car2403 -v- RBS PLC (Default removal)

[tifo]

some good info here ...

[MoonHawk]

Having looked at the assignment letter again there are a couple of things that stand out.

 

Firstly that the nature of assignment is not clear (I did say they will be vague).

 

It says on one hand:

We confirm that the balance outstanding on the above account was assigned to Triton Credit Services Ltd on 29th December 2005.

 

In accordance with the aforementioned assignment Triton Credit Services Ltd now holds all legal rights, authorities and obligations to the same.

This would suggest an absolute assignment.

 

and

We confirm that the balance outstanding on the above account was assigned to Triton Credit Services Ltd on 29th December 2005.

along with ...

You should now address all further communications to Triton Credit Limited, who are the legal owners of the debt, at the address below:

Would both normally suggest that it is an equitable assignment where only the debt is passed on. I had the same with AK and have to write a letter to the OC to clarify.

 

I have also looked on Companies House and would be interested to know if Triton had tried and collect from you during 2006. Your letter says that the debt was assigned on 29th December 2005. The last account submitted by Triton Credit Services Ltd was on 31st December 2006 and it was Dormant, which means they have declared that they have not traded in that year. If they tried to collect money from you or you paid them in the period of the accounts (say in the six month prior) then they have traded without declaring it.

 

It is the very fact that the letter says "Triton Credit Services Ltd" makes it interesting. Sometimes the Ltd company is dormant but they trade under the same name as an unlimited company, which is OK.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[shane5408]

the Ltd company is dormant but they trade under the same name as an unlimited company, which is OK.

 

Hi Moonhawk,

 

This was my assumption as well.

[MoonHawk]

In this case though, the letter confirming the assignment says "Triton Credit Services Ltd", so if they have traded when dormant, I am not sure what the repercussions are.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

Well, this will be interesting if I get to Court, as the account was being "collected" (term used loosely!) by Wescot Credit Services - and all the letters I have from them dated in 2007 say "Client: Royal Bank of Scotland"! If this turns out to be Triton, they may be in trouble then Moonhawk?

 

The CCA request I've sent them has a cheque for £1 made payable to Triton Credit Service Ltd, so it will be interesting to see if it's cashed. (All the other CCA cheques I've sent haven't been, but who knows)

 

I also think this is an equitable assignment, as I've received no Notice of Assignment and they seem to be unable to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment - I originally requested that as part of the CCA request to Style dated 11 August 2007 and have received nothing?

 

Is it worth now sending Style a DPA SAR? I would like to know if they have applied default charges anyway, which will help with the Default removal argument anyway - worth that extra £10 fee, IMO!

[MoonHawk]

Whether or not they will be in trouble will depend on the next set of accounts submitted in a years time. If it is Dormant and they have traded then I think they may be in bother, although I am not sure on the legalities. Just know I would not do it.

 

It is in all likelihood equitable, but you will not get a copy of the deed. The deed will probably have details of the amount paid.

 

I also suspect (pure speculation on my part) that there may not be one. these debts are bought in a bundle and not individually and they might sidestep the paperwork (e.g. have one document covering them all) in the hope that there will not be a need. Same as they do not bother to check the validity of the debt by requesting to see the agreement.

 

Sending a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) won't hurt and the sooner you do it the better. If you are happy then go for it. You might be surprised at what you get. The only problem is that you will need to send two, one to Trident and one to RBS in order to get the full picture. I would personally start with RBS who should give information on the assignment. Make sure you explicitly ask for the agreement and assignment details.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

How's this;

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

Style Financial Services Ltd: ********

s.7 DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 – DATA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

 

 

I request that Style Financial Services Ltd provides me with all details held regarding my accounts, including, but not exclusively as I require access to all information relating to me as a Data Subject under the Data Protection Act;

 

§ Details of all default charges for unpaid items and fees charged for managing the above account, which I have paid in the last six years

§ Copies of all original Consumer Credit Act agreements for each account held in my name

§ Details of all assignments, whether equitable, absolute, legal or otherwise, of the account and documentary evidence of such assignment

§ Details of all manual intervention that has taken place on accounts held in my name, with documentary evidence of such.

§ Details of logic involved in any automated decisions you made about me, or my accounts with you.

 

Please note that this is not an exclusive list, as I require access to all information held by Style Financial Services Ltd regarding me, as a Data Subject under the Data Protection Act.

 

I understand that Style Financial Services Ltd is obliged to provide this information under the Data Protection Act 1998. I have enclosed a cheque for £10 to cover the statutory fee that can be charged for this service.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within 40 days from the date of this letter and before 1 January 2008, in any event.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Should I send the Triton S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the PO Box address, or their Holburn address? The Holburn address is listed on the Information Commissioners Office's site as the Data Controller?

[MoonHawk]

Looks good . I would send it to either address, just make sure it is signed for.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

2 x Data Protection Act SAR off today - I've sent the Triton one to the PO Box address, but addressed to the the Data Protection Officer of the Ltd company. It will be interesting to see what reply I get from them. (Remember there's a s.78 CCA request in there as well)

[car2403]

Nothing back from my latest letter to Style, dated 17 November and giving 7 days for their response. I may have to wait until next week before thinking where to go next, as I don't want to "seem" unreasonable bringing this claim so soon without establishing WHO has the legal obligations here.

 

Nothing from Triton neither, also dated 17 November. I've checked on the Royal Mail website and they don't have any record of recorded delivery taking place - the cheque hasn't cleared yet, neither. They've had 5 working days so far for the CCA request and will be in default on 5 December - I may have problems proving that if I don't have recorded delivery or at least the cheque clearing.

 

Both of them have had Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent - 40-day deadline is 2 January.

 

Looks like I have to ride this out for a while before issuing, then? Or, should I issue with Style as 1st Defendant, Triton as 2nd Defendant, then let the Court sort it out? They may have clarified things by the time it gets to a hearing, but I don't want to have to issue, then amend my claim once this is cleared up? Having said that, I'm sure the Court would agree with me that this is probably an attempt to evade a Court claim being issued against them - regardless of which party has the obligations!

[car2403]

BUMP

 

Just in case the question wasn't clear - can I issue a N1 against Style for Default removal, even though they claim to not have the legal obligations under the agreement due to assignment to Triton? I don't think they have assigned anything (equitable assignment at the most) so I still think I can sue them under the LBA I sent them on 1 November.

 

I may just issue this anyway, as I could wait forever and a day for them to clarify... I'm conscious I don't want them dictating timescales as the sooner this Default is removed, the better it will be for me.

[car2403]

This is going off to Style;

 

I refer you to my letter dated 17 November 2007, of which a copy is attached.

You have failed to reply to my satisfaction with regards confirmation of the assignment that you claim took place to Triton Credit Services Limited.

Please take note that I now intend to issue legal proceedings in my local County Court, with both Style Financial Services Limited and Triton Credit Services Limited as Defendants in an attempt to resolve the issue of assignment and the previous issues I have corresponded with you on. These legal proceedings will be issued within 7 days of the date of your receipt of this letter.

Once legal proceedings are issued, I will be fully utilising Civil Procedure Rules to their full extent to gain the information I need regarding the assignment and any other information that will help me to build my case against both Defendants. Failure to reply to CPR requests for more information will be highlighted to the Court at the relevant time during the proceedings - I also intend to argue at that time that both Style Financial Services Limited and Triton Credit Services Limited have attempted to avoid a Court claim being issued against them by attempting to confuse me with legal jargon and have not dealt with this issue within a timely manner. I believe this is an attempt to pervert the course of Justice in this matter, which I hope the Court will take in to account in making its decision, as you are attempting to circumvent your legal obligations in relation to this alleged agreement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

And a similarly worded on has gone to Triton

[MoonHawk]

The details of assignment will determine who you ask to remove the default (although I think you sue the one that put it on if it was incorrect and you seek damages).

 

According to the Information Commissioners Office guidelines, when a debt gets assigned, as part of the agreement, there is a definition on who is responsible for the data with the CRAs. Some of the OCs keep that responsibility some pass it on. What you need to do is check your file and see who's name is there now. If it is Triton (or the company that officially bought the debt) then the responsibility has passed on, otherwise it remains with the OC.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

The Default is definately still with Style (RBS) as I've checked it recently.

 

I'll see what comes of this latest letter then just get off an N1 and let the Court sort it out - it's Default removal I'm after, based on an unenforceable agreement, so I think it's Style I need to sue regardless as they Defaulted the account incorrectly and are still processing the Default data. (even if it is just balance updates)

[MoonHawk]

If you have not done so already have a read of Elizabeth1's claim against Cabot. It will help.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

If you have not done so already have a read of Elizabeth1's claim against Cabot. It will help.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

Thanks MoonHawk. Have to admit, I had read that before (to the point of being subscribed to the thread!) and hadn't thought how it would apply to this case.

 

Just to paraphrase, (so I can check my understanding of how this applies here) should I be using Elizabeth1's Skeleton Argument when it comes to Allocation/Hearing of this claim. I mean, using it to outline to the Court that the agreement is unenforceable and any issues of assignment are secondary to that agreement's status. I should also use it to outline that Style are processing data under the agreement, regardless of assignment, so are liable for that data. Also that the assignment to Triton has to be done in a way that is evidenced with paperwork - something Style haven't been able to grasp from my last two letters!

 

I may be reading between the lines a little, so am I right in making these assumptions? If not, how does this apply to this case?

 

Just tried to tip your scales, but it won't let me (I've given you too much reputation already, apparently!) but thanks anyway!

[MoonHawk]

Do your own skeleton argument (use what is applicable from Elizabeths). I would do one and stick it up or PM it for one or two of the legal eyes to give you feedback.

 

In my view the enforceability and proof that a default has occurred are the issues. So the the main basis of your claim is the same in my view ... "no CCA = no default" and there should be no default registered.

 

The data processing is a little more complex and I am not too much of an expert. I do know one thing you should be aware of ... according to ICO guidelines, who processes the data with the CRAs is determined when the account is sold. Some cases the OC carries on, some the new asignee takes it over.

 

Thanks but don;t worry about the scales.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

My POC are here; (I just need to amend it to include the new assignment issue they seem to be relying on)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/110150-car2403-rbs-plc-default.html#post1228746

 

I'll be issuing this claim with both as Defendants at the end of this week. I seem to have stumped them both on querying assignment, so I'll issue and use CPR to see what I get out of them, then let the Court decide where the obligations sit. (They've both had since 17 November to reply)

[car2403]

Here's the bit I'm adding to the POC (link above) regarding assignment and Triton as a 2nd Defendant;

 

ISSUE OF ASSIGNMENT AND CLAIMANTS CLAIM AGAINST THE 2nd DEFENDANT

 

 

1. During pre-litigation correspondence with the 1st Defendant, the Claimant was informed that the account in question was assigned to the 2nd Defendant on 29 December 2005 – in this correspondence, the 1st Defendant claimed that;

 

“[the 2nd Defendant] now holds all legal rights, authorities and obligations [to the account]… you should now address all further communications to [the 2nd Defendant] who are the legal owners of the debt”

 

 

2. In response to this letter, the Claimant wrote back to the 1st Defendant in the following terms;

 

2.1. The 1st Defendant continues to process and share data under the agreement, as already outlined in this statement – as such, the 1st Defendant is understood to be the Data Controller of such data.

 

2.2. The Claimant originally requested a copy of a deed of assignment if the debt was sold on from the 1st Claimant in a request dated 11 August 2007 – no such documentation was provided in relation to that request in the 1st Defendants response.

 

2.3. The Claimant disputes that any such assignment has effect in Law, making reference to s.136 Law of Property Act 1925, as no notice was provided to the Claimant when the alleged assignment took place;

 

“136. Legal assignments of things in action.-

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and

© the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

(2) This section does not affect the provisions of the Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

 

2.4. The 2nd Defendant has never corresponded at all with the Claimant in relation to the agreement or the debt under it

 

2.5. The Claimant will adduce evidence at trial that the 1st Defendant instructed a Debt Collection Agency (Wescot Credit Services Limited) to collect the outstanding balance.

 

2.6. The Claimant therefore claims against both Defendants, in the terms already outlined in this statement, in the hope this issue can be clarified during these proceedings and puts both Defendants to strict proof of such assignment taking place under s.136 Law of Property Act and strict proof of such Notice sent to the Claimant as outlined by s.196 Law of Property Act;

 

“196. — (1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

(2) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1 by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered..

 

I'll be issuing this claim on Monday via N1 to my Local Court, so any feedback on anything missing from this part - or the POC as a whole - would be appreciated.

[car2403]

I am concerned about this issue of assignment - considering Triton haven't responded to any of my letters or my S.A.R., I don't feel confident including them on the N1 as a 2nd Defendant at all.

 

How will this be seen by the Court? I've tried my best to contact these people - bar phoning them, for obvious reasons - to get the information I need from them to confirm how I should proceed. As long as they don't respond, I'm not going to be confident of issuing a claim. (Or, rather, not confident of issuing a claim that won't be thrown out meaning I have to start again from scratch when/if they do confirm what is going on)

 

It would be good to get some expert opinion on this one from a site helper/Mod/Admin. Also, this thread is relevant to my question also;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/41678-triton-credit-services-help.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/116365-triton-credit-services.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/6748-tesco-personal-finance-triton.html

 

Given that last thread, (Triton is "in-house" to the Royal Bank of Scotland, Style Financial Services Limited being a part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group) I'm tempted to leave this assignment issue out all together, but include the bit about Style/RBS being the "Data Controller" still. I just need some advice on how to approach it really.

 

Much appreciated!

[MoonHawk]

OK lets see if I can calm you down a little Gentle breaths

 

I have checked Companies House and both Triton and Style have addresses which when searched on then internet, show as belonging to RBS.

 

TRITON CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED, WATERHOUSE SQUARE, 138-142 HOLBORN, LONDON, EC1N 2TH

Company No. 03275895

 

STYLE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, 24/25 ST ANDREW SQUARE, EDINBURGH, EH2 1AF

Company No. SC074080

 

If you have received letters of assignment, then put both companies on (The OC and the assignee). In your claim say that the account has been assigned and when you asked the OC and the assignee to clarify the nature of the assignment and the legal duties of the parties, they have not responded, and as a result you have had no choice but to include both parties. Also state that due to the registration information at Companies House you also believe they are associated organisations.

 

I would say you must include both. I attended a case where the claim was against the OC only, and the case stopped in it's tracks because they just said we do not hold the liability anymore, and the judge asked for the claim to be amended.

 

You can ask for the judge to give you some slack because the other parties have not co-operated as required by CPR pre-action protocols.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[car2403]

OK lets see if I can calm you down a little Gentle breaths

 

And there's me thinking I was being calm for a change...

 

I have checked Companies House and both Triton and Style have addresses which when searched on then internet, show as belonging to RBS.

 

TRITON CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED, WATERHOUSE SQUARE, 138-142 HOLBORN, LONDON, EC1N 2TH

Company No. 03275895

 

STYLE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, 24/25 ST ANDREW SQUARE, EDINBURGH, EH2 1AF

Company No. SC074080

 

Am I ok issuing against the Holburn address, as they have never written/replied/confirmed they have the debt assigned to them? (I suppose I rely on what Style has already said, right?)

 

If you have received letters of assignment, then put both companies on (The OC and the assignee).

 

No letter of assignment ever received, apart from that response to my last one from Style "claiming" assignment took place - is this what you mean and can I rely on this in my claim?

 

In your claim say that the account has been assigned and when you asked the OC and the assignee to clarify the nature of the assignment and the legal duties of the parties, they have not responded, and as a result you have had no choice but to include both parties. Also state that due to the registration information at Companies House you also believe they are associated organisations.

 

Oh, I think you just answered that last one

 

I would say you must include both. I attended a case where the claim was against the OC only, and the case stopped in it's tracks because they just said we do not hold the liability anymore, and the judge asked for the claim to be amended.

 

That's exactly what I'm hoping this will avoid.

 

You can ask for the judge to give you some slack because the other parties have not co-operated as required by CPR pre-action protocols.

 

I suppose I can always ask for more information under CPR Part 18 once the claim has been issued/acknowledged as well, just to make sure.

 

Thanks for this Moonhawk - these probably seem really daft questions to you, but I haven't experienced any assignment issues like this. I'm learning - lots!

[patrickq1]

NICE TO SEE YOUR POST'S moon,,

i have a deed of asignment from 1993 with this deed of asignment they put a charge on my property and some months ago they finally contacted me.the charge is still there but is it valid as i gave them notice to prosecute me within ten days or i would deem the contract was null and void..sorry to but in on this thread car..

patrickq1

[MoonHawk]

Not at all daft Car. I asked the same questions to Curly and Tom until I started to learn

 

You can ask for info under the pre-action protocols too, and any document you have telling you of an assignment should be OK. You have been told there is one, have asked for clarification from the parties and have not received that clarification. So as far as I can see you are within your rights to put both parties on the claim to ensure clarification. Not sure if there is a legal way of asking the judge in the PoC, to excuse whoever does not hold any responsibility once it is clarified, without paying to amend the claim.

 

Cheers Patrickq. I do not know the legalities in relation to charges, and a legal head would be better answering. I would imagine that it depends on the circumstances around when the charge was placed, e.g if the amount in dispute in court was accurate and did not include penalty charges. Also I do not think you can just say a contract is null and void without the other party agreeing or a court saying so.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[MoonHawk]

Another point just came to mind Patrickq ... if the assignment was not "absolute" the assignee in their own could not have brought an action in court against you. Either the OC has to do it or be included in the proceedings. So I would look into the nature of the assignment and the name on the claim when the charge was applied for... i am hoping to be corrected by someone with more knowledge of law if I am not correct

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk