Discussion / Debate for Bill of Exchange v Law of Property Act.

[NiteHawk2003]

What squaddie means is that FOTL stuff is a load of crap and you'd do well to ignore it.

 

I'm not Pro FOTL or Against it , more of an interested observer but there is one thing i don't understand...I recently was shown a walking possession order given to a friend from an Equita bailiff. One thing that i saw as plain as day was a section that was written in pure common law / FOTL speak. I can't remember it verbatim but it was along the lines of "A man" Possesesions etc.

 

my question really is if this FOTL stuff is garbage and has no power in law why would bailiffs use it in official documentation ?

[mjt2013]

It's a bit difficult to answer that last question without any real idea what the phrase used was!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There has been a judgement in Canada that stated that FOTL has no merit in law.

It is nonsense in the extreme!!

[renegadeimp]

This discussion/argument is still going on?

[NiteHawk2003]

It's a bit difficult to answer that last question without any real idea what the phrase used was!

 

i've asked in another forum here if anyone has a copy of the order

[NiteHawk2003]

It's a bit difficult to answer that last question without any real idea what the phrase used was!

 

ok my understanding of the whole FOTL is that they try to differentiate between the "man" and the "person".

 

the following document is similar to the one i saw , so my question is why do they use the term "man" instead of "person"

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/2/crossheading/8/made

 

the header uses the term "man" and so do items 1 and 2. 3 and 5 use the term "person"

 

fotl people claim that "man" and "person" are 2 distinct things and we say that is garbage on the other hand this legal document is differentiating between the 2 terms for some reason.

[filrobbo]

If you look at the term person in a legal format and then look at man it's two separate entities.So you could have a point

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The weird belief is that there can be no "personal debt" and for example if a debt is sold and the original account is paid off by the sale the debtor no longer owes anything to any body.

take a look at " the Straw Man".

[sequenci]

The weird belief is that there can be no "personal debt" and for example if a debt is sold and the original account is paid off by the sale the debtor no longer owes anything to any body.

take a look at " the Straw Man".

 

Totally agree.

[AndyOrch]

Thread moved to General Legal Issues.

[NiteHawk2003]

The weird belief is that there can be no "personal debt" and for example if a debt is sold and the original account is paid off by the sale the debtor no longer owes anything to any body.

take a look at " the Straw Man".

 

I think what they try to say is that once a debt is paid then that debt is paid and you can't be asked to pay it again.

 

for example if i owe XYZ bank 1000 and you pay it then the debt is paid , XYZ can't come after me for the money. Whether or not you settle the debt in full or partial, the debt is still paid.

 

If you have a Deed of assignment then the debt belongs to you and you can chase me for it , and this is the issue , there is case law somewhere that says the Notice of assignment is not enough and the actual deed is needed which as i understand is the weak link as most of these

debt collection people buy these debts without getting a deed of assignment

 

I could be wrong here but without that deed of assignment they can't chase you or mess with your CRF etc as they have no claim

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/59.html

[renegadeimp]

Please dont start believing the crap that FOTL followers try and say about debts. They are wholly incorrect and you will end up in deep trouble if you follow it.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The deed is the contract between debt seller and debt purchaser and is commercially sensitive confidential data, a notice of assignment is sent by the seller and/or the purchaser and declares the sale.

 

 

All these "debts" are sold in portfolio lots with the relevant deed in place.

 

 

I have known courts to order disclosure of the deed but it has always proved of no merit in disputing the validity of the sale.

As the imp says don't get involved with FOTL it is of no merit what so ever and is seen as such internationally.

[NiteHawk2003]

The deed is the contract between debt seller and debt purchaser and is commercially sensitive confidential data, a notice of assignment is sent by the seller and/or the purchaser and declares the sale.

 

 

All these "debts" are sold in portfolio lots with the relevant deed in place.

 

 

I have known courts to order disclosure of the deed but it has always proved of no merit in disputing the validity of the sale.

As the imp says don't get involved with FOTL it is of no merit what so ever and is seen as such internationally.

 

i'm not interested in the merit of fotl which is why i posted the case law pertaining to the deed of assignment.

 

my original post here was on the query of why if FOLT has no merit does the official walk in possesion order document i posted used "fotl speak" instead of the normal statute based speak

 

i was specificily asking why they make a distinction between man and person when in statutes, person covers both a man and corporation. the only time i have seen this distinction is in FOTL speak , but this is an official document.....

[mjt2013]

I imagine because the actual bailiff who takes walking possession can only be a 'man' (which in law is always construed to include both the masculine and the feminine, except where it is obviously not intended to) rather than a 'person' because the latter could be for example a limited company which plainly cannot enter into walking possession.

[NiteHawk2003]

I imagine because the actual bailiff who takes walking possession can only be a 'man' (which in law is always construed to include both the masculine and the feminine, except where it is obviously not intended to) rather than a 'person' because the latter could be for example a limited company which plainly cannot enter into walking possession.

 

But the legal definition of a Person includes man , or rather Human being so it would be covered by just using the term "Person"

 

if what you was saying then that would mean that i could legaly dodge sections 3 & 5 by using a man and not a person?

[mjt2013]

The use of the word 'man' seems to be simply employing greater precision than 'person'. I wonder if you could rephrase your second paragraph as I'm not sure I follow what the loophole would be?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is a Canadian judgement on the "viability" of the FOTL mantra on the forums somewhere but I can't find it at the moment, but it was to have an "international" impact on FOTL, saying it has no basis in law.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There are some interesting examples of FOTL being used and the penalties handed down for attempting to use it as a defence, these are on Wikipedia.

[NiteHawk2003]

There is a Canadian judgement on the "viability" of the FOTL mantra on the forums somewhere but I can't find it at the moment, but it was to have an "international" impact on FOTL, saying it has no basis in law.

 

My question is NOT about the viability of FOTL. only about this Legal document and what it says,

[NiteHawk2003]

There are some interesting examples of FOTL being used and the penalties handed down for attempting to use it as a defence, these are on Wikipedia.

 

 

My question is NOT about the viability of FOTL. only about this Legal document and what it says,

[sequenci]

A debt is simply a thing, or a chose. Generally speaking, the formalities required to assign a debt from one owner to another are basic enough. It's not a big deal.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A debt is simply a thing, or a chose. Generally speaking, the formalities required to assign a debt from one owner to another are basic enough. It's not a big deal.

I agree, the debt purchasers/DCAs in the UK do stick to the protocols for sale and purchase of accounts.

 

 

The deed will often cover many thousands of debts in a portfolio, the information on these purchasers is commercially sensitive.

 

 

I have seen a deed produced in court on occasions the data was heavily redacted especially the "sale price" of the portfolio.