Cap1 & CCA return

[lexis200]

Oh dear. Dear dear dear.

 

That was definitely a groan:D

[Number6]

Please don't think I'm trying to be officious, and I'm certainly not a member of the site team but can we try and keep this thread clear of 'clutter' and off-topic posts? It's a very important thread and difficult enough to navigate as it is and I'd hate to see people put off by having to wade through OT posts as well.

 

Thanks everyone.

[car2403]

Please don't think I'm trying to be officious, and I'm certainly not a member of the site team but can we try and keep this thread clear of 'clutter' and off-topic posts? It's a very important thread and difficult enough to navigate as it is and I'd hate to see people put off by having to wade through OT posts as well.

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Well said that man! (Or woman!)

 

[A+]

Number6, no offence taken, sensible point, suppose the stress of it all just caused us to need to Take A Break

So... the two mentions of Consumer Credit Agreement 1974 appearing twice at top of letter is relevant after all it seems. I am going to SAR (having never done one) ALL of my alleged creditors and use that other ruling (30.14?? or similar) to see if i can get to see the original, still can't believe that could possibly work, what if i lost it?! But if i do, i will update you all on this thread. I have a feeling this is badly doctored and time to push to see their hand if they will let me. Only thing i would say is that if it is doctored, they are not going to let me see it surely? In which case i would have to presumably go to court to get an order on them, and i don't know if i have time and money for this right now, especially when i scratching my head wondering where i will get my first Ten Pound note for my first SAR!

[Number6]

No worries A+

 

Don't forget that if they do take you to court then you will be able to force them to either a) produce the original agreement, not a copy, the original signed bit of paper or b) produce a sworn witness, who you are entitled to cross-examine, who will state on oath that they know for a fact that the copy is an accurate and true copy of the original document.

 

They might wave a doctored bit of paper at you now in the hope that you'll capitulate but if it goes to court it's a whole different game!

[MAGDA]

Hi, don't know if anyone has any experience of this. I recently had some claims brought against me by Link. Some were struck out and one was discontinued by Link. They stated at the time that the orignal creditor, GE Money, ex FN, wanted to buy the debt back. The agreement with GE Money had been terminated and the debt legally assigned to Link. Now suddenly out of the blue I have received paperwork from GE Money stating that a 'Reverse Write off' has taken place and the debt is again owed to them. Link dropped their claim against me as they could not respond fully to my defence and just wondering if a debt can be assigned then just handed back to the OC when things don't work out. Someone else on the forum is potentially in the same situation as Link has discontinued the claim against them also and they are planning to hand the debt back to GE. Any advice?? thanks, Magda

[semyaza]

The other person in Magda's post is me. I have had a discontinued letter from Asset Link saying it is going to GE money (original account with First National).

 

If it's any help I was looking through this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/165197-default-notice-re-issue.html

[A+]

No worries A+

 

Don't forget that if they do take you to court then you will be able to force them to either a) produce the original agreement, not a copy, the original signed bit of paper or b) produce a sworn witness, who you are entitled to cross-examine, who will state on oath that they know for a fact that the copy is an accurate and true copy of the original document.

 

They might wave a doctored bit of paper at you now in the hope that you'll capitulate but if it goes to court it's a whole different game!

 

 

Blimey, i didn't know they could make a sworn statement? Surely then, they will just do that?! Nobody could disprove them, and after all, its not like these are honest people we are talking about. They do WHATEVER it takes to get their muddy paws on hard cash. That deflates me a bit, i thought it was NO CCA NO CASE. Ho hum

[MAGDA]

Looking at Surfaceagent's post (#4) on the link Semyaza has posted above, if the agreement is to be reinstated by the selling (or return) of the debt to the OC, wouldn't I need to give my permission before this can be done??? Magda

[lexis200]

Hi, don't know if anyone has any experience of this. I recently had some claims brought against me by Link. Some were struck out and one was discontinued by Link. They stated at the time that the orignal creditor, GE Money, ex FN, wanted to buy the debt back. The agreement with GE Money had been terminated and the debt legally assigned to Link. Now suddenly out of the blue I have received paperwork from GE Money stating that a 'Reverse Write off' has taken place and the debt is again owed to them. Link dropped their claim against me as they could not respond fully to my defence and just wondering if a debt can be assigned then just handed back to the OC when things don't work out. Someone else on the forum is potentially in the same situation as Link has discontinued the claim against them also and they are planning to hand the debt back to GE. Any advice?? thanks, Magda

 

I would love to know how they can do this when they have written a debt off. In order for them to do that, surely they will have had to file an insurance report in order to get payment for the bad debt, and they will have received a tax write off. In addition to this, they will have been paid a percentage of the amount of the debt by the DCA in order for them to buy it.

 

How then, can they buy it back, unless they give back the tax relief, and re-imburse the insurance company? How likely is it that that occurs? I think rather more likely is that they'll buy it back then flog it to the next DCA on their list - more money made for them.

 

In the same vein, how do they justify selling a debt in the first place so that the full balance can be claimed, when that debt has been written off and insurance and tax relief claimed? Does that not mean there is no debt to be sold?

 

This all seems very dubious to me.

[lexis200]

Looking at Surfaceagent's post (#4) on the link Semyaza has posted above, if the agreement is to be reinstated by the selling (or return) of the debt to the OC, wouldn't I need to give my permission before this can be done??? Magda

 

Only I think if they are trying to make the agreement live again. Just buying it back does not necessarily mean they are trying to say it's no longer terminated, it's just that Link have decided it's more trouble than it's worth and have kicked up a stink.

 

That would be my guess anyway.

[MAGDA]

Only I think if they are trying to make the agreement live again. Just buying it back does not necessarily mean they are trying to say it's no longer terminated, it's just that Link have decided it's more trouble than it's worth and have kicked up a stink.

 

That would be my guess anyway.

 

Hi Lexis, thanks for the replies. It does seem really strange, don't know how many others on here have had their debt returned to the OC after if was legally assigned simply because the DCA couldn't win their court case. Be interesting to know the exact legalities regarding this. As you say, there are a lot of things which simply don't add up, given that the debt was originally so called 'written off'. If GE Money are not seeking to make the agreement live again, then I don't see what they hope to gain as surely they cannot now issue a default on a debt that was supposedly defaulted and terminated already and sold on. Seems link are doing this at the moment with any claims they can't win on, by returning them to the OC. Magda

[semyaza]

But surely Link were assigned the debt, can't remember the word used but wholly own the debt. It would have to be for them to be afforded the rights to claim the whole amount and interest, etc.

 

So therefore in order for them to palm off the debt again they have to wholly assign the debt on to someone else. And then surely another NoA has to be produced?

[MAGDA]

But surely Link were assigned the debt, can't remember the word used but wholly own the debt. It would have to be for them to be afforded the rights to claim the whole amount and interest, etc.

 

So therefore in order for them to palm off the debt again they have to wholly assign the debt on to someone else. And then surely another NoA has to be produced?

 

Well, on the paperwork I have received from GE Money it doesn't say anything about the debt being re-assigned, absolutely or otherwise, just shows a transaction for a reverse write-off, and the figure relating to that. So if it hasn't been re-assigned, surely it is still owned by Link. Magda

[Viscount Stair]

That would be my analysis too ... unless, of course, it wasn't validly assigned to Link in the first place.

[semyaza]

That would be my analysis too ... unless, of course, it wasn't validly assigned to Link in the first place.

Yes this is what I was about to mention. My case was built on no NoA so therefore Link couldnt have owned the debt in the first place. No what happens?

[MAGDA]

Yes this is what I was about to mention. My case was built on no NoA so therefore Link couldnt have owned the debt in the first place. No what happens?

 

I think the fact that someone didn't receive a NOA doesn't mean that Link didn't own the debt. They would still own it, but it would be difficult to enforce if they haven't defaulted correctly (the OC) or issued a NoA advising the debtor of the assignment. Link claim that the debt was assigned (absolutely) and they are the owner. So how does this work when GE Money seem to take hold of the reins again and merely state the write off has been reversed? Magda

[MAGDA]

Along with the statment of account showing the write-off reversal, I have also received a notice of arrears as well. Don't know what the exact point of all of this is, as there is nothing to say the debt has been legally re-assigned. magda

[Viscount Stair]

The point is that, if the requirements of s136 are not complied with, then any assignment is purely equitable and not legal.

 

In effect, an equitable assignment operates as purely private arrangement between assignor and assignee.

 

An equitable assignee cannot sue in their own name, as Link have discovered.

 

If no legal assignment took place, then as far as the debtor is concerned, the debt stayed with the original creditor.

 

Link and GE Money will have to sort matters out between themselves.

 

What I don't understand is why GE Money were not joined to the original court action.

[MAGDA]

The point is that, if the requirements of s136 are not complied with, then any assignment is purely equitable and not legal.

 

In effect, an equitable assignment operates as purely private arrangement between assignor and assignee.

 

An equitable assignee cannot sue in their own name, as Link have discovered.

 

If no legal assignment took place, then as far as the debtor is concerned, the debt stayed with the original creditor.

 

Link and GE Money will have to sort matters out between themselves.

 

What I don't understand is why GE Money were not joined to the original court action.

 

Hi viscount, Link confirmed to TS that the assignment was absolute, not equitable, and they did have a right to sue in their own name, which is why GE were not party to it. This wasn't the reason they discontinued the claim, that was down to other reasons. They stated in their letter informing me that they were discontinuing the claim that GE Money "wanted to buy the debt back and it was being passed back to them." However, no official re-assignment of the debt appears to have taken place, which is strange. Link are obviously trying to off-load the debt as they couldn't manage to make the court claim stick. I don't see how though without a legal assignment taking place again, how the debt can now be back in the hands of GE, as Link would still own it. Magda

[Viscount Stair]

In that case, another NoA is necessary, if you ask me.

[MAGDA]

Yes, that's what I think, but they haven't sent anything as yet, and really it should come from Link I guess, as the owner of the debt. Also, there are also all the points that Lexis raised about the fact that they probably claimed tax relief of some kind on the debt originally when it was written off, etc, so can't see how it is a simple matter of re-assigning, although nothing surprises me where these companies are concerned any more. Many thanks, magda

[Peterbard]

I have come across the following statement in a CCA I have just received - could someone please explain why it is there? Is it legit?

 

This agreement is not cancellable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Timeshare Act 1992 or the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) regulations 2004.

 

Hi

If you signed the agreement in the creditors premiosses or it was a pre 2004 agreement that was made withaout any face to face contact i am affraid it is entirely possible.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Yes, that's what I think, but they haven't sent anything as yet, and really it should come from Link I guess, as the owner of the debt. Also, there are also all the points that Lexis raised about the fact that they probably claimed tax relief of some kind on the debt originally when it was written off, etc, so can't see how it is a simple matter of re-assigning, although nothing surprises me where these companies are concerned any more. Many thanks, magda

 

Hi

Speaking from a pure accountancy point of view the practice of writing off debts is considerred to be quite a healthy thing to do if it is within the overall business strategy of the company it adjusts the debit credit balance of your business and makes it look healthier on paper. (much better than having a load of unsafe loans on the debit side of the books)

I am not sure how you would go about undoing it, mind you i am used to dealing at a much smaller scale.

 

Peter

[MAGDA]

Hi

Speaking from a pure accountancy point of view the practice of writing off debts is considerred to be quite a healthy thing to do if it is within the overall business strategy of the company it adjusts the debit credit balance of your business and makes it look healthier on paper. (much better than having a load of unsafe loans on the debit side of the books)

I am not sure how you would go about undoing it, mind you i am used to dealing at a much smaller scale.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter, That's the question really, how do GE Money go about undoing the legalities that were involved at the time of assigning the agreement following the default and termination of the account. Link were the legal owner of the debt and took me to court as such. Now I am suddenly being contacted by GE Money with an arrears notice and a statement and they seem to be under the impression that they can now collect on the debt again, which considering it was assigned to Link, doesn't seem quite right somehow. If Link are not successful in their attempts to enforce the debt in court it seems they are currently using this ploy of passing it back to the OC, but without any real legal backup it seems (in that the debt has not been re-assigned as far as I'm aware) Magda

Edited March 27, 2009 by MAGDA