20 and in effect purely a business deal. However there are a number of issues being discussed such as unjust enrichment and the actual content of the sale contract.

 

The tax benefits have been discussed on other threads before regarding write off, but Company B pay tax on profit via corporation tax so effectively the tax man gets paid anyway so they are not quite as bothered as you might think.

 

For the sake of expediency in resolving a debt issue with a dca you can use the knowledge you have gained about the 'probable' liklihood that your debt was actually sold for 10% of face value and try to do a deal with the DCA, but it has also been argued by one we feel might actually be spokesman for the industry that some debt which the banks feel are safer bets to collect 'might' be sold on for as much as 80% but I doubt that personally. The way you handle it will depend upon your own financial situation.

 

Your reasoning is quite sound and is being investigated as we speak within a certain circle of individuals of which I am one as there are many 'schemes' of buying and interpretations on responsibilities under a variety of Acts of Parliament that these DCA's are purporting to be buying debt under....they are all going to be exposed in the very near future.

 

One such thread is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/91168-when-does-original-creditors.html#post834298 if you would like to follow it - it's all an unravelling process but we WILL get there.

 

 

Hope that helps

 

Sarah

[caro]

Excellent post thank you. I agree that it's unlikely that debts would be sold for 80% too, one reason being there would be little profit in collecting it, and another being that if it was that likely to be collected the original lender would do it themselves. It's generally the older debts that are sold on in my experience.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Just subscribing - fascinating stuff!

[make them aktiv runners]

but it has also been argued by one we feel might actually be spokesman for the industry that some debt which the banks feel are safer bets to collect 'might' be sold on for as much as 80% but I doubt that personally.

 

Not quite what I said. If the bank could not take legal action in its own right (eg invalid CCA) then any amount they receive is better than nothing, so 10% and tax incentive would suit them. If the bank could take legal action to recover themselves and bearing in mind they have access to white data as well, then they would be looking at getting a much better return than 10%, logically looking at it from the banks point of view then they are looking at doing the work themselves or getting a damn good offer from elsewhere (hence I mentioned 80% as a suggested amount). If the debt is unenforceable it is probably bought cheaply but if it can be enforceable then the DCA is more likely to be acting as collecting agent but could just as easily paid a higher price for it.

 

From the above I get pretty much the same conclusion as you, where there is an incomplete CCA then DCA has probably bought it for 10%.

 

If I worked in the industry, believe me I would tell you exactly what happens.

[andrew1]

Sorry Aktiv, you just give us a run for our money, but your 'alternative ' view point is quite stimulating if only you knew it! Generates debate, which is what this forum is all about. Forgive some of us , we're softies really.

 

You might be able to help me on another issue. I really want to know exactly what happens between the bank and the dca at exchange of contract time. Have you any ideas of how I might be able to get a copy of a contract at all?

 

Sarah

[make them aktiv runners]

I am just curious and want to get to an answer, okay I may ramble but it is only because I am trying to explain my train of thought.

 

I have admitted to having worked in a bank on Tbern's thread (well it was for 3 weeks on one of those school release programmes but I did ask a lot of questions while there). I have also worked in a building society. The latter was years ago and I have not worked in the sector since then.

 

I did put another post on your thread. For the exchange of contracts I think there is more than 1 contract (because of the novation thing). I would guess the OC is more likely to give information (with a good push from FOS?) but even then they will probably just define the principles of the contract(s) rather than disclose actual copies.

 

Have you pm'd gingerheid as he created a thread about ex-employees spilling the beans, he gave a wonderful description of tactics, maybe he knows more?

[andrew1]

Forgive me Aktiv, I didn't mean to pry. The beauty of the forum is the anonimity, it is useful to know if one has experience one can draw upon to get to the facts rather than all the well intentioned, though misleading at times information. No doubt I've provided some of the latter myself over a period of time. Your insight and well remembered knowledge of the credit industry is admirable if I may say so and working together for the common good and, even arguing points strongly as Seahorse and tbern seemed to have done with you is always a healthy debating table from which others can make their own informed decisions and for that I thank you.

 

AS you have probably surmised, I am on a mission to find certain contractual and legal data which actually will assist me in changing the face of the DCA market. Some mean feat you may suggest, but one within my power to do. It is not my intention to do it in the manner of those posters I mention but using the powers I have at my own disposal, but there are a few items, such as copy contracts which I need to lay my hands on to fill a few blocks in the jigsaw. Uncle Ken is unlikely to send me one, so I have to find one another way, of which there are a number. But anything you may find which you feel would be useful in my efforts to clean this miserable business up will be greatfully received either on open forum or by PM. ... and that goes for anyone else too.

[make them aktiv runners]

I admire what Tbern & Seahorse are doing, but reading other threads I do not see many more having the same confidence as them to follow the same path. There must be an easier way to either send them away for good or at least make them "normal". I do hope you get hold of a copy. Other than aletter toOC, we could do with a friendly TS or CAB officer who demands the evidence and somehow some-one gets to read it.

 

I will try to get into the library in the couple of weeks to read up on contract law (wish I had finished that business law course all those years ago now and saved the book I had).

[mrrj]

edit

[Shoestring]

Yes, a very interesting point and one well worth pursuing as the bulk of thesetransactions are transferred electronically with no individual paperwork.

 

I wonder if there have been any later modifications to this? Or if a single letter referening a number of asignments as a batch (a "batch number") issued by the assignor to the assigneee would be construed as being sufficient to accomodate the section (b) outlined by you?

 

But it does seem like a possible loophole that might have been overlooked and well worth any effort to expose it more fully for, if the bank charges [problem] is any indicator, if there is a legal error involved is it possible that all those debts transferred electronically (and collected) in the past can be reclaimed + interest costs?

 

A nice thought if true

 

Shoestring

[andrew1]

Yes, a very interesting point and one well worth pursuing as the bulk of thesetransactions are transferred electronically with no individual paperwork.

 

I wonder if there have been any later modifications to this? Or if a single letter referening a number of asignments as a batch (a "batch number") issued by the assignor to the assigneee would be construed as being sufficient to accomodate the section (b) outlined by you?

 

But it does seem like a possible loophole that might have been overlooked and well worth any effort to expose it more fully for, if the bank charges [problem] is any indicator, if there is a legal error involved is it possible that all those debts transferred electronically (and collected) in the past can be reclaimed + interest costs?

 

A nice thought if true

 

Shoestring

 

I'll look but I'm not a dream maker !

[Shoestring]

If these things were all dreams, this site would not exist and the banks would not be shelling out millions upon millions in repayment of unlawful charges plus interest...

 

It never hurts to try does it.

 

Shoestring

[thinksmart]

How about asking for a copy of a DEED of assignment and receiving from the assignee creditor a black & white copy of an unsigned and undated NOTICE of assignment on something looking like an original creditor's letterheading and detailing an ammount around £300 LESS than the amount claimed on their Claim Form!? I get the impression that creditors will do anythng and everything possible to ensure that their claims exceed £5000 and therefore don't fall under small claims rules where costs are minimal and fixed.

 

Loads of interesting posts since I last looked - I was oblivious as the site stopped sending me email notifications of posts.

[thinksmart]

If someone owes your business £1000 and you don't feel its viable to chase for payment its reasonable to sell the debt at a discount. Its also then reasonable to claim bad debt relief against your loss of profits. I don't know how this equates finacially but I'm quite sure the bank still loses out in profit terms merely saving some sort of tax that they would have paid on the profit. If the assignee creditor then manages to recoup the full amount the tax man gets his pound of flesh back out of those profits. I don't see too much wrong with that and am sure Gordon would soon put a stop to it if there were. However, where there is any doubt that the claimed debt is real or accurate, or that it is indeed owned by the claiming party then it is absolutely right and reasonable to demand clarification and proof. If there have been no payments for 6 years the matter is ended. I don't hear anyone saying debtors should still repay debts after that period as clearly there would be too much doubt. There is a legal system in place to help and protect both sides. If alleged debtors play by the rules in seeking to have the debt proven then they are absolutely right to do so and in so doing are behaving far better than creditors who in my experience use abusive, bullying tactics to try to frighten people into paying money whether they owe it or not and are happy to "bend" rules to their very breaking point and in some cases beyond. It is not for me to dictate the purpose of this site but when people with very genuine worries come together to look for self help and support and advice from their peers it is sad that people with what would seem to be other agendas should use the opportunity for the apparent sole purposes of denigration and demoralisation and then have their right to do so championed by moderators. If you know you owe some money to someone, and if you can, and if they have not broken the law nor impinged in your rights in their pursuit of it then absolutely you should pay it. Sadly in many cases all of the aforementioned can not be said and so I believe that it falls (as it often does with businesses) to the few to teach absusive companies that they are not always going to get away with it. Many companies rely on the fact that if they demand money (or refuse to pay out money) they will almost always always get away with it. Only a small amount of people complain and only a tiny percntage would ever litigate. I just happen to be one of the ones that would, in an attempt to redress the balance in some small way. That was what I thought in essense this site was all about.

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All

[Richard Spud]

Regards to All