Assigning a Debt or Benefit of Contract? It is important to first provide the debtor with a notice of the assignment! Other points and issues that should be borne in mind: · In principle, the benefit of a contract can be legally assigned without consent, provided there is no express prohibition on assignment or, for example, a requirement that consent is obtained. · Where there is no restriction on assignment, the usual way of assigning the benefit of contractual rights is by statutory assignment.(they owned the debt) The assignment must be in writing, signed by the assignor, absolute (not purporting to be by way of charge only) and notice in writing must be given to the other contracting party (section 136, Law of Property Act 1925). · If a contract is not effectively assigned under statute, it may still be assigned under common law by an equitable assignment.(acting on behalf) an equitable assignment may exist where the requirements for a statutory assignment are not satisfied. The main practical consequence of an equitable assignment is that the assignee cannot bring an action in its own name against the third party, (acting on behalf) but must fall back on the rules governing equitable assignments and join the assignor as a party to the action. It is, in any event, desirable for notice of an assignment to be given to the third party because the third party will otherwise be entitled to continue to make paymen

good point, Howevr the agent is working on behalf so they can only issue a default notice in their name. the oc that is; not on the agentsl Also if the ageement is ended they can not as there is no ageement thanks to BRW The Termination is key, because it means they cannot then fix the defective Default Notice, as by then there is no longer a live Agreement capable of having a Default Notice issued upon it. Termination just means the ending of the Agreement, so can take a variety of forms. Amex will probably send a letter, assuming they have not done so already (search your home for that letter if you think they have already sent it), and the letter will say the Agreement is cancelled. Cancel/Terminate/End...all mean the same thing. Likewise, they can also Terminate by doing something that is not in keeping with there being a live Agreement. For example, if you had a Balance of £10k and had £500 of Arrears, then if they demand the full £10k Balance rather than just Arrears, then that is Termination. It is a clear signal that they regard the Agreement has ended, because the demand for the whole Balance shows they no longer regard you as having the Agreement benefit of being able to pay off the Balance stretching out into the future. This is important because s87/88 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out what a Creditor must do if they wish to Terminate a Regulated Agreement when the Consumer is in default of that Agreement (i.e. in Arrears or has done, or not done something the Agreement required). Read s87 and s88, and you will see what a Default Notice means, and why a Creditor must have a valid one before Termination if they wish to enjoy the benefits of s87...those being the right to take the next step, Terminate and/or demand early repayment of a sum only otherwise due in the future. If they fail to do the Default Notice and Termination stages correctly, then they blow their right to enjoy s87. That then limits them to claiming only what was actually due before Termination, such as the Arrears. Even then, the Arrears are only due if they have an original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement. No Agreement, then even the Arrears cannot be claimed. Read the first page or two of this Thread to get a feel for how the Default Notice and Termination issues work: A Tale of a Dodgy DN

by the terms of what a agreement fools

Thank you and well done viva cag

OK. i WOULD LIKE YOU TO WORK ON THE SUMS WHAT YOU HAVE PAID IN INTEREST OVER THE TERM. THE REASON IS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET MAD. THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE DO NOT LIKE THESE BANKS IT WILL HELP YOU FIGHT THESE PEOPLE Also you could just could find more infor now is the time to do the work..........

Have we check our statments do we know the sums Interest Principal sum Charges Total

the account is terminated keep all letters safe.

did you post that the loan also had payment protection did you claim on this or was it missold

H this is strange in regards to ringing the court good move in regards to other numbers have not got a clue, was there a judgment handy down or just the order i see you where not well hope everthing ok now as always BR lilly

have a read of this....... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html

So do we have the termination letter if so keep it safe this means there is no agreedment as per their poc Also the default notice keep it safe. Well done for getting so far and well done to all who have help. viva cag lilly white

Well this is not the easy bit however it is not to you to prove anything but to them. We know that you have docs etc we do not tell them anything that may help them , however they have to show them at trial if it gets that far....... ok i would now like you to read this thanks to BRW .. The Termination is key, because it means they cannot then fix the defective Default Notice, as by then there is no longer a live Agreement capable of having a Default Notice issued upon it. Termination just means the ending of the Agreement, so can take a variety of forms. Amex will probably send a letter, assuming they have not done so already (search your home for that letter if you think they have already sent it), and the letter will say the Agreement is cancelled. Cancel/Terminate/End...all mean the same thing. Likewise, they can also Terminate by doing something that is not in keeping with there being a live Agreement. For example, if you had a Balance of £10k and had £500 of Arrears, then if they demand the full £10k Balance rather than just Arrears, then that is Termination. It is a clear signal that they regard the Agreement has ended, because the demand for the whole Balance shows they no longer regard you as having the Agreement benefit of being able to pay off the Balance stretching out into the future. This is important because s87/88 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out what a Creditor must do if they wish to Terminate a Regulated Agreement when the Consumer is in default of that Agreement (i.e. in Arrears or has done, or not done something the Agreement required). Read s87 and s88, and you will see what a Default Notice means, and why a Creditor must have a valid one before Termination if they wish to enjoy the benefits of s87...those being the right to take the next step, Terminate and/or demand early repayment of a sum only otherwise due in the future. If they fail to do the Default Notice and Termination stages correctly, then they blow their right to enjoy s87. That then limits them to claiming only what was actually due before Termination, such as the Arrears. Even then, the Arrears are only due if they have an original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement. No Agreement, then even the Arrears cannot be claimed. Read the first page or two of this Thread to get a feel for how the Default Notice and Termination issues work: A Tale of a Dodgy DN To answer the questions raised by smouk: Quote: Originally Posted by banker_rhymes_with Parliament demands that you are allowed 14 clear/whole days, i.e. from Date of Service. Date of Service would be at least +2 Working Days from the day they Posted it, so there is no way you were given the time allowed. Hi BR - can you clarify where this is stated? ..... So be like a cat wait until it is time to strike

OK THE DEFAULT NOTICE IS A KILLER. OK. The POC are indeed vague, but that is because of the Northampton procedure.. . The claimant must prove its claim. You have to prove nothing! The procedure (generally) for litigation is as follows:- 1. Claim served (inc POC) 2. AOS filed 3. File/serve defence 4. Allocation questionnaires filed 5. Directions given 6. Disclosure/Inspection 7. Exchange statements 8. Listing 9. Trial You should wait until disclosure and see what it brings before sending letters for specific documents. The claimant will give you a list of the documents they intend to use to prove its claim. This will include, logically, the agreement, statements, default notice, correspondence common to the parties etc. You, at that stage can ask for inspection (copies of their docs). Theoretically, they cannot use any documents at trial not disclosed. You will also have to provide a list of documents upon which you intend to rely (not precedents, but actual docs - you probably won't have any other than a few letters) and provide inpection of any docs they want from you. So you see, the letters referred to above are only asking for that which you will be entitled to and some you are not. The letters request docs which relate to matters not central to the issues between the parties and are not proportionate to that in issue. The letters are a 'fishing expedition' and that will not be allowed by the court. Indeed they probably breach the rules (CPR) and be considered an attempt to cloud the 'true' issues. If the claimant does not disclose sufficient docs to prove its claim, they probably don't have them. You should at that stage write a short letter requesting the same and in default invite them to discontinue the action. You can make an application (N.244) to the court compelling the claimant to comply with disclosure and in default the claim be struck out

DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the CLAIM It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

so the default notice dated 23 july 2008 payment require by the 24 july 2008 well well poor halifax . ok i need to see the POC WHAT DID IT SAY. Also i would like you to read this.and understand what is being said or not. we will edit as we go a long. 1. It is denied that the matters pleaded in the Particulars of Claim actually disclose any cause of action. In particular:- a) It is denied that that the Defendant can have liability to "pay" the Claimant sums of money simply on account of "requests for payment" in relation to a halifax credit card- the only matters pleaded. No cause of action known to English Law exists on the basis of such "requests for payment" b) Neither the Claimant being HALIFAX which it appears (on the face of the Particulars, although due to their vagueness it is hard to know) to be being alleged were due c) In any event, it is denied that the Defendant has or ever has had liability to pay - whomever that may be - any sum whatsoever. 2. It is expressly denied the Defendant is liable to pay any money pursuant to contract or otherwise to the Claimant. 3. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the Defendant asserts that in particular, given that the original of the liability is said to be a credit card given by "HALIFAX(which is a person / entity / company not known to the Defendant), it will be the case, taking into account the amount of the liability, that the transaction and the underlying agreement (if any) between HALIFAX credit card and the Claimant would be regulated by the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. It is the express contention of the Defendant - again without prejudice to the contention that there is in fact no agreement - that any such agreement as exists does not comply with the Act. It is impossible to plead further in the absence of a pleading by the Claimant as to what the agreement was and what its terms were and the Defendant reserves the right further to plead Particulars of failure to comply in the event that the Claimant amends it Particulars of Claim to allege the agreement

The cca when did you take it out, what date was it before 2007. the rates in the agreedment are they the same as you where charged please check this. as per your statments do you have all your statments.

wish me well. i have now reread your tread and i see that you going on line to defend all the claim. ok we need to put in a defence. May i ask do we have a copy of the CCA also i see also that we do have a copy of the default notice.and there an issue with the default notice is this correct.

Well i have dealt with halifax and bos and to be honest i found them to be a walk in the park, NOW IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT 1st credit AND CAPQ..... LOOK ME UP.

May i ask where are you now. Do you have a court date.or do you have an agreedment with BOS

just looking in ok lilly white

Just a word on without prejudice it seems to me that we all get a little carry away with this. Trying to settle an issue should not be hidden in most cases debt exists however does it stands up in court. So the point is this 1/ yes there is a debt 2/ is it legal 3/ what is it made up of most debt is interest not the principal sum. 4/ if there is dca involved what is the value of the debt pennies. So imho I have now stop using WP letters I just tell them we will paid this if they agreed they get paid if not then let’s go to court. In general terms I have read all the moulds post let me be clear. Given the circumstance of all, claims can be dealt with, and to date it does seem to have worked….. So we will pay a full and final payment of……confirmation from the creditor and they get paid.

ok a lot to take in however Take some time reading what has been posted. So if you have a case go for the setaside that will stop the charging order in its tracks however a long battle Read the vjohn set aside tread and see how it works May i wish you the best of luck lilly white

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/202167-help-n244-form-please.html thanks to vjohn

Charging Order? The myth - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums