M+S Money Card - passed to Lowell Financial - Notice of Assignment

[pumpytums]

Hi just a quick question,

 

'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—'

 

 

Surely the assignor is the OC or am I missing something?

 

The definition of assignor is an individual who transfers ownership so the new owner cannot be the assignor as they don't originally own it. The new owner is the assignee. Is this correct?

 

This is a bit confusing. After all it makes sense the original owner gives you notice that they have sold it. Not that many legal things make sense.

 

 

Pumpytums

[tedney]

The NoA does not have to come from the Assignor, it can be issued by either the Assignor or the Assignee

Hello Magda

Am I correct that the NoA could be issued to the debtor by a "representative" of the OC, say a solicitor?

tedney

[tedney]

Surely the assignor is the OC or am I missing something?

Hello pumptytums

My understanding that the assignor is the OC.

I could be wrong:)

tedney

[MAGDA]

Hi just a quick question,

 

'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—'

 

 

Surely the assignor is the OC or am I missing something?

 

The definition of assignor is an individual who transfers ownership so the new owner cannot be the assignor as they don't originally own it. The new owner is the assignee. Is this correct?

 

This is a bit confusing. After all it makes sense the original owner gives you notice that they have sold it. Not that many legal things make sense

 

 

Pumpytums

 

Hi Pumpytums, the Assignment itself (Deed of Assignment) must be at the hand of the Assignor (who, as you correctly say is the OC), BUT the notice of assignment can come from either: the OC or the Assignee.

 

Hello Magda

Am I correct that the NoA could be issued to the debtor by a "representative" of the OC, say a solicitor?

tedney

 

Hi Tedney, yes, that's right, it can be issued by a representative, usually it would be the new owner of the debt, the Assignee. I know it would make sense for the OC to send the Notice, which although they sometimes do, is not a requirement.

 

Hello pumptytums

My understanding that the assignor is the OC.

I could be wrong:)

tedney

 

That's right:)

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

I have it in black and white from one US company that they do not issue NoA's and from a certain DCA that they issue(not forward on) the NoA's

[MAGDA]

This might help to explain a bit more, re: NoA:

 

Originally posted by pt:

 

 

20. Notice in writing.

 

 

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3. The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.

The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee17.

In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient18.

It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority19.

If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque20

[pumpytums]

Thanks Magda that helps a great deal,

one more question if you don't mind does the NOA have to be written by the OC or can it simply be on the new owners paper saying that they bought it?

Additionally the date on the NOA should this match the deed? Which as you have said is 100% under the hand of the OC.

 

Pumpytums

[MAGDA]

Hi, it can just be on the new owner's paper, I think the important thing that any court would look at it whether you have received notice in sufficient detail, not whether it came from the OC or the Assignee (new owner) - that doesn't seem to make any difference legally.

 

Yes, the date on the NoA should match the deed and if it doesn't, then it is ineffectual :

 

Extract from Firstdale Ltd v Gerald Joseph Quinton:

 

"The defendant's argument proceeds on the basis that under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, valid notice of an assignment can only be effected if the date of the assignment is stated in the notice. This is wrong as a matter of law: see Van Lynn Developments Ltd v. Pelvis Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607. If the notice of assignment describes the assignment by reference to a wrong date, there is authority that the notice is invalid because it has described a non-existent document: see W F Harrison & Co v. Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419 as explained in Van Lynn Developments, supra. Where a copy of the written assignment is sent to the debtor there is no question of misdescription."

 

So if a date is stated on the NoA, it must be correct (tie in with the Date stated on the Deed) but if no date is stated on the Notice, then it is still valid.

 

Hope this helps, Magda

[jonnyb1978]

Inteesting thread and there is something i need clarifying.

Got an alledged debt from almost 6 years ago so nearly SB (Original creditor Hutchison 3G). Last month i recieved a letter from DCA (Roxburge uk) who say they are 'acting on behalf of the above named client' basically saying they want paying up.

 

This week now Hutchsin 3G have been omitted from a new letter recieved and appararently the client is HFO Capital threatening court and/or field agents etc etc

 

These are the only 2 letters in nearly 6 years i have ever recieved.

 

So before i send a 'prove the debt is mine' letter.

Can i send a letter stating something on the lines of this with a few added quoted about the NOA....

 

....' ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

i am bemused as to why you are writing to me about this alledged debt. First you say your client is Hutchison 3g then a second letter arrives saying my debt is with HFO Capital. As i have failed to recieve any notice of assignment by any of the above named companies i therefore note that this alledged debt has not been passed on legally from the OC and should immediately be passed back. As a result all correspondance should cease and all my details removed from your system etc etc etc...

 

Would i be in my right here. Are they obliged to send a NOA to me??

[cerberusalert]

jonnyb1978

Just send the 'prove the debt is mine' letter first. You can ask about the NOA later, besides the more you play letter 'ping-pong' with them the nearer the SB status becomes.