Cabot refusing to Provide 'Deed of Assignment' co-op debts

[halfapint]

I suspect that the debt was 'sold' for substantially less than the settlement I was offering which places me back in a financial disadvantage - if I can see sight of the DoA I can prove that Cabot is trying to extort money from me and this is why they dont want me to see the DoA - I still do not think they can stop me from seeing it under the DPA if it contains personal data about me - unless they simply were assigned an account without any details of the debtor which of course would be ridiculous?

 

Sorry if I am asking any dumb questions or making any daft suggestions

 

Thanks

[citizenB]

TBH, it is irrelevant if the debt was sold to a Debt purchaser at far less than the balance outstanding. They purchase these debts at low prices because there is a risk they might never get their money back. It also gives them leeway in order to offer discounts.

 

If they choose not to accept a settlement offer, they must believe there is some chance of them getting the full balance back from you.

[DonkeyB]

I suspect that the debt was 'sold' for substantially less than the settlement I was offering which places me back in a financial disadvantage - if I can see sight of the DoA I can prove that Cabot is trying to extort money from me and this is why they dont want me to see the DoA - I still do not think they can stop me from seeing it under the DPA if it contains personal data about me - unless they simply were assigned an account without any details of the debtor which of course would be ridiculous?

 

Sorry if I am asking any dumb questions or making any daft suggestions

 

Thanks

 

That is a totally flawed argument. A non-starter. Be careful with accusations of extortion – they bought an asset, and they are chasing it.

 

We need some proper detail.

[renegadeimp]

Buying and selling debts is 100% legal. You might have a moral argument against it, but definitley not a legal one.

[wooldra]

Under the Law of Property Act 1925 if the debt has been assigned to Cabot regardless of what they paid for the debt they are legally (unfortunately) to claim the full value of the debt from you, I believe its section 136 of the act that provides for this, therefore what they paid would not be acceptable as a defence in court. If they own the debt, you should have received a Notice of Assignment from them and notice from the original creditor that they have sold the debt. Please note they can sell the debt on without seeking your permission. If you acknowledge the debt, you may be able to negotiate a reduced settlement sum. While this process may stick in the craw, unfortunately it is the law, which could do with a change!!

[Scrapper]

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT

 

Lord Denning states in the Pelias Construction Case (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824) where he said the debtor is entitled to "view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract."

 

"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 person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action".

 

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated then the notice is ineffectual. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly.

 

I have been reliably informed that one I the main reasons they don't want to how you sight of the DOA is that in most cases the date for the NOA will not match the date for the DOA. Therefore they are up the creek without a paddle so to speak.

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrapper Coco

[renegadeimp]

No you dont. Please stop spreading that fotl crap everywhere.

[Scrapper]

No you dont. Please stop spreading that fotl crap everywhere.

 

Really? Well then kindly explain why I have seen of 3 DCA's using this method and accounts have been closed?

 

Then proceeding to use a Section 10 had details removed from my CF.

 

That is why I know longer really look at this forum and use more knowledgable sources

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrapper Coco

[Scrapper]

No you dont. Please stop spreading that fotl crap everywhere.

 

And just so we are clear, I'm not actually spreading anything. My first post in over a year for obvious reasons so please do not make out that I'm spreading crap all over this forum.

 

I'm merely stating the route I decided to take and it works

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrapper Coco

[psyduck]

I'm merely stating the route I decided to take and it works

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrapper Coco

 

*for you

[SWLABR9]

What's a section 10?

[Scrapper]

No you dont. Please stop spreading that fotl crap everywhere.

 

I have just been informed what fotl stands for.

 

Freeman of the land, you must be bloody kidding me right? Anyone who knows me would tell you I'm the last person to have anything to do with those nutters.

 

The fact of the matter is, I have used a process that works and quoted a piece of LAW not some bloody fantasy that was pulled out of my arse. I have spent the best part of a year educating myself. Perhaps you should do the same pal.

 

Knowledge is power.

 

Use the correct tactics and play the game because that's what it is a bloody game.

 

There is more than one way of dealing with these low life scumbags than requesting a CCA to see if it's enforceable or not. The game is changing and when the game changes then so to the tactics employed to defeat these wan*ers.

 

When they are aware you know how to play the game they move onto the next unsuspecting victim who doesn't have the knowledge or gets bad advice.

 

So to my final point, Cabot refused to show me the DOA and told me it was private blah blah blah. When I went back at them with what Lord Denning quoted they caved and walked away.

 

Education and Tactics

 

big love

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrappy Coco

[Scrapper]

*for you

 

And anyone else who is BRAVE enough to try something different.

 

There is more than one route to defeat these ****

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrappy Coco

[renegadeimp]

You can throw around insults all you like. You are not allowed to see a DEED of sale/assignment unless a judge in a court allows you to.

 

It is considered a sensitive commercial document, and if the company did allow you to see it, it would be very heavily redacted to the point it would be useless to you. Remember, DCA's buy debts en masse and there are literally thousands of debts attached to that deed.

[Scrapper]

What's a section 10?

 

If a DCA is chasing you for a debt and they have no paperwork, then they have no right to process your data

 

You MUST send them a SECTION 10 NOTICE to stop them processing your data. They must reply within so many days to either confirm they are a) going to stop processing your data or b) carry on processing your data, either way they MUST reply to you.

 

If they do not reply you can take them to court over this. It is a serious offence for them not to reply

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/10 Data Protection Act 1998 - Section 10

 

NOTICE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 10 OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

 

Re: Reference Number:

I write pursuant to my rights granted by Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I hereby give you notice that you must, within the time periods prescribed below, permanently cease, processing all personal data of which I am the data subject. If you do not normally handle Data Protection notices for your organisation, please pass this notice to your Data Protection officer or another appropriate official.

 

THE MEANING OF THIS NOTICE

 

For the avoidance of doubt this notice requires you to do all of the following:

(1) within 3 days of receipt of this letter to cease or not to begin to:

(a) obtain;

(b) record; or

© hold, any personal data of which I am the data subject (“my personal data”); and

(2) with immediate effect to cease or not to begin to carry out any operation or a series of

operations involving my personal data including operations that would amount to the:

(a) organisation, adaption or alteration;

(b) retrieval, consultation or use;

© disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available; or

(d) alignment or combination, of information or data.

 

 

 

GROUNDS FOR NOTICE

 

My grounds for giving you this NOTICE are:

(a) the processing of my personal data by you is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage to me and any person residing with me;

(b) the processing of my personal data by you is illegal as you do not have my consent.

© the processing of my personal data is illegal as we do not have a contract.

(d) the processing of my personal data is illegal as you have no legal obligation that applies to your organisation.

(e) the processing of my personal data is illegal as it is not necessary for you to protect my vital interests.

(f) in any case the damage and/or distress is unwarranted.

 

NO EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

 

You are not excused compliance with this NOTICE under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Data Protection Act by virtue of the reasons set out below:

(1) I have not given you my consent to process my personal data.

(2) I am not a party to a contract with you.

(3) You have no legal obligation with which you must comply and which would permit you to process my personal data.

(4) No processing undertaken by you could be undertaken to protect my vital interests.

 

WHAT YOU MUST DO NEXT

 

In any event you must within 21 days of receiving this NOTICE give me notice in writing stating:

(1) you have complied with the provisions of this NOTICE in full; or

(2)(a) you have complied with the provisions of this NOTICE in part , stating which parts; and

(2)(b) as to the parts not so complied with, your reasons for not doing so, including evidence that you can substantiate.

 

WARNING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS NOTICE

 

Should you fail to comply with the provisions of this notice, I reserve absolutely the right to obtain without further reference to you a county court or High Court order to compel you to comply with this notice together with an order that you pay my associated legal costs in full and for me to make an application for damages associated with your unlawful processing of my personal data

[Scrapper]

Right I'm off as like so many others as trying to help and give some different advice obvisiouly upsets certain people

 

All the best take care and big love to all

 

Scrapper Coco

[Scrapper]

You can throw around insults all you like. You are not allowed to see a DEED of sale/assignment unless a judge in a court allows you to.

 

It is considered a sensitive commercial document, and if the company did allow you to see it, it would be very heavily redacted to the point it would be useless to you. Remember, DCA's buy debts en masse and there are literally thousands of debts attached to that deed.

 

I'm not insulting you. you started with the FOTL crap not me pal.

 

Yes it is a sensative document but when you go to court which is very unlikely to ever happen you have the perfect piece of case law to throw at a DJ from a LORD.

 

Do you really think they want to take a chance like that? In short no they don't and I can show you thousands of closed accounts using the same process over and over again.

 

But keeping giving out your CCA advice and when the crap hits the fan users are hung out to dry with no reponses from anyone. I seen it to many times on this forum that's why me and hundreds of others have jumped ship.

 

Thanks as always

 

Scrapper Coco

[renegadeimp]

Except your ramblings are exactly the same as the FOTL garbage whether you believe it or not.

[filrobbo]

Scrapper does this work, every time I give out different advise that has worked for me I get told its wrong or I don't know what I am talking about, so its nice to hear a different view I was even called fibbo by someone on here, to me if it works to get people out of debt then use it.

[DonkeyB]

Er, time to calm down?

 

Irrespective of what the statute etc does or does not say, we know of several cases where a judge has ordered a deed of assignment to be produced, and many more where the debt buyer has acceded to a request for a (usually redacted) copy of the deed without a court order or in response to a CPR request.

 

In many cases (that I have been involved with), this has usually happened where there is a serious and justified challenge to the ownership of an account. Judges are not likely to order disclosure on a whim, nor are companies likely to show off their deeds unless they have confidence in them.

 

Generally, you would be expected to be allowed to inspect a deed of assignment that is relied upon in a PoC, but you would have to go to the claimant’s premises to do so (read through CPR31). You would not necessarily be entitled to a copy.

 

Many deeds of assignment refer to ‘forward flow’ of contracts, which is quite normal – it is not always necessary for a specific account to be detailed within a header or lead agreement, though its detail should appear in any future associated sale agreements conducted under the main agreement. Many companies fall down on this paperwork.

 

So neither of you is 100% correct – it isn’t clear cut at all. No need for anyone to wander off into the wilderness – all the knowledge is needed here. Just keep the arguments as respectful as you can.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I agree DB. I have seen DOAs produced all bar 1 have been heavily redacted dates being the only relevant item showing.

[filrobbo]

Ok thanks Donkey B and Brigadier

[blondmark]

I'm with Lord Denning on this one. The debtor does have the right to have sight of the Deed of Assignment.

 

When debt collectors tell you that they have fully complied with the Law of Property Act and you do not have the right to have sight of the Deed of Assignment because, for example, it is confidential, do not lose sight of the fact that the law in this area does not only derive from statute, e.g. the Law of Property Act, but also from case law, e.g. Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd.

 

In this important Court of Appeal case, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, stated obiter:

 

"After receiving the notice [a letter claiming that the debt has been assigned], the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment [the Deed of Assignment] so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge."

 

That is the legal right of the debtor, confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Without being certain that the deed is valid, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you may be required to pay the debt twice over - once to the debt collector and once again to the original lender who never properly assigned it.

 

Of course it is no good being allowed sight of the Deed of Assignment if you have no idea what you should be looking for.

 

If it is meant to be a deed, but you are just shown a printout with your name and the debt amount, this would be a defective deed which would not result in a valid assignment, and the debt collector would have no right to collect from you.

 

So what should it have?

 

The Companies Act 2006 allows a company to execute a deed with the signature of one director, as long as a witness also signs the document to assert that the director's signature is genuine. So was the deed you are looking at signed by somebody who sits on the board of directors of the lender? Look him up. Perhaps it was signed by an office junior or secretary, in which case it is invalid. Perhaps it was not signed at all, in which case it is invalid. Perhaps it does not bear the signature of a witness who saw the signatory sign it, in which case it is invalid. Alternatively perhaps it does not bear the seal of the company, in which case it is invalid without a director's signature.

 

These are not the only requirements for a Deed of Assignment. If the amount of the debt on the document is slightly out, or the date is not quite right, then it is also invalid.

 

Following the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, there are now four formal requirements for a deed (whether executed by a corporation or an individual). These are a combination of common law and statute, and may be summarised as follows:-

 

(a) First, a deed must be in writing, but may be on any substance. This is a common law requirement, although modified by statute.

 

It is assumed that the deed you are looking at is on paper of some sort, and not just figures on a computer screen. If it is not, then it is invalid.

 

(b) Secondly, section 1(2)(a) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 provides that an instrument is not a deed unless it makes it clear on the face of the instrument that the person making it or, as the case may be, the parties to it intend it to be a deed (whether by describing itself as a deed or expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise).

 

If it is meant to be a deed but it does not actually state that the document is a deed, it is invalid.

 

© Thirdly, section 1(2)(b) of the 1989 Act provides that the instrument must be validly executed as a deed by the person making it or, as the case may be, by one or more of the parties to it.

 

Look for the words “Executed as a Deed” above the signatures. If it is meant to be a deed but these words do not appear, it is invalid.

 

(d) Fourthly, a deed must be delivered. Delivery is the point in time at which the party “evinces an intention to be bound” – though delivery is presumed to take place upon execution unless the contrary is proved.

 

So there are quite a few hoops for the debt collector to jump through, and if any of the requirements are not met under an alleged Deed of Assignment then the assignment of debt never took place. If the debt collector refuses for any reason to allow you see the Deed of Assignment so you can check whether it complies with all of the above, then you should stop any payments to them unless and until they allow you sight of it, and you are satisfied that all of the above requirements have been met in full.

 

If they do send you a copy of the Deed of Assignment, upload it here so we can all have a look and tick off the requirements.

 

If they chance their arm by bringing you before a court over the stopped payments, make quite sure you cite all of the above in your defence and highlight any area they have slipped up on, including any failure to allow you to see the Deed of Assignment.

Edited July 23, 2014 by blondmark

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I've seen deeds of assignment produced on the order of a judge, quite frankly it is pointless in virtually all the cases if seen where it has been argued for a deed to be produced it has been because a party it attempting to find out how much was paid for a debt.

 

 

However the deeds are heavily redacted and show that an "account" ref: xxxxxx was included in a portfolio of debt on a particular date.

 

 

The price paid for the debt is a commercially sensitive piece of information and totally irrelevant to and debtors case.

[SWLABR9]

Without it, how do you establish that DCA X now owns the debt formerly with CC Y? How do you know they're not chancing their arm?