Red Debt Collection - Help needed

[jaygoku21]

Hi all, im new here and need some help i have used some info from this site and i have follow the natural process by sending a CCA request off for a debt owned around £2500 for a credit card. they have now come back to me with a CCA & terms and conditions for this after i requested the cca even though they were outside the time allocated. but there last letter did say that this is closed but if the CCA ever becomes avalaible they would be in contact. this has been going on since October 2010.

 

Just to make you all aware i received a CCA respoinse a Full Statement history as well as the term and conditions, 114 pages of it and the deed of assignment and agreement from lowell the last credit was 4th april 2007, does this mean im screwed? what next?

 

ive been ignoring them but have now received a letter from Red Debt collection regarding legal action.

[unclebulgaria67]

does this mean im screwed? what next?

 

Probably, as they have supplied the CCA and a statement showing the debt. But if the CCA is wrong in anyway, you might be able to contest. Can you scan/photograph, remove any identifiers and post up a photobucket link, so that people can have a look for you. Have you also got the default notice and can you also post that up, as that might also contain errors.

 

That is the next step. Looking at whether the creditors have made any mistakes. If they have then this can help you.

[dx100uk]

what about unlawful charges and ppi!

 

reclaim

[jaygoku21]

[jaygoku21]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/cca4h.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/cca3.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/cca2.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/89/cca1d.jpg/

here are the links to view the Documents

[jaygoku21]

i never ever got a default notice from the credit card vendor or Lowell?

[unclebulgaria67]

i never ever got a default notice from the credit card vendor or Lowell?

 

I think you should ask Egg for a copy of the default notice that was issued to you. Make an official request to them in writing.

[teaboy2]

I would hold off asking for the DN, and make sure it has been sold to lowells first (lowells and reds are same company just reds is next desk along in the room). If it has been sold by egg to lowell, then we can use the unlawful rescission of contract due to failure to serve an default notice making the debt unenforcable. Then if they take you to court strict them to proof that the DN was served, which unless they sent recorded they will not beable to prove it was served.

 

Also without an notice of assignment from the original creditor informing you that lowells have bought the debt, then lowells notice is irelevant, as under the law of propety act in order to enforce a debt the original creditor is has to send you a notice of assignment for the assignment to lowells to be asbsoloute, so lowells assigment is to red is not worth the paper it is written on without the assigment from OC to Detbor when it was sold to lowells.

[bernardski]

That looks like an application for a card not an actual agreement (i may be wrong), beware Red / Lowell / Hamptons or whatever name they try and use to scare people as they more often than not try to represent themselves as being in a far better position than they really are.

 

Lowell are notorius for buying debt in bulk for pennies in the pound on their real value but at the same time are equally well known their lacking of due dilligence and for not checking to see if the debts they buy are genuine, accurate, enforceable or even belonging to the actual person they are chasing.

 

Once they own a debt begins the fishing expedition of junk mailing everybody with the same name till someone responds. They are relentless and use progressively agressive techniquies to extract as much money as they possibly can.

 

I must say im not sure if what they have sent to you is indeed a valid CCA or not, if it is then you need to look at damage limitation.

Firstly as you have statements you need to carefully go through them and make a list of all charges they have made to the account and were you missold PPI? Which if so you should look at reclaiming and interest on it.

At the very least it could lead to decent reduction in this figure!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That appears to be a valid CCA.

A notice of assignment can come from the OC or the assignee or both.

[teaboy2]

yes its a valid cca, but in order to enforce the debt the assignor has to send the notice of assignment to the debtor before the assignee is entitled to enforce as per section 136 law of property act, also it has to be sent recorded delievery section 196 (4) of the act

[bernardski]

If the Brig thinks its valid then chances are it is! after re-reading it it seems to have all the prescribed terms included

Your also lightyears away from it being statute barred so you should look at reclaiming as much as possible against this debt even if only to reduce it somewhat.

 

Their current charges are £16 per charge, overlimt - late payment - returned payment, as opposed to the £20 per charge you were tied into with yours. The PPI is probably a definte on the card so start reclaiming and listing the charges to see what you can reclaim.

 

Good luck

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Having just read the Law of property act 1925 sect 196 (4) it states that it is deemed to have been served not that it must be served by Recorded delivery.

In fact others sections say notice may be left at the premise, this is related to property ie real estate.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have looked again and can see no valid challenge to the agreement I just disagree with the proposition that a default/assignment notice

must be sent by registered post, my interpretation of that section of the act, which is directed at property as in real estate,

and any such notice may be left at a property.

[unclebulgaria67]

So I think following the last few replies, I would still suggest requesting a copy of the default notice from Egg. They had to issue one to you and if you say that you didn't receive one, the you need a copy.

 

I would forget about the assignment issue for now, because as far as I can see it, there is a valid CCA, a debt evidenced by creditor statements and you should have had a letter saying that Lowells had been assigned the debt. The question is whether Egg did everything correctly.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You are most certainly entitled to a copy of the notice on request, there is no fee payable for this.

[teaboy2]

its not just directed at realestate, but any form property (otherwise it would be the law of realestate property act) and the transfer of such property. Read section 136 again and it states "debts" read section 192 and it states any notice subsection (4) is for when it is sent by post it is to be sent as registered post. Any notice includes notice of assignment.

 

The problem with asking for the DN right now is that without knowing for certain that the debt was indeed sold, then alerting egg to the fact the OP had not received the DN would allow them to remedy the failure of the DN - Where if it had been sold they can not and as such have committed unlawful rescission.

 

You need to SAR egg and not ask for the DN specifically.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I can't get it at present we are in the midst of a violent storm, post up the relevant wording if you can please, seems CAG. Cag is the only site responding

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Still can' access it TB does it use the words deemed to be served?

[teaboy2]

Hey brigadier here are the relevant sections below:

 

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 M15Trustee Act, 1925.

(2)This section does not affect the provisions of the M16Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

[F156(3)The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed [F157£30,000].]

And for delivery:

 

Basically no notice of assigment written by the OC's hand and sent to the debtor from the OC, means the DCA that purchased the debt has no legal right to the debt, until such notice is sent by the OC to the debtor by registered post as shown below.

 

196 Regulations respecting notices.

 

(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 [F196by 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.

(5)The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.

(6)This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court.

 

Note section 4 is the only section in reference to postal delivery others are by hand or in person i.e. subsections 1-3.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I see the get out being used ''shall ALSO be deemed to have been sufficiently served if sent by registered post it is subtle and open to abuse, it does imply all the other methods od service are ALSO in order for service.

I've seen terminology of this sort argued for hours without resolution an I think to contest service on this basis may well fail, considering the much amended condition of the 1925 act.

[teaboy2]

Registered post is registered post and vitally that section (ss4) has not been amended though your point on such admendments to acts would have to apply to all acts as each has been admended to considerable extent equal to / less than or greater than the law of property act (therefore leaving all legal arguments doom to failure according to the point you raised). But as it stands the Act is still the law, and i do not see why DCA and creditors should get away with not following the law by having the DCA send NOA's out that they maywell have created themselves just like some on here that have used 2008 logos on a supposed copy of a 2006 document. The law is there mainly to prevent such under-hand tactics. Its like me sending a letter to a stranger saying i have bought their credit card debt and all payments should now be made to me, though their card company has not said anything to them about it.

 

In order to comply with service without registered post then they would have to serve the NOA in person.

 

So the law is clear, the NOA must come from the original creditor and it must be either served in person or by registered post if sent by post, the key point in section 4 is "if sent by registered post". The use of the word "Also" only implies that if sent by registered post then it is deemed served just like it is when served in person under subsection 2-3. Though if service under section 2-3 is by post then it must be sent registered post in order to comply with subsection 4.

 

If you can not use the law of property act in defense to argue that the law states it must be sent registered post and by the Original Creditor, then their is no point of having such sections of law in the act. But they are there, so a judge in court must judge in accordance to the statutory law. He can not simply say that it does not apply as the act has been admended so many times, the fact it has been admended shows it is still a very much depended on act of law. The point it it is there and it clearly states "it will also be deemed as served if sent by registered post - so if its not sent by registered post then it is not deemed as served. simple as that. It is clear that if they do not follow the act then they are not entitled to the legal rights the debt/property until assignment has been completed in accourdance with act.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Semantis aside again the key is ''if sent'' and also the phrase'' left at the last known abode'' which can be interpreted as

meaning by standard postal means.

 

The premise of trying to derail action by stating that a notice has no been received when in fact it has been so delivered by other means,

is not acceptable IMHO

[teaboy2]

Semantis aside again the key is ''if sent'' and also the phrase'' left at the last known abode'' which can be interpreted as

meaning by standard postal means. Yes but if sent by post then it means any form of post, so it must be sent as registered post and left at last abode would imply left in person otherwise it would be posted to last adobe, and therefore would have to have been sent registered post to the last adobe.

 

The premise of trying to derail action by stating that a notice has no been received when in fact it has been so delivered by other means,

is not acceptable IMHO - But it has not been delievered by other means, as only the original creditor can send a Notice of Assignment (Not the DCA assignees) and must do so by registered post (if sent by post) or hand deliver it, in order for assignment to be abosolute - Without that the NOA's from assignees (DCA's) are worthless and the assignment is not absolute and therefore the DCA's (assignees) have no legal right to the debt or to enforce it.

 

The fact that a NOA has not been received from the Original creditor in accordance with section 136 and 196 (ss4) of the act makes any notice of assignment from the DCA irrelevant and not legally binding on the debtor. They key is that it MUST be sent by the Original creditor, and no such notice of assignment has been received by the OP from his/her original creditor (that am aware off), as such the NOA's from the DCA's are worthless pieces of paper, and the assignment is not absolute and therefore the assignees are not legally entitled to the debt or to enforce the debt.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am going to get one of my colleagues to research this, as I am inclined to the opinion at present there

is no prescribed order as to the use of of RP or RD only that it is deemed to be a ''method '' of service.