Asda Credit Card/Santander/Viking

[nicklea]

Although the issue of notice of assignment should really have been covered properly within the actual defence itself, I guess you could raise it in the witness statement. Maybe say at the appropriate point in the witness statement something like:-

 

I have no recollection of receiving any letter from the Claimant in June 2010. I am now aware from the Law of Property Act 1925 that any notice should have been sent by recorded delivery or special delivery for it to be sufficiently served. It is very rare for me to ever get any recorded delivery or special delivery letters so I am certain that I would remember receiving a recorded delivery letter about an alleged debt that I owe.

 

Then with regard to point 13 of their witness statement I would suggest something like:-

 

The claimant's solicitors sent me a letter dated 10/9/2010 which I received on xx/xx/2010 containing, amongst other things, a copy of a notice of assignment. This notice of assignment was received by me after the claim was issued and it is my understanding that notice may only be given before proceedings are commenced.

 

Also, I noticed in your defence that you didn't mention anywhere about default charges. You really do need to claim those back. Perhaps something along the lines of:-

 

I have noticed on various statement received from the original creditor that various default charges have been added to my account. I believe that these are an unfair penalty and, in any event are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

To be honest with you, the above things should have been properly pleaded in your original defence. Putting them in your witness statement is just trying to get it in fromt of the judge in the hope that he is in a good mood and will allow you to refer to it in your defence.

[nicklea]

Reading county Court, (fast track)

 

10th December, The District judge upheld the law and struck out the claimants claim, MBNA (the original creditor) had never sent the defendant a Notice of Assignment.

 

Judges are known to get the law wrong, you know . That is one reason for having the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

 

Section 136 is quite clear and also, if he had been pointed to the appropriate authorities, then he would have made the correct ruling instead of misdirecting himself as he appears to have done in this case.

 

EDIT also have a look in Halsburys Laws of England if you have access

Edited January 24, 2011 by nicklea

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nick

 

I still take your substantive point, but I'm still curious.

 

If somebody (perhaps a past DCA) later claims to own a debt based on their own NOA and account numbers that they may have had from previous dealings how is one to validate their ownership in court?

 

vic

[nicklea]

The right of action doesn't come just from the section 136 notice but there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the assignment itself, not just the section 136 notice, that gives them any claim against you.

 

If they were to bring a claim against you then they would need to prove that the assignment exists and is effectual in law. There is also case law that you are entitled to view the assignment anyway to ensure that the assignee can give you good discharge:- Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nick

 

I think that this case, Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824, is a bit peripheral to this argument (although Denning was a good judge).

 

I am not a lawyer but am just curious about the importance of the claimant demonstrating ownership prior to court appearance; this is not an academic question given the current practice of DCAs.

 

x

 

v

[diddydicky]

Although the issue of notice of assignment should really have been covered properly within the actual defence itself, I guess you could raise it in the witness statement. Maybe say at the appropriate point in the witness statement something like:-

 

I have no recollection of receiving any letter from the Claimant in June 2010. I am now aware from the Law of Property Act 1925 that any notice should have been sent by recorded delivery or special delivery for it to be sufficiently served. It is very rare for me to ever get any recorded delivery or special delivery letters so I am certain that I would remember receiving a recorded delivery letter about an alleged debt that I owe.

 

Then with regard to point 13 of their witness statement I would suggest something like:-

 

The claimant's solicitors sent me a letter dated 10/9/2010 which I received on xx/xx/2010 containing, amongst other things, a copy of a notice of assignment. This notice of assignment was received by me after the claim was issued and it is my understanding that notice may only be given before proceedings are commenced.

 

Also, I noticed in your defence that you didn't mention anywhere about default charges. You really do need to claim those back. Perhaps something along the lines of:-

 

I have noticed on various statement received from the original creditor that various default charges have been added to my account. I believe that these are an unfair penalty and, in any event are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

To be honest with you, the above things should have been properly pleaded in your original defence. Putting them in your witness statement is just trying to get it in fromt of the judge in the hope that he is in a good mood and will allow you to refer to it in your defence.

 

it would not be very prudent to send such a letter if- as the OP is suggesting- he has already admitted receiving the NOA- his argument appears to be that it was sent by the assignee rather than the OC (apologies if i am mistkane in that)

[consumeredge]

Hi Diddydicky

 

spot on...

 

For anyone else who's interested

 

Dave had the good sense to request from MBNA a copy of the events log for the account, MBNA sent copy which clearly showed time and date stamped the account was in fact sold to The Lewis Group 2 days before CL Finance Limited alleged MBNA sold the account to them, MBNA's event log was submitted within the defence, whilst many know CL Finance Limited is a trading title of The Lewis Group, neither the Lewis Group or CL Finance will admit to it, CL Finance then tried o bluff the Judge and this is the reason the DJ ordered the claimant (CL Finance Ltd) provide a copy of MBNA's NoA to the defendant, they couldn't, neither could MBNA, hence the vague letter they gave cohen.

 

The judge far from not knowing the law acted correctly.

 

Santander have never responded to ER's request about the missing NoA, time and again CL Finace limited cannot be trusted and I'm sure when we get to the bottom of it all, the account was not sold to CL Finance Limited, it was sold/assigned to The Lewis Group Limited

[nicklea]

diddydicky,

 

I read it that she hadn't received a copy of the notice of assignment until they sent it to her in the letter dated 10th september. However, as you say, I could well be mistaken, but they certainly didn't admit to receiving any notice in their defence.

[nicklea]

consumeredge,

 

I am afraid that you, and from what you have described, the judge as well, are not correct on the matter of who can give notice.

 

If you have access to Halsburys Laws of England then please have a read of the relevant part - "The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person" - if you don't believe me.

 

There is also case law going right back to the following:-

 

Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA (where the notice was given by the executor of a sub-assignee)

 

Section 136 is quite clear that the actual assignment itself must be in writing under the hand of the assignor, however it only says that any notice must be in writing - it doesn't say that it must be from the assignor.

[consumeredge]

Nicklea

 

Dave's case was won, ironic that you dispute the judge was wrong where during the time the case was live DJ Burgess, DJ Davidson, DJ Lett and DJ Darbyshire all reveiwed the case.

 

Whereas you now appear confused with the ER's defence the reason is that a full Statement of Case for Defence was also filed with the Allocation Questionaire if you read the the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Court it opens "District Judge xxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims court. the judge then further adds Upon consideration of the Allocation Question....

 

The defence you quote was the defence sent on-line as an intial repsonce to the summons issued by the NCCBC.

 

The Statement of case for defence being somewhat more indepth contains the relevant parts of the Law of Property Act applicable to this case , obviously the judge placed merit on ER's staement of case for defence and deemed it worthy of investigation.

 

And yes, You completely misread it

[consumeredge]

Chrissy

 

you pm'd me last week asking if I would help, you have my e-mail address

 

Kind regards

 

Clive

[nicklea]

Whereas you now appear confused with the ER's defence the reason is that a full Statement of Case for Defence was also filed with the Allocation Questionaire if you read the the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Court it opens "District Judge xxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims court. the judge then further adds Upon consideration of the Allocation Question....

 

The defence you quote was the defence sent on-line as an intial repsonce to the summons issued by the NCCBC.

 

The Statement of case for defence being somewhat more indepth contains the relevant parts of the Law of Property Act applicable to this case , obviously the judge placed merit on ER's staement of case for defence and deemed it worthy of investigation.

 

And yes, You completely misread it

 

consumeredge,

 

The OP has only refered to her defence on one occasion, in post #55. From what you have said you are clearly advising her by PM or otherwise off-forum. If the OP chooses to only share some of what has happened - which she is perfectly entitled to do - then I can only make suggestions based on what she shares here. At no point has the OP stated that she has responded to any written communications from the Claimant before the claim was issued - so how can I have totally misread that?

 

When it comes to:-

 

if you read the the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Court it opens "District Judge xxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims court. the judge then further adds Upon consideration of the Allocation Question....

 

 

obviously the judge placed merit on ER's staement of case for defence and deemed it worthy of investigation.

I'm sorry, but this is just a standard form of words that you will find on every notice of allocation and doesn't mean anything special. Unless there has been an application for summary judgment then any sort of defence, including just a bare denial of all the facts, will lead to this.

 

So I would suggest that you are wrong if you think that a district judge has given this anything more than a cursory glance or took time to consider the actual meaning of a particular section of a particular act before allocating it to the small claims track. The merit of the defence is to be decided at any hearing, it is not to be decided when the allocation to track is made.

 

I noticed another thread, which is now locked, where you said this:-

 

Docman

 

I do indeed have a lot of experince

...

I submitted this for a client in May, where the DJ complimented my presentation, the hearing lasted 6 minutes.

...

If you need to know what qualifies me to produce a defence you disagree with I work in the civilian sector of goverment Solely contracted to the MOJ.

link to the thread is here as it's been locked:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?265527-Howard-Cohen-CL-Finance-NEW-CASE

 

I assume from this that you are either a barrister or solicitor and from the last part that you may, possibly, work for the CPS.

 

If this is the case then I'm sure you know Archbold back to front. Might I suggest that you look in some similar reference to understand the correct situation with regard to notice of assignment.

 

Dave's case was won, ironic that you dispute the judge was wrong where during the time the case was live DJ Burgess, DJ Davidson, DJ Lett and DJ Darbyshire all reveiwed the case.

 

First of all, see above for my comments on these DJs 'reviewing' the case.

 

I am very glad that Dave won his case. However, I am sure that you have come across situations where very persuasive advocacy can overcome any 'inconvenient' facts that don't help your case and I would suggest that this is a fortunate example of this. I have no doubt that you are very persuasive in court. It also helps when the other side is not so persuasive as one of your clients mentioned in his thread:-

 

Many thanks to CE you know who you are, your info / input was invaluable!!!Good luck with K4, hope it turns out OK for her!!!

 

Oh and special thanks to Cohen's for sending the most useless agent I have ever had the pleasure of sharing the court with!!!!

 

However, most people who view or post on this forum don't have the money for legal advice and can't obtain it pro bono - hence they turn to forums like this for help.

 

As a result, a lot of people have to face claimants themselves and, more often than not, are not as persuasive as a professional. Consequently, it is a lot harder for them to overcome any 'inconvenient' facts.

 

So, leaving people who read this forum with the impression that what you say is correct could lead to them attempting to defend a claim when they have no grounds to do so and incurring extra costs as a result. I would suggest that this is not a good idea.

 

Just out of interest, I have quoted some case law to back up my position and I can get you an awful lot more. I wonder if you can give me ANY single reported case that backs up your contention - I would suggest that the answer to that is no.

 

Finally, you appear to be soliciting work via PM or otherwise from people who post on this forum. May I ask if you are charging them for this?

[diddydicky]

he also forgot to mention that in daves case- there was no admission from him that he had received the NOA

 

as i said before (and i dont work for the moj) IMO that moment that a debtor admits receipt of a NOA (whoever it comes from- if given in the hand of the OC) then it is served and the method of service becomes irreleavant

 

you are only ever going to stand a chance with the improperly served argument (IMO) where the debtor has/is making a positive assertion that he never received a NOA from anyone.

[nicklea]

Hi nick

 

I think that this case, Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824, is a bit peripheral to this argument (although Denning was a good judge).

 

I am not a lawyer but am just curious about the importance of the claimant demonstrating ownership prior to court appearance; this is not an academic question given the current practice of DCAs.

 

x

 

v

 

vic,

 

It's to do with a Latin phrase locus standi. In order to start legal proceedings a party must have a right of appearance in court. This is basically to stop bystanders getting involved with court claims on the basis that they have no interest in the outcome of the litigation.

 

So, a DCA will need to show that they have any right to take you to court. Given that the original agreement will have been between you and the original creditor then this can only be done by assignment – assuming that you didn't sign a new agreement with the DCA.

 

 

There are two types of assignment, by statute – the Law of Property Act – and equitable.

 

 

With an equitable assignment, notice does not have to be given to the debtor. However, an equitable assignment has the primary practical disadvantage that in any claim by the assignee they must be joined by the assignor as a co-claimant - Performing Right Society Ltd v London Theatre of Varieties Ltd [1924] AC 1.

 

 

So the DCA can only commence proceedings against you in it's sole name if there has been a statutory assignment.

 

 

For a statutory assignment to be effectual in law and so give the DCA the right to any legal remedy against you then express notice in writing must have been given to you before proceedings commenced. There are various cases covering this see for example:- Warner Brothers Records Inc v Rollgreen Ltd (1976) 1 QB 430 ,and Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965] 1 QB 101.

 

 

Despite what consumeredge keeps saying here, notice can come from any party it does not need to come from the assignor. The Van Lynn case is an example of that where the notice came from the assignee's solicitors not from the assignor. The other two cases above are also examples of where notice was given by the assignee and the cases failed not because notice was given by the assignee but because notice had been given too late.

 

 

A couple of other things to be aware of. The assignment is made subject to any equities having priority over the right of the assignee. What this means is that if you have a claim or right of set off against the original creditor then you also have this right agaisnt the assignee - Business Computers Ltd v Anglo-African Leasing Ltd [1977] 2 ALL ER 741 : "…a debt which arises out of the same contract as that which gave rise to the assigned debt, or is closely connected with that contract, may be set off against the assignee…"

 

 

So, if you have a credit card case then you can set off the default charges and interest thereon applied by the original creditor against any claim that the assignee might make against you.

 

 

Secondly, if a case has been started against you and in the meantime the claimant assigns the debt to someone else then they cannot just substitute the new assignee as claimant in the court case - Firstdale Ltd v Quinton [2004] EWHC 1926 (Comm)

 

 

"Further, although a statutory assignee takes subject to equities which go to the substance of the debt assigned, he does not take subject to the procedural status of the assignor at the time of the assignment. Thus, if after the commencement of proceedings for the recovery of a debt, the claimant were to assign the debt to an assignee and give notice of the assignment to the defendant, it would not be open to the assignee simply to conduct the proceeding as if he were standing in the shoes of the assignor unless he were joined as a claimant under CPR 19.2(4) and proved his title to sue as assignee."

 

 

This actually happened to me with a case involving Morgan Stanley a few years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that Van Lynn is only peripheral, but actually, seeing the assignment is vital to the case as it is only by the assignment that the assignee will have a right of action. There have been several cases where the notice of assignment has wrongly described the assignment such as it's date etc and held to be ineffective. There are also examples of assignments that it was alleged were made to companies that it turned out hadn't actually been incorporated at the time of the assignment and so were clearly fictitious. None of this would have come to light if the debtor hadn't insisted on seeing the actual document of assignment.

 

 

Hope this helps

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nick

 

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, it does help a lot.

 

However I'm still confused about how one 'sees' the document of assignment prior to court action without contacting the alleged debt purchaser (which I took you to be counselling against); or is this something that can only be effectively challenged once they commence proceedings?

 

x

v

[consumeredge]

CL Finance Limited sent "Notice of Assignment" to the defendant stating the account was assigned ABSOLUTE on the 9th June 2010.

 

For that statement to be effective in law the original creditor is obliged to send Notice of Assignment to the debtor, Santander have never sent a Notice of Assignment therefore the assignment CL Finance hold is an EQUITABLE assignment as a consequence the assignee (CL Finance Limited) cannot bring action against the debtor in there own name and must fall back on the rules governing Equitable Assignments and join the Assignor (Santander) as a party to the action.

 

Santander were sent notice by the defendant yet refuse to respond

 

Hence the opening defence

 

 

"The Defendant has never received written confirmation from Santander Consumer Credit Services Ltd Limited that account number ********** was sold absolute to the Claimant as the Claimant’s solicitor alleges, and as defined by Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925"

 

It's true, Anybody can send a "Notice of Assignment" however without the original creditor also sending "Notice of Assignment" to confirm they have assigned to account over, the assignee has no standing in the court.

 

Cohens tied to avoid this by stating in their WS where the defendant states Santander have never sent notice please refer to "AMS 4" AMS4 is CL Finances own NoA and not the required Notice of Assignment from Santander.

[diddydicky]

the law of property act i beleive states that the NOA must be in the Original Creditors "Hand"- not that the original creditor must notify the debtor directly

 

thus if the assignment is in the hand of the creditor but sent by the assignee- or indeed anyone elseit would be valid (IMO)

 

the purpose of the NOA is to bring the fact of the assignment to the attention of the recipient (debtor) and LOPA states how this is to be acheived

 

HOWEVER if the debtor admits to having receive the NOA- then it wouldn,t matter if it had been by registered post or by carrier pidgeon- once the purpose of the NOA is achevied (bringing the assignment to the attention of the debtor) THEN the method of service would be irrelevant- no prejudice is caused to the debtor

 

ONLy if the debtor denies having received the NOA- would the method of service become an issue (IMO)

[victoria_siempre]

Hi edge

 

Sorry to be thick, but this is part of what I'm asking.

 

nick is arguing that a NOA from the debt purchaser is enough and provides case law?

 

x

 

v

[consumeredge]

Hi Vic

 

If an original creditor sends you a Notice of Assignment and states the account was sold Absolute and you then receive a notice from the DCA also stating the account was sold to them Absolute, then in the eyes of the law that is Absolute, the original creditor has waived all rights and duties and the DCA own it lock stock and barrel.

 

If however you only receive a Notice of Assignment from a DCA the assignment is classed as Equitable, meaning the DCA is prohbited from taking any legal action against you in their own name, any summons has to be issued by the original creditor with the DCA named as a party to the claim.

 

With an account classed as Equitable the Debtor is entitled to ignore the DCA "Assignee" and continue to make payment to the original creditor, it is up to the original creditor to then to pass the payment on to the "Assignee"

 

CL Finance's "Deed of Assignment" when you veiw it is actually only a contract giving them the right to buy discharged accounts, there is a clause where they stipulate any payments made to the original creditor have to be forwarded by certain day of the following month

 

It might be help to google Equitable Notice of Assignment to clarify it further.

 

Kind regards

 

C

[nicklea]

Oh god, where to start?

 

Ok, let's take this in easy manageable chunks.

 

CL Finance Limited sent "Notice of Assignment" to the defendant stating the account was assigned ABSOLUTE on the 9th June 2010.

 

...

 

Hence the opening defence

 

"The Defendant has never received written confirmation from Santander Consumer Credit Services

 

CL Finance may claim that they sent it but at no point has the OP said that they received this letter prior to legal proceedings being commenced and in the case of any notice of assignment it is the receipt not the sending that is important. If you know this fact through private messages with the OP then great, but the OP has chosen not to share this with the forum.

 

By the way, if the OP chooses not to share this information with us then have you cleared it with her - I presume she is another of your clients - that it is ok for you to share this information with us.

 

I would suggest that, as long as she has not replied to CL Finance prior to the claim being issued, receipt of the notice of assignment is plausibly deniable. Or at least, it was until you went round sharing all this information that the OP might not have wanted shared on this forum.

 

 

For that statement to be effective in law the original creditor is obliged to send Notice of Assignment to the debtor, Santander have never sent a Notice of Assignment therefore the assignment CL Finance hold is an EQUITABLE assignment as a consequence the assignee (CL Finance Limited) cannot bring action against the debtor in there own name and must fall back on the rules governing Equitable Assignments and join the Assignor (Santander) as a party to the action.

 

...

 

It's true, Anybody can send a "Notice of Assignment" however without the original creditor also sending "Notice of Assignment" to confirm they have assigned to account over, the assignee has no standing in the court.

 

You keep on mentioning this but you don't provide anything to back up your opinion.

 

Now I am sure that as a legal professional, solely contracted to the MOJ as you tell us (not too sure why you feel the need to underline that point?) I am sure that you are quite aware of the content of the relevant section, but for the benefit of others reading this I will include it in full here:-

 

Legal assignments of things in action.

136.

— (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.

 

 

Now this section deals firstly with the assignment itself and says that 1) the assignment must be absolute, 2) it must be in writing and 3) it must be under the hand of the assignor - that is it must be signed by him

 

The next part deals with giving notice and says that express notice in writing must be given to the person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt. However, you will notice that the section is silent on who must give that notice. It simply says that written notice must be given - it does not prescribe who by.

 

I would suggest that the section is entirely clear on the face it of it as to what is meant.

 

However, since you don't seem to believe me, I will back this up with case law. I could quote you a whole load of cases but I think that just one will do. In Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 the Court of Appeal, under Lord Denning MR held that notice of assignment HAD been given when the debtor received notice from the assignee.

 

Actually, the debtor received notice from the asignee's solicitors and this was not even any formal notice of assignment but just a simple letter that just referred in passing to the debt that had been assigned to their client.

 

Now, I need to stop and think. Who should I believe? Lord Denning, who at the time was Master of the Rolls, and one of the most well known judges of recent history and the other Court of Appeal judges that agreed with him or some guy that I know nothing about who claims that he works for the MOJ?

 

Hmmm, difficult decision - not.

 

I am sure that you sincerely believe the contention that you are putting forward. However, I have to stop and think who's opinion is a judge likely to give more weight to - yours or Lord Dennings? I think the answer to that is obvious.

 

I am sure that you have managed to convince a number of DJs that you are correct and your clients have no doubt been very lucky. But the day that you come up against an opponent or a judge that understands this act correctly then you won't have a leg to stand on.

 

I have certainly come across judges, solicitors and barristers that don't know all the details of all the acts they are dealing with - how can anyone know all this? Some people have this impression that judges are super-human beings that have an absolutely encylopeadic knowledge of the whole minutiae of all areas of the law and different authorities at their fingertips, but this isn't the case. So, it is not surprising that a persuasive advocate can sometimes gloss over 'inconvenient' facts.

 

As I've said above, if you feel that you can point to just one reported case that supports your contention that notice MUST come from the assignor then just let people know about it.

 

I don't believe that you will be able to, but if you feel up to the challenge then, as the Americans say, bring it on.

 

I will take your continuing silence in response to this as your acceptance that I am correct.

[nicklea]

 

It might be help to google Equitable Notice of Assignment to clarify it further.

 

Kind regards

 

C

 

It might actually help to read some law books

[the_shadow]

I have to say I agree with Nick and DD on this, the act states notice must be given and received it does not state who must send it.

 

S.

 

Law of Property Act section 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

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nick

 

I follow your argument and precedents entirely but my question remains; how can I satisfy myself that the entity claiming a NOA under the hand of the assignor is valid prior to some bandit threatening me with court action; this is a very practical question given that said bandit may well have demonstrated a number of fibs and administrative errors along the way?

 

Am I being really dim here or might some other statute or case law apply?

 

x

 

v

[the_shadow]

Hi nick

 

I follow your argument and precedents entirely but my question remains; how can I satisfy myself that the entity claiming a NOA under the hand of the assignor is valid prior to some bandit threatening me with court action; this is a very practical question given that said bandit may well have demonstrated a number of fibs and administrative errors along the way?

 

Am I being really dim here or might some other statute or case law apply?

 

x

 

v

 

I think its worth bearing in mind that this law/act is from 1925, therefore a different era when gentlemen were gentlemen etc and financial institutions dealt with people fairly and didnt attempt to hoodwink people.

 

S.

[consumeredge]

Law of Property Act section 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.

 

the Notice of Assignment written and served upon the defendant was not written or signed under the hand of the Assignor. Had this been a notice of assignment signed by Santander and served upon the defendant by Howrd Cohen then this would have complied wth the act according to the wording of the act.