People who have the right to sue... under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

[tomterm8]

Some confusion has occurred recently, perhaps due to DCA's misunderstanding who has the right to sue under the consumer credit act 1974:

 

A Creditor has the right to sue under the CCA 1974 (i.e. the original Creditor, or someone to whom the O.C.'s rights and obligations have been assigned or passed to by operation of law.

 

An Owner has the right to sue under the CCA 1974. It is my opinion that this does not mean "An Equitable Owner", instead it means (s. 189 (1) )

 

"

“owner ” means a person who bails or (in Scotland) hires out goods under a consumer hire 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 hire agreement, includes the prospective bailor or person from whom the goods are to be hired;"

 

Therefore, it seems to me an equitable owner does not have the inherent right to sue under their own name, although they will of course have the right to sue with the agreement of the original creditor and with the original creditor as a second claimant in the action. The Contract (right of third parties) Act 1999 might in some cases give the claimant a right of action.

[Seahorse]

So basically what this means (if I understand it correctly), is that company trying to sue by way of assignment, and yet who denies they have any legal need to comply with the CCA 1974, will need to JOINTLY bring an action alongside the ORIGINAL creditor.

 

If so, that is very interesting. I'm sure all these OC's will be really pleased to find themselves having to hold hands with the likes of Cabot in court. I'm also sure that it will never happen. As far as they are concerned, they dumped the debt, and will not look favourably on their client (the NEW creditor) making life difficult for them. I'd go so far as to say, if debtors were to make a habit of challenging their new creditors on this basis, OC's will be very swift to change any agreements between themselves and debt purchasing agencies to ensure they DON'T have to join them in any action.

 

Any other thoughts on this?

[tomterm8]

So basically what this means (if I understand it correctly), is that company trying to sue by way of assignment, and yet who denies they have any legal need to comply with the CCA 1974, will need to JOINTLY bring an action alongside the ORIGINAL creditor.

 

If so, that is very interesting. I'm sure all these OC's will be really pleased to find themselves having to hold hands with the likes of Cabot in court. I'm also sure that it will never happen. As far as they are concerned, they dumped the debt, and will not look favourably on their client (the NEW creditor) making life difficult for them. I'd go so far as to say, if debtors were to make a habit of challenging their new creditors on this basis, OC's will be very swift to change any agreements between themselves and debt purchasing agencies to ensure they DON'T have to join them in any action.

 

Any other thoughts on this?

 

In broad terms yes... in general, a company who buys the rights but not the duties of a contract will not be able to sue, unless the contract was made after 10th May 2000 and was therefore subject to the Contracts (Rights of third parties) act 1999; and if that contract were carefully drawn up to comply with the requirements of the said act (this couldn't be shown unless you could provide the credit agreement, and terms and conditions of the agreement).

 

If they have a seperate right of action under the above act, it would be subject to equities and so would be subject to all the same defences and requirements as if a creditor were to sue.

[rory32]

Contracts (Rights of third parties) act 1999

This does not apply in Scotland.

[make them aktiv runners]

As I understand it, if rights & duties are absolutely assigned then the DCA becomes legal owner and is the party to be sued for illegal bank charges, which may well be the real reason for all this idiotic idea they have that the duties remain with OC.

 

Having said that, I certainly think we have been letting the OC have a easy ride to date. The only way to get the full truth is to start making the OC accountable for the DCA's allegations. The more compliance required from the OC (using FOS etc) will make them think twice before letting future "assignments" follow the now standard contempt the DCA's have for the CCA.

[rory32]

Aktiv this why I always advocate that people should report the OC as well as the DCA.

[elizabeth1]

So basically what this means (if I understand it correctly), is that company trying to sue by way of assignment, and yet who denies they have any legal need to comply with the CCA 1974, will need to JOINTLY bring an action alongside the ORIGINAL creditor.

 

If so, that is very interesting. I'm sure all these OC's will be really pleased to find themselves having to hold hands with the likes of Cabot in court. I'm also sure that it will never happen. As far as they are concerned, they dumped the debt, and will not look favourably on their client (the NEW creditor) making life difficult for them. I'd go so far as to say, if debtors were to make a habit of challenging their new creditors on this basis, OC's will be very swift to change any agreements between themselves and debt purchasing agencies to ensure they DON'T have to join them in any action.

 

Any other thoughts on this?

 

 

Now isn't that a nice thought? Now can you see "Kenny Babes" holding hands with persons from these other companies? They sure are going to be busy?

[diskmandave]

Extremely interesting!