Asset Link Capital anyone help?

[pj41]

Hi all,

 

In breif I had a personal loan with GE Capital. I have recently recieved a letter from the above company giving me notice or intimation that they have been assigned the benefit of the debt.

 

I wrote back with a CCA request and my quid requesting a true copy of the agreement and the deed of assignment etc.

 

Asset link wrote back stating - Section 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 do not apply to them as it only applies to matters arising during the currency of agreements since the account with GE has been terminated the agreement is no longer current.

 

Is this correct?

 

I then recieve another letter stating

 

You have been served a notice.

 

The recent letter from Asset link was a legal requirement under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Ring us immediately on 0207 etc

 

What the heck is the law of property act anyone help?

 

 

Cheers

 

PJ41

[Guest bong]

Asset link wrote back stating - Section 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 do not apply to them as it only applies to matters arising during the currency of agreements since the account with GE has been terminated the agreement is no longer current.

 

Is this correct?

 

I then recieve another letter stating

 

You have been served a notice.

 

The recent letter from Asset link was a legal requirement under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Ring us immediately on 0207 etc

 

What the heck is the law of property act anyone help?

 

I have read in someone elses thread that this is correct. I think the Law of Property Act notice was to do with them notifying you that the debt had been legally assigned to them. They are probably asking you to phone them to see about payment of the debt.

[Guest bong]

this was the post I was thinking of http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/41871-question-zootscoot-re-cca.html#post331428

[alanfromderby]

Hi all,

 

In breif I had a personal loan with GE Capital. I have recently recieved a letter from the above company giving me notice or intimation that they have been assigned the benefit of the debt.

 

I wrote back with a CCA request and my quid requesting a true copy of the agreement and the deed of assignment etc.

 

Asset link wrote back stating - Section 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 do not apply to them as it only applies to matters arising during the currency of agreements since the account with GE has been terminated the agreement is no longer current.

 

Is this correct?

 

I then recieve another letter stating

 

You have been served a notice.

 

The recent letter from Asset link was a legal requirement under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

Ring us immediately on 0207 etc

 

What the heck is the law of property act anyone help?

 

 

Cheers

 

PJ41

 

They are wrong, and are deliberately trying to mislead you. Any enforcement action would have to be based on your responsibilities under the terms of the contract. Failure to produce a copy of that contract under the terms of the CCA 77/78 would be a complete defence to any court action.

 

The second part of the letter is an attempt to frighten you into ringing them. Anything that includes the word "property" is calculated to make you think they can take your house from you.

 

Once they have passed the 12 working days + 1 month, I would write to them stating that you do not agree with their interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act, and that subsequently you do not acknowledge the alleged debt to their company.

 

I would add that any enforcement action they consider will be vigorously defended, and any further correspondence, or demands for payment, will be passed to Trading Standards.

[pj41]

Hi Alan,

 

I "googled" the law of property act 1925 and it really didn't seem relavent to an unsecured loan. Although there wasn't much I could find about section 136.

 

Thanks for your help and promp post.

 

As I have already sent the CCA request as previously stated. I will do nothing for 12 days + one month and complete any court papers arriving on my mat before then accordingly.

 

Cheers

 

pj41

[zootscoot]

Asset link wrote back stating - Section 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 do not apply

to them as it only applies to matters arising during the currency of agreements since the account with GE has been terminated the agreement is no longer current.

 

Is this correct?

 

Yes that is correct. If you defaulted on the original agreement that agreement will become terminated and therefore there is no obligation on the DCA to comply with a CCA request. s.77/8 come under part VI of the CCA which applies only to matters arising in the currency of accounts.

 

If you want to avoid further defaults and or a CCJ you need to get in touch with them to negotiate a payment plan. See the template letters here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

[alanfromderby]

I cannot agree with the view that the obligations under the CCA are terminated by a debtor failing to meet his/her obligations to pay. I do not see anything in the act that puts that view.

 

Indeed, section 145(7), makes mention of Debt Collecting:

 

debt-collecting is the taking of steps to procure payment of

debts due under consumer credit agreements or consumer hire agreements.

 

It considers companies that carry on business in this field as an ancillary credit business.

 

If the contract became "cancelled" due to non-payment, then that would presumably absolve the debtor from his/her obligations, and this cannot be the case.

 

I would suggest (without seeing case-law to the contrary) that the obligations within the contract are still binding on the debtor - and therefore they have a legal duty to pay outstanding monies. At the same time, the safeguards within the act for the consumer must therefore also still be available.

 

My understanding is that where a debt is assigned to a debt collection agency, they take over the position of the original creditor. I cannot recall the legal term - but I believe it is a Latin phrase that means "in the shoes of".

 

If that is the case, then it passes to the DCA the right under the CCA to pursue the debtor for monies owed under the terms of the contract. Indeed, without that contract, a county court could not entertain an action for enforcement - as effectively their would not be anything to enforce.

[zootscoot]

Pj41, have you at any time been asked to pay the whole amount of the debt immediately? If so this would indicate that the contractual agreement as to the dates of payment and interest etc has terminated. If so then s.77/78 does not apply.

 

If you are still paying the same amount due each month under the original contract or if they are trying to get you to comply with the original payment terms then the contractual agreement is still enforce and s.77/78 is applicable.

 

The debt is owed irrespective of whether the agreement is enforceable as this can be enforced through the law of unjust enrichment which is outside of contract law and the CCA.

 

The debt can be sold on to a DCA if the original agreement is still in place (very rarely) the DCA would be obliged to collect on the terms of the original agreement rather than demand a lump sum payment or negotiate a new payment arrangement.

 

It is more often the case that the agreement has been terminated due to the creditors breach of a major term of the contract in failing to meet instalments when due. This gives the lender the right to repudiate (end) the contract. Before they do so they are required to issue a default notice under s.87 giving 7 days notice and they will then ask for whole outstanding debt in full. If the debtor can not pay this upfront the creditor will then sell to a DCA or pass to DCA for collection. The debt is sold without the original agreement in place and thus is no longer governed by the CCA. This is because the debt has already accrued and is not an advancement of new credit.

 

So you need to be sure if the original agreement is still enforce before deciding whether to hold out and wait for you copy of your credit agreement, otherwise you need to enter negotiations for a payment arrangement.

[blackrain]

But wouldn't they have to provide a CCA to prove there was a debt in the first place to be sold on? I thought the CCA had to be provided whether it was the original creditor or not.

 

This is a question so please don't act on this as advice!

[alanfromderby]

My view is this:

"This gives the lender the right to repudiate (end) the contract. "

Yes, but surely they are more likely to demand early payment of the full amount of the debt?

Ending the contract would also have the effect of stopping the right to accrue interest, and of absolving the debtor from having to meet his/her commitment to pay sums due under that contract.

"Before they do so they are required to issue a default notice under s.87 giving 7 days notice and they will then ask for whole outstanding debt in full. If the debtor can not pay this upfront the creditor will then sell to a DCA or pass to DCA for collection. The debt is sold without the original agreement in place and thus is no longer governed by the CCA."

How can a "debt" be sold, without any legal basis for substantiating that debt and proving that it is owed?

"This is because the debt has already accrued and is not an advancement of new credit."

Surely what is passed to the DCA is the title to the money owing under the original defaulted agreement?

In order for the agreement to be terminated, the original lender must surely issue a notice informing the debtor that the contract has been terminated - at which point both parties would no longer be bound by the terms of that contract. If this was to happen then the DCA would have no basis for enforcing the "debt" that they had bought.

My understanding of contract law is that one party agrees to do something (or sell something), and the other party agrees to pay the price for that. This contract is then subject to legal processes for breach.

In this case, if the lender was to discharge the contract - after having already completed their side of the bargain, the debtor would then be absolved of having to pay the amount due. There would be nothing to sell.

On the other hand, if a lender sold their title to the contract to a DCA - then that DCA would have the right to pursue the debtor, qui tam, or in the shoes of the debtor.

This would seem the only way that a DCA could pursue enforcement of a debt - otherwise I cannot see any legal entitlement to claim any sum of money accrued under a contract to which they were never a party.

[pj41]

Hi All,

 

 

Thanks very much for your inputs so far on this. I will dig through my paperwork and find out the answers to your questions Zoot and post again.

 

I the meantime, all I want is for Asset link to demonstrate to me that they have the correct paperwork and provide a statement of account so I can see what my position is before I will enter into any negotiation.

 

How can I be expected to negotiate anything when all I have is letters stating you owe £11k to us and how do you intend paying this back? From a company, until last week, I had no knowledge existed. The origianal creditor has not informed me of their decision to sell the debt as I recall but I will check.

[zootscoot]

Ending the contract would also have the effect of stopping the right to accrue interest,

 

Yes

 

and of absolving the debtor from having to meet his/her commitment to pay sums due under that contract.

 

 

The non breaching party has a right to claim damages in the event of a breach. The damages are a monetary compensation to put the claimant in the position financial position had the contract been performed ie be paid the outstanding sums of the debt.

 

"This gives the lender the right to repudiate (end) the contract. "

 

Yes, but surely they are more likely to demand early payment of the full amount of the debt?

 

 

 

Demanding early repayment of the whole of the debt generally indicates that the contract has been terminated, although occassionally their may be a term in the contract which provides that all outstanding sums become due in the event of a breach. In which case the agreement might not be terminated. Breach of a major term gives the non breaching party a choice whether to terminate the contract or not. So they may choose to enforce this term rather than terminate the agreement entirley.

 

PJ your best bet would be to do a SAR on the original creditor to find out the status of your contract and this should also confirm whether the debt was sold on to Assett or even if you just ring them they should be able to tell you if the contract was terminated and whether they sold the debt and to whom. Ask them to confirm this in writing.

 

All the best

 

Zoot

 

 

[pj41]

Hi All,

 

I sent off a DPA (sar) 23rd Oct. So I will wait and see what GE money respond with.

 

I will, as promised, look into the questions Zoot raised and post shortly.

 

Thanks Again

 

 

Pj41

[veryannoyed]

This is an interesting thread and is trying to answer something I've been wrestling with the logic for for some time...

 

If an original loan (or credit card) contract is terminated and a default issued, how can the original creditor 'sell' the debt, since the contractual debt no longer exists.

 

I accept Zoot's point that the creditor, being the non-breaching party of the original contract, is entitled to compensation in order to put him back to his pre-contract position (IE to be re-paid the original loan amount)...

 

BUT can the original creditor sell his right to compensation - this is what we are talking about surely when 'debts' get sold to debt collection agencies after being defaulted? - they are not selling on the rights under the original contract, but attempting to sell their rights to claim compenstation. Can they do that? It is the original creditor who has suffered and due compensation, so what is the logic in selling his 'suffering' ?

 

The same logic would mean that I could sell my right to claim compensation from a driver who ran me over in the street, for example.

 

Hope I've made sense - I know what I mean!

[pj41]

Hi All,

 

I have been giving this situation some thought over the last week or so.

 

I have as you know I requested the relevent info from Asset link under the CCA letter to which I have had the above reply.

 

However, I have had previously (from another DCA) court proceedings issued against me for the full amount etc approx £5K. I did a CCA request to them (Hillesdens) and they had the procedings stayed. I have since filed a claim against them for money they had forced me to pay WITHOUT the relevent documents. ie Deed of assignment and true copy of original agreement. They (Hillesdens) have indicated that they are going to defend! Well ,I'll wait and see because they backed down very quickly after my CCA request. They have defaulted on this and indeed wrote to me saying they had no documents but they where on "Order" and had been for approx 8 months.

 

Interestingly, I replied to Asset Link stating I was awaiting a correct response to my CCA letter and guess what? I've heard nothing. This is from a company that telephoned a neighbour to confirm I live at the address they have for me! What I'm saying is they are bullies and lie when you contact them (in my experience) as I did contact them from the ambigous message that was left with my neighbour and the first thing the chap said was "is this your address and you have ignored our previous letters". I haven't had any letters prior to me calling them and they came across as "dont mess with us people".

 

If they are so right with what they say and have been so desperate to point out the severity of the situation and issue notices under the "law of property act 1926" or whatever it was then why haven't they written to me or issued proceedings against me after my last letter recieved by them last wednesday 1st nov.

 

I am of the opinion that the CCA requests that I have sent to DCA's will have the same impact as far as District Judges are concerned. They either have the documents or they don't. If not they can't enforce diddly squat.

 

Should any developments occur with Hillesdens, in the meantime, I will post in that thread.

 

Cheers

 

 

Pj41

[Phillum]

I have had phone calls to my house and now a letter ( not on HMSO) regarding a debt which WAS at my old address but I have no knowledge of this company or debt thereto? My former wife did have a nice habit of forging my signature.... I am not saying the company is not owed the the money but how do I go about refuting this, if the paperwork I have recieved is correct? Apparrently the default occured under s.87?? what is this? do I write and request the original contract copies with signatures? i.e 12+1 but even so I have not had any finance at this address and have lived here now for 6 years, now I recieve this, I thought it was a [problem] and am not sure if it still is as the court telephone number is 08454085302... do courts use 0845?

[Phillum]

Just done a few searches on asset Link... thier Post code is the large builing that people who watch others come from... 007 style... are these companies for real?... the place in Northampton is miles from the courts and is a grotty office building... am I being scammed? I ain't the gullible type either please advise.

The Wales address is a warehouse style building?... this tops it for me and i have just d/loaded the same forms they sent me too..???

[Phillum]

As if by magic.... they seem to have disappeared or left me alone ??? Maybe the fact that a 'fast one' was being pulled.

 

Will keep you all updated.... pps 80 answerphone messages were left?

[BigD10]

Hi all, I requested details of an alleged debt from Asset Link Capital, which they say I owe, yet the paperwork they have sent shows clearly that the debt was settled satisfactory and the statement of account shows a zero balance. Am I going mad or are they?

 

Anyone out there had a similar experience with thes people.

[BigD10]

Hi all,

 

I requested details of an alleged debt from Asset Link Capital, which they say I owe, yet the paperwork they have sent shows clearly that the debt was settled satisfactory, as it should do, and the statement of account shows a zero balance as it should do. Am I going mad or are they?

 

Anyone out there had a similar experience with thes people.