PDA

View Full Version : Purchased debt - advice much appreciated!


ant777uk
30-11-2010, 12:56 AM
Just received a letter through the post from Lowell Portfolio with reference to a £450 debt they have recently purchased from Barclaycard.

The debt is from about 2-3 years ago. Escaped Barclaycard originally as I had moved out to Australia. Now I am back in the UK.

Letter is opened and I am not able to comfortably pay it.

Would Lowell have done some research on me/my location etc. before purchasing the debt? Maybe they found out I had returned to the UK from Facebook or Linked In....as the letter is opened I assume it would be pointless to send it back in another envelope saying "no longer at this address"...

I assume this is quite a common occurrence on this forum...any suggestions would be infinitely appreciated.

yozhik
30-11-2010, 02:38 AM
LOWELL PORTFOLIO I Ltd (Debt Purchase Specialists of Leeds LS11 9WS) may have contacted you ‘out of the blue’ relating to an old address, credit card or bank account. If so, they have purchased a ‘skeleton from within your debt cupboard’. SAFE, and other organisations like ‘moneysavingexpert.com’ & ‘consumeractiongroup.co.uk’, are receiving an increasing number of complaints from members about Lowell who are chasing old debts, indeed some very old debts, 18/20 years, way beyond the Statute of Limitation 6 year limit, (or 12 years for a debt secured on land/property; mortgage).

If you have been contacted by LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD please contact SAFE and your MP, because SAFE, as the Secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Financial Exploitation intends to raise questions in Parliament with the Treasury Minister regarding practice and ethics of institutions (licensed by the Crown), selling on debts, especially when the lenders have claimed tax relief in their provision for bad debts, then years later sell on the dormant debt to a third party.

Not much help ... but relevant and useful info.

merlincove
30-11-2010, 02:41 AM
Lowell portfolio are cunts of the highest order, and if i'm not mistaken there is the 'legal' arm of the company called Red, operating from the same address - LP seem to be the 3rd party recovery agents while Red act as solicitors.

i had a whole bunch of letters from them a while ago claiming that i owed them the best part of £10k in regard to debts they had purchased from Loyds - of course never having banked with Loyds, i challenged them and eventually they sent me a letter confirming what i already knew, that i wasn't the debtor and closed the case, but still they were very threatening and forceful in their application.

I'm betting that they traced you through an application for tenancy in your home or similar, as i believe that solicitors / estate agents are duty bound to inform the council of new tenancy agreements / mortgages etc, the council work with Equita and Experian - and so do lovell's. If you're living off grid, i'm not sure what measures they would apply to finding joinder with your name and address, maybe if you returned to an old address they just got lucky and the letter arrived while you were in residence.

Try googling Lowell and Red and see what you can find out - there are shed loads of instances where lowell have tried to pull back statutary barred debts (older than 6 years) - and as far as i am aware those debts aren't enforceable in any case.

If you offer them £1 a week, or somethin you can afford, then i think they are duty bound to accept whatever you can realistically afford - but again, check that out in the money saving expert forums etc.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=871677

ant777uk
30-11-2010, 03:08 PM
Reckon they must have tracked me via a phone contact I recently took out. Sounds like I may have to do a payment plan of some kind.

When I was living out in Australia I had friends who were experts at playing the system and who reckoned if you had debts to a single company that were less than $3000 Australian it was highly unlikely companies to use any other means apart from letters. And debt collecting laws there are quite different.

Anyway UK sounds a lot more regulated...looks like I shall have to pay it...

rumpelstilzchen
30-11-2010, 03:11 PM
Anyway UK sounds a lot more regulated...looks like I shall have to pay it...

Before you do anything register at consumeractiongroup.co.uk and post your story in the relevant section.

wise haven
30-11-2010, 03:33 PM
Reckon they must have tracked me via a phone contact I recently took out. Sounds like I may have to do a payment plan of some kind.

When I was living out in Australia I had friends who were experts at playing the system and who reckoned if you had debts to a single company that were less than $3000 Australian it was highly unlikely companies to use any other means apart from letters. And debt collecting laws there are quite different.

Anyway UK sounds a lot more regulated...looks like I shall have to pay it...

Pay it? I wouldn't, they can't be a party to the debt unless you specifically authorise it.

This is not legal advice etc etc.....

Check it out, don't take my opinion on the matter :)

rumpole
30-11-2010, 05:27 PM
Pay it? I wouldn't, they can't be a party to the debt unless you specifically authorise it.

This is not legal advice etc etc.....

Check it out, don't take my opinion on the matter :)

Debts are assignable - you don't get to authorise it. The matter is out of your hands.

ant777uk
30-11-2010, 07:12 PM
Posted on Money Saving Expert and they were all really grumpy buggers - who were basically saying pay it you owe them.

The money was created out of this air so I do not really owe them.

And where is the fun in just paying it back?

If it was a mate - absolutely I would pay it back. Barclaycard and Lowell are not mates. They are evil fucking companies.

Consumer Action Group however are giving good advice

wise haven
30-11-2010, 07:20 PM
Debts are assignable - you don't get to authorise it. The matter is out of your hands.

No, not true - A third party interloper has no claim unless specifically included.

Purchasing a debt is a risk. Most operate on a numbers game basis which relies on the ignorance of the debtor.

ETA: A debt assigned to a collector no longer exist lawfully because the creditor has assigned the debt (though only a portion) to a debt recovery organisation. The original creditor can then seek recompense from an insurer for the loss incurred, therefore there is no lawful remedy as remedy has been provided. The debt collector has voluntarily taken risk by taking on further recovery action which is without lawful remedy.

It is purely opportunism - without a contractual leg to stand on. This is the equivalent to twinning a stream of revenue.....illegal.

rumpole
30-11-2010, 07:25 PM
No, not true - A third party interloper has no claim unless specifically included.

Purchasing a debt is a risk. Most operate on a numbers game basis which relies on the ignorance of the debtor.


Wrong - a debt is an 'asset' & therefore can be assigned (rather in the same way I can assign my pet Tortoise to my sister)

ant777uk
30-11-2010, 07:26 PM
No, not true - A third party interloper has no claim unless specifically included.

Purchasing a debt is a risk. Most operate on a numbers game basis which relies on the ignorance of the debtor.

The letter I received from Barclaycard says this:

"We hereby give notice of the assignment of debt due to us from you in respect of the balance of 456.72 outstanding on your Barclaycard account.

On 17/08/2010 your account was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.

Any further communications and payments must therefore be addressed to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd:"

Clearly I did not have a choice in the matter. Is this lawfully legal?

ant777uk
30-11-2010, 07:28 PM
Wrong - a debt is an 'asset' & therefore can be assigned (rather in the same way I can assign my pet Tortoise to my sister)

I assume it is legal then..

rumpole
30-11-2010, 07:28 PM
The letter I received from Barclaycard says this:

"We hereby give notice of the assignment of debt due to us from you in respect of the balance of 456.72 outstanding on your Barclaycard account.

On 17/08/2010 your account was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.

Any further communications and payments must therefore be addressed to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd:"

Clearly I did not have a choice in the matter. Is this lawfully legal?

In my view, yes but obviously you're at liberty to dispute it.

wise haven
30-11-2010, 07:37 PM
Wrong - a debt is an 'asset' & therefore can be assigned (rather in the same way I can assign my pet Tortoise to my sister)

What you are suggesting is that one asset can be assigned to multiple parties and thereby mulitiplying the asset...............

FFS this is what the derivitive fraud is all about - Completely fraudulent....if what you are saying is valid; a bank with one debtor, can multiply the income/asset multiple/infinite times - it may be legal but it sure is fraudulent.

ragnarok
30-11-2010, 07:40 PM
Is there an amount at which it isn't worth the debt collector taking you to court, if they are only going to get paid back at a £1 a week?

rumpole
30-11-2010, 07:41 PM
No, not true - A third party interloper has no claim unless specifically included.

Purchasing a debt is a risk. Most operate on a numbers game basis which relies on the ignorance of the debtor.

ETA: A debt assigned to a collector no longer exist lawfully because the creditor has assigned the debt (though only a portion) to a debt recovery organisation. The original creditor can then seek recompense from an insurer for the loss incurred, therefore there is no lawful remedy as remedy has been provided. The debt collector has voluntarily taken risk by taking on further recovery action which is without lawful remedy.

It is purely opportunism - without a contractual leg to stand on. This is the equivalent to twinning a stream of revenue.....illegal.


'Fraid you're wrong on this point (that debts are not assignable). Herewith the law:-

Dawson v Great Northern & City Ry (1905) KB 260

Country Hotel & Wine Co v London & North Western Ry (1918) 2 KB 251, 258

If you take the trouble to dig those ones out you'll find a) they bolster my argument & b) are still good law (you can't beat the classics :D)

I'd be interested to see if you can cite any cases that directly contradict the above. That would be interesting.

wise haven
30-11-2010, 07:41 PM
The letter I received from Barclaycard says this:

"We hereby give notice of the assignment of debt due to us from you in respect of the balance of 456.72 outstanding on your Barclaycard account.

On 17/08/2010 your account was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd.

Any further communications and payments must therefore be addressed to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd:"

Clearly I did not have a choice in the matter. Is this lawfully legal?

Ruse - This con trick is applied to thousands of people over and over and most people fall for it and that is why they continue.

I wouldn't communicate with the agency - go back to the creditor(Barclays), and ask for proof of claim ie what the fuck is this money I owe and how you worked it out.

dreamweaver
30-11-2010, 07:41 PM
No, not true - A third party interloper has no claim unless specifically included.

Really not sure about this, wise haven. You see this advice all over the web but it originates from the US, specifically with reference to a statute they have over there called The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. There does not appear to be a corresponding statute in the UK regarding assigning of debts to third parties.

However, there is certainly no reason why anyone shouldn't demand proof of debt. After all, any old scammer could send out demands with menaces for fictitious debts - it can and does happen, so the OP is well within their rights to challenge them.

I think this is where most of these debt collectors come unstuck because often their paperwork isn't up to scratch and this is why many of these cases never get to court once they are challenged.

I am not a lawyer and anyone taking any action involving common law or statutes should always exercise due diligence.

wise haven
30-11-2010, 07:49 PM
'Fraid you're wrong on this point (that debts are not assignable). Herewith the law:-

Dawson v Great Northern & City Ry (1905) KB 260

Country Hotel & Wine Co v London & North Western Ry (1918) 2 KB 251, 258

If you take the trouble to dig those ones out you'll find a) they bolster my argument & b) are still good law (you can't beat the classics :D)

I'd be interested to see if you can cite any cases that directly contradict the above. That would be interesting.

I am not accountable for the lack of a Rule of Law in the rest of the country.

But one thing I can say is that one alleged debt I have been chased for (9 years now) has never seen the light of day, in a court, because the claim does not stand.
It is like a game of rounders; the debt is passed around a circle of debt collection agencies until they come full circle and start again - even offers to settle the matte in court are refused because they have no legal claim. It is all bluster and bluff.
Once every couple of months I get some sport with one of the thugs who stands on my doorstep behaving like Goebels and he is sent away with a flea in his ear - he never comes back, that is for sure.

Pfffft - Sounds like you are shilling for the man ;)

wise haven
30-11-2010, 08:01 PM
One thing to remember, with corporate accounting>

Debts are an asset - but once the debt becomes unrecoverable it can be put on the books as a loss.
Corporations are insured for certain losses - as normal operating procedure.

Once the alleged debt (you or me) has been transferred from the assets ledger to the losses ledger it no longer exists as a recoverable assest because to do so would be fraudulent as it, the debt, has been recovered by insurance.
Corporations offset the cost of debt recovery insurance by selling/assigning collection of the debt to a third party.


...............enough, time for dinner :D

he said it was brasso
30-11-2010, 08:26 PM
Debts are assignable - you don't get to authorise it. The matter is out of your hands.

But you are not obliged to contract with a 3rd party are you?

mark1963
30-11-2010, 09:41 PM
Wrong - a debt is an 'asset' & therefore can be assigned (rather in the same way I can assign my pet Tortoise to my sister)

Let's straighten this up, shall we.

The debt that the DCA has has not been assigned by the DCA, it was purchased by the DCA for penny's on the pound.

They have bought a debt and have no, also spelt zero contract with you.

Ask them to provide evidence of a legal assignment. They will not be able to.

The reason the debt has not been assigned is that if it was assigned then the original lending company would still have liability and they do not want that.

yozhik
30-11-2010, 10:11 PM
Debts are assignable - you don't get to authorise it. The matter is out of your hands.

A gives B a cheque for 'payment'.
B endorses it and assigns it to C; the cheque being consideration for an agreement between B and C.
A's cheque bounces.

Who is liable to C?

ant777uk
30-11-2010, 10:25 PM
According to a fella on another forum (Consumer Action Group), I should:

1) Wait for a second letter
2) If received, ask in writing for the original Consumer Credit Agreement letter.
3) They then have 12+2 working days to respond. If they do not then the account is in dispute (I would write a letter confirming this).

This fella also reckons it is within the law for Barclaycard to sell the debt to a third party. I however am convinced there is a way round it due to me having no contract with the 3rd party. I shall ask the 3rd party to provide evidence of legal assignment.

Thanks Mark 1963

mark1963
30-11-2010, 11:19 PM
According to a fella on another forum (Consumer Action Group), I should:

1) Wait for a second letter
2) If received, ask in writing for the original Consumer Credit Agreement letter.
3) They then have 12+2 working days to respond. If they do not then the account is in dispute (I would write a letter confirming this).

This fella also reckons it is within the law for Barclaycard to sell the debt to a third party. I however am convinced there is a way round it due to me having no contract with the 3rd party. I shall ask the 3rd party to provide evidence of legal assignment.

Thanks Mark 1963

It's not a way around, the credit card company made a contract with the DCA and you were not part of that, then the DCA tries to tell you that you still owe the full amount plus costs to them.

It's just a big fat lie. Thank the DCA for expunging your debt.

Do not argue with them, accept the debt conditionally. That stops controversy whereby they cannot take you to court, after all you are accepting the debt upon validity of the debt.

Freeman does have some benefits - :)

lizardlover
30-11-2010, 11:30 PM
Amazing how many freeman talk about honor and being responsible human being and they don't need anyone telling them what to do, yet look for any chance they can find to get out of paying a debt in which they received some service or products for. If you got it, pay for it, otherwise you're nothing more than a thief and I believe stealing is a common law offence.

rumpole
30-11-2010, 11:53 PM
According to a fella on another forum (Consumer Action Group), I should:

1) Wait for a second letter
2) If received, ask in writing for the original Consumer Credit Agreement letter.
3) They then have 12+2 working days to respond. If they do not then the account is in dispute (I would write a letter confirming this).

This fella also reckons it is within the law for Barclaycard to sell the debt to a third party. I however am convinced there is a way round it due to me having no contract with the 3rd party. I shall ask the 3rd party to provide evidence of legal assignment.

Thanks Mark 1963

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but an original signed copy isn't an absolute necessity.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

Alas, Consumer Action are a little behind the times.

Ps - that's an interesting Judgement & worth reading in full.

theabominablephenomenon
01-12-2010, 12:24 AM
If you got it, pay for it, otherwise you're nothing more than a thief and I believe stealing is a common law offence.

Do you mind the banks stealing from us?
Or the government?
Who exactly loses anything?
Surely a theft has to mean a loss to one party?

lizardlover
01-12-2010, 01:53 AM
Do you mind the banks stealing from us?
Or the government?
Who exactly loses anything?
Surely a theft has to mean a loss to one party?


Well if you get a credit card and go spend it, then credit card company pays the store you bought the items from, and you have the items. Then when you don't pay the credit card company, they are out the money they paid to the stores, you still received the items you bought and then refuse to pay for it. If you take something and don't pay for it, its stealing.

yozhik
01-12-2010, 01:58 AM
Well if you get a credit card and go spend it, then credit card company pays the store you bought the items from, and you have the items. Then when you don't pay the credit card company, they are out the money they paid to the stores, you still received the items you bought and then refuse to pay for it. If you take something and don't pay for it, its stealing.

Bullshit.

The Credit Card company would have sold their receivables off as some form securitised ABS into the market.

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/4678/ccsecs.png (http://img815.imageshack.us/i/ccsecs.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059380419&postcount=7

theabominablephenomenon
01-12-2010, 02:30 AM
Well if you get a credit card and go spend it, then credit card company pays the store you bought the items from, and you have the items. Then when you don't pay the credit card company, they are out the money they paid to the stores, you still received the items you bought and then refuse to pay for it. If you take something and don't pay for it, its stealing.

It is that straight forward.
Non-existent God I must have missed something....:eek:

yass
01-12-2010, 03:23 AM
Hi Send them a copy of this letter. It should do the trick.


WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Account No/Reference No:

No debt is acknowledged to you. You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”.

The last payment or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written acknowledgement from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed. Any such action WILL be defended and challenged on the above grounds.

I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed. If you do not supply such confirmation, I will be making a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman. Also, continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 .

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully

(Your signature)

Source(s):
http://www.debthelpuk.co.uk
http://www.my-iva-adviser.co.uk

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100403154035AAW3nXn


Limitation Act 1980

Actions founded on simple contract

Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58

yass
01-12-2010, 03:27 AM
Unsecured credit debts

This would include credit cards, store cards, bank and building society personal loans, catalogues, finance company loans etc. You may have had a debt with an ordinary unsecured creditor that you have not heard about for a very long time. You may have moved address or thought the debt had been written off.

Out of the blue a letter arrives from the original creditor or a debt collection agency asking you to make a payment.

You can argue that the creditor is out of time or “statute barred” from taking you to court for this debt:

if

The creditor has not already obtained a judgment against you

and

You, or any one else owing the money (on a debt in joint names) have not made a payment on the debt during the last six years

and

You have not written to the creditor admitting you owe the debt during the last six years.


What should you do next?

You can use the sample letter attached to write back to the creditor telling them about the Limitation Act and disputing that you owe the debt. Keep a copy of any letter you send.[my emphasis- yass]

You are entitled to a copy of any files the creditor has containing the history of your account under the Data Protection Act 1998. A request for the file would not mean you were admitting the debt.

Remember: If the creditor can prove you wrote to them admitting the debt, or you or anyone else owing the debt made a payment then the six years limitation period would start running from the date you last made contact or made a payment.

If you have started to make payments on a debt where there was more than a 6 year gap then it is probably unenforceable. Phone us for advice.

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_factsheets/liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act.php

yass
01-12-2010, 03:33 AM
There are many types of collection agencies, beginning with first-party agencies who are often times subsidiaries of the original company the debt is owed. Third-party agencies are separate companies contracted by a company to then collect the debts on their behalf for a fee. Another growing industry is debt buyers in which the agency purchases the debt at a fraction of its initial value then collects upon it. Each country has their own rules and regulations regarding collection agencies and their practices which are quite often very aggressive.

United Kingdom

In the UK, debt collection agencies are licensed and regulated by the Office of Fair Trading[17]. The OFT sets guidelines on how debt collection agencies can operate and lists examples of unfair practices[18]. These guidelines are not law, but do represent a summary and interpretation of various legal areas. Compliance with these guidelines is also used as a test of whether the agency is considered fit to hold a credit license.

Examples of unfair practices include misrepresenting enforcement powers (e.g. claiming that property may be seized), falsely claiming to be acting in an official capacity, harassment, claiming unenforceable or excessive charges, misrepresenting the legal position to a debtor), and falsely claiming that a court judgement has been obtained when it has not. The legal basis for these practices comes from section 40[19] of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Collection agencies in the UK should not be confused with court-appointed bailiffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collection_agency#Sale_of_debts

ant777uk
02-12-2010, 11:32 PM
Thanks Yass, the debt however is from just 2-3 years ago

leathal
03-12-2010, 02:37 PM
I have been going through the same thing here in Australia recently..
I had a personal loan from a bank here, obviously I defaulted and didn't make any contact with the bank or any payment after about 6 months...
After nearly 3 years the third party interloping debt purchasing company tracked me down and started calling me on the phone making all sorts of threats and demands, so I got them to send their claims in a letter, which they couldn't be bothered signing, so I sent them a letter making all sorts of promises, but deliberately didn't sign it, this was a ploy to buy some time, but I made some small payments under protest, after about 2 months, I decided these arseholes didn't deserve any money, so I stopped paying them, so more unsigned letters turned up, which I again ignored.
Finally they started ringing my Ex, so I rang them and told them that they had no consent from my ex to be ringing there and told them to only communicate with me by mail. They decided it would be a great idea to ignore these simple instructions and do what they wanted anyway, so I let them dig their hole a bit deeper. On the bottom of all of their letters there is a 'notice' that says "calls may be monitored or recorded for quality and training purposes" (evidence purposes more like it).
so I took their calls, and then found out about conditional acceptance and the commercial process and counter claim, so I sent a notice of conditional acceptance upon proof of about ten things, one of which was to provide a certified copy of the original unaltered debt instrument, another was to provide an Invoice with a wet ink signature on it I had also asked for this on the phone and never received anything. Over here we have the "National Consumer Credit Protection Act" which states that any collector has to provide evidence of debt, a true statement within 28 days of a verbal request or within 14 days of a written request. Well nothing came, then during one of their harassing calls, I got the info out of one of their employees/agents that ALL calls, into or out of their offices are recorded, so I told them that their notice (above) was misleading and fraudulent, so I hung up on the silly b@$% and wrote them a letter setting out my demand for debt verification, and gave them a 'fee schedule' under copyright law for holding nonconsensual recordings of my original thoughts, ideas and verbal utterances, and writtings and etchings, then I demanded that within 14 days they were to provide proof certain by Statutory Declaration that all such copyright materials had been destroyed because they didn't have license to use it for 'quality or training purposes', and that using it for those purposes would give them commercial value, I also quoted to them sections from "Invasions of Privacy Act" Queensland, and "Surveilance Devices Act" New South Wales, and told them that they were in breach of these acts by not declaring at the beginning of every call that it was being recorded.
In my "fee schedule" all calls to me unless I first received a Stat Dec saying the call wouldn't be recorded would cost them $10,000 per hour or part thereof, and, all documents and recordings being held by them "for value" would attract an anual license fee of $150,000, unless evidence of their destruction was sent forthwith.
Their time is up in about 3 days, so I have drawn up a bill of exchange for $150,000 to send them at the end of next week. But, I will give them remedy by telling them they can setoff the measly $11,000 they think I owe them and to send me the other $139,000. I am also going to say that because I am an honourable man who always prefers to settle matters amicably, If they do this within 7 days, I will forgive my claim for the rest of the money.
We'll see how they go with that.
:D;)

Just to make sure they know they are fucking with someone that wont be fucked with, I have made complaints to every regulatory authority to whom they submit. The only ones I haven't filled with are the 2 State Police forces.. Debt purchasers are in one state, I am in another.
Personally, I don't subscribe to "statute law", but I have no problem with the idea of holding people/corporate entities to the statutes to which they subscribe and seem to want to wave at me like a stick.
It is also worth noting that time estoppels were set in every request for proof of claim that I sent them, and they all expired, so as far as this matter is concerned it is "lawfully and financially settled" through acquiescence and default..

kodo4
19-12-2010, 07:41 PM
Ant, this may be a little long winded but bear with it.

My first post on this site so hello to everyone, and please be kind at least this time.

Some 10 years ago I was going through a long and difficult recovery from a quadruple by-pass. We did fall into financial difficulties but we contacted all the creditors and made temporary arrangements to the repayment schedules. Those arrangements were being met.

However, out of the blue, we were contacted by a DCA (Offices in Leeds) who said they had now taken over the collection of the debt. They demanded an immediate increase in the payment and pointed out that they would refer the matter to their legal department should I make no increase.

To be fair I was more than a little annoyed that the original creditor had seen fit to sell on the debt (as I suspected) when agreed payments were being met. Even though I could understand that they would want to elleviate as much distressed debt as possible they had agreed to the re-scheduling.

After a little thought and a couple of evenings reading I came up with the folowing course of action.

I wrote to the DCA pointing out that their quoted Acct No was different to the the one used by the original creditor and was concerned that some confussion could arise in the future when I wrote to the original creditor. Also the total balance outstanding was different to the one I had.

I wrote to the original creditor pointing out the same and asking them to confirm both the Acct No and the balance outstanding. Also to confirm that the DCA were acting on their behalf.

The reply from the original creditor was very similar to the OP in that the debt had been assigned to the DCA and sold on X date. This was confirmed by the reply from DCA to my letter to them, when they said the the diference in the outstanding balance represented their costs to date.

I wrote again the the original creditor asking them to confirm that the debt had been sold on to the DCA, that they had no further interest in the contract and that our dealings in the matter were at an end with no monies owed to them by me.

Their reply confirmed all this.

I then wrote to the DCA asking for the following.

1. Copy of the original contract.
2. Copies of all my correspondence with the original creditor.
3. Copy of the original creditors contact file with me.
4. Copy of my contact with them.
5. A full statement of Account.
6. Full fee schedule relating to their costs and charges.

Their reply was a full Statement of Account and their full fees schedule but they could not supply any of the other documents requested and that my contract with them was the original contract with the original creditor, which had been transfered under assignment. Along with a further demand for increased payment and threat of future legal action,

My next letter was to say that I felt they were in some difficulty with the collection as I could see no legal standing. I demanded that all future correspondece was made by registered mail as I had noted that one of their letters had given me a timescale for response of 14 working days yet was postmarked three days before that deadline.

The letter also said that I would now only correspond with their legal department because of my concerns about the legal standing of their claim where were as follows.

A) Both the original creditor and yourselves had stated that the contract had been transfered under assignment and both of you have also confirmed that the original creditor has no further interest in the contract, which they must do to form a legal assignment. ( I believe this is because assigments are assignment of rights under the contract and not the contract itself )

B) The only way a transfer could take place with the original creditor relinquishing all interest would be via Novation ( which I believe is the substitution of the contract itself, as in the substitution of the original with a new one which includes the cancellation of the original debt). However this would also have no legal standing as, to be legitimate. ALL parties must agree to the transfer (substitution) and, as a party to the contract, would require my consent. As my consent was neither sought nor given this route also appears to have no legal standing.

C) An additional aspect of Novation is that if I were to accept it, which I do not, I must be left in the same position to that which I was in before. Given that the original creditor and I had reached agreement regarding re-scheduled payments (see enclosures) you are in breach of contract in attemting to demand an increase in payment.

D) I am struck that as both the original credtors and yourselves have reached a legally binding. Given the collective legal input you posses I am at a loss to believe the you cannot seperate an Assignment and a Novation. I can only conclude that one, or both, of you are attempting a deception.

E) Given the four points above it is clear that the original creditor accepts no further interest (No Assignment). It is clear that your dealings are complete as you both quote the same date as a takover date. Additionally the original debt had clearly been cancelled (no monies owed). The only thing that appears to be missing a new contact which you cannot produce as I have not agreed to one.

F) I am prepared to have this stance tested in Court. I am equally convinced that you are not given the implications.

G) Should you wish to deal back your agreement with the original creditor in order to carry out a legitimate Assignment at a latter date I will produce this evidence to a court to show that there was no debt in existance at the date of the wind back.

This did produce several exchanges of correspondance with their legal department to which my replies were to simply to refer them to this letter.

Eventually I put them on notice to respond with either acceptance of my stance or to start legal proceedings. With the failure to respond default being acceptance and closure.

No reply, ever.

The real point of the above is that these people are quite prepared to attempt decieve you in the belief that you are not only ignorant of the true nature of things but are wilfully ignorant in so much as you will not even try to discover the real truth. It was clear to me at the time that the real trick was the threat of the exposure the the level of their deciet.
+

I hope that this has been of use to you

yozhik
19-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Three words;

Ecclesiastical
Deed
Poll

rumpole
19-12-2010, 09:42 PM
Ant, this may be a little long winded but bear with it.

My first post on this site so hello to everyone, and please be kind at least this time.

Some 10 years ago I was going through a long and difficult recovery from a quadruple by-pass. We did fall into financial difficulties but we contacted all the creditors and made temporary arrangements to the repayment schedules. Those arrangements were being met.

However, out of the blue, we were contacted by a DCA (Offices in Leeds) who said they had now taken over the collection of the debt. They demanded an immediate increase in the payment and pointed out that they would refer the matter to their legal department should I make no increase.

To be fair I was more than a little annoyed that the original creditor had seen fit to sell on the debt (as I suspected) when agreed payments were being met. Even though I could understand that they would want to elleviate as much distressed debt as possible they had agreed to the re-scheduling.

After a little thought and a couple of evenings reading I came up with the folowing course of action.

I wrote to the DCA pointing out that their quoted Acct No was different to the the one used by the original creditor and was concerned that some confussion could arise in the future when I wrote to the original creditor. Also the total balance outstanding was different to the one I had.

I wrote to the original creditor pointing out the same and asking them to confirm both the Acct No and the balance outstanding. Also to confirm that the DCA were acting on their behalf.

The reply from the original creditor was very similar to the OP in that the debt had been assigned to the DCA and sold on X date. This was confirmed by the reply from DCA to my letter to them, when they said the the diference in the outstanding balance represented their costs to date.

I wrote again the the original creditor asking them to confirm that the debt had been sold on to the DCA, that they had no further interest in the contract and that our dealings in the matter were at an end with no monies owed to them by me.

Their reply confirmed all this.

I then wrote to the DCA asking for the following.

1. Copy of the original contract.
2. Copies of all my correspondence with the original creditor.
3. Copy of the original creditors contact file with me.
4. Copy of my contact with them.
5. A full statement of Account.
6. Full fee schedule relating to their costs and charges.

Their reply was a full Statement of Account and their full fees schedule but they could not supply any of the other documents requested and that my contract with them was the original contract with the original creditor, which had been transfered under assignment. Along with a further demand for increased payment and threat of future legal action,

My next letter was to say that I felt they were in some difficulty with the collection as I could see no legal standing. I demanded that all future correspondece was made by registered mail as I had noted that one of their letters had given me a timescale for response of 14 working days yet was postmarked three days before that deadline.

The letter also said that I would now only correspond with their legal department because of my concerns about the legal standing of their claim where were as follows.

A) Both the original creditor and yourselves had stated that the contract had been transfered under assignment and both of you have also confirmed that the original creditor has no further interest in the contract, which they must do to form a legal assignment. ( I believe this is because assigments are assignment of rights under the contract and not the contract itself )

B) The only way a transfer could take place with the original creditor relinquishing all interest would be via Novation ( which I believe is the substitution of the contract itself, as in the substitution of the original with a new one which includes the cancellation of the original debt). However this would also have no legal standing as, to be legitimate. ALL parties must agree to the transfer (substitution) and, as a party to the contract, would require my consent. As my consent was neither sought nor given this route also appears to have no legal standing.

C) An additional aspect of Novation is that if I were to accept it, which I do not, I must be left in the same position to that which I was in before. Given that the original creditor and I had reached agreement regarding re-scheduled payments (see enclosures) you are in breach of contract in attemting to demand an increase in payment.

D) I am struck that as both the original credtors and yourselves have reached a legally binding. Given the collective legal input you posses I am at a loss to believe the you cannot seperate an Assignment and a Novation. I can only conclude that one, or both, of you are attempting a deception.

E) Given the four points above it is clear that the original creditor accepts no further interest (No Assignment). It is clear that your dealings are complete as you both quote the same date as a takover date. Additionally the original debt had clearly been cancelled (no monies owed). The only thing that appears to be missing a new contact which you cannot produce as I have not agreed to one.

F) I am prepared to have this stance tested in Court. I am equally convinced that you are not given the implications.

G) Should you wish to deal back your agreement with the original creditor in order to carry out a legitimate Assignment at a latter date I will produce this evidence to a court to show that there was no debt in existance at the date of the wind back.

This did produce several exchanges of correspondance with their legal department to which my replies were to simply to refer them to this letter.

Eventually I put them on notice to respond with either acceptance of my stance or to start legal proceedings. With the failure to respond default being acceptance and closure.

No reply, ever.

The real point of the above is that these people are quite prepared to attempt decieve you in the belief that you are not only ignorant of the true nature of things but are wilfully ignorant in so much as you will not even try to discover the real truth. It was clear to me at the time that the real trick was the threat of the exposure the the level of their deciet.
+

I hope that this has been of use to you

One slight snag - Novation only applies during the performance of a contract. Once you've defaulted the person owed the debt can assign it to whover he wishes (upon written notice) & that can mean debt collectors.

Quite often you'll find DC's just give up when dealing with an obstinate debtor. Legal action can expensive & lengthy & its easier to move on to fresh pastures.

kodo4
20-12-2010, 12:22 AM
One slight snag - Novation only applies during the performance of a contract. Once you've defaulted the person owed the debt can assign it to whover he wishes (upon written notice) & that can mean debt collectors.

Quite often you'll find DC's just give up when dealing with an obstinate debtor. Legal action can expensive & lengthy & its easier to move on to fresh pastures.

Almost right old boy, but you should have read it properly.

In contacting the original lender before defaulting and re-sheduling the repayment the contract is ammended by agreement and therefore not defaulted, it is classed as a distressed loan.

However the main point, as you should be able see, is the standing of the assignment. The original creditor in relinquishing all interest in the contract shows this cannot be an assignment. Assignment is tranfering the rights to recieve the benefits accruing to one of the parties of a contract. The original creditor must retain an interest, as they must retain the obligations of the original contact. This applies whether the contract is in default or not, it is a required term of assignment, as you should know. Both the supposed Assignor and Assignee confirmed in writing that the original creditor held no further interest in the contract. In so doing they both negated any assignment as they denied the obligations to performance that should have been retained.

I would accept that Novation it is normally used as a way of avoiding default or bankruptcy. However it is also used in contract law to replace the obligation to perform with another obligation or to replace one party to a contract with another. Given again the denial of interest of both parties this seemed to me at the time to be the remedy they chose, and still does.

Sadly I am fully aware of the length and cost of legal action. I am also aware that the DCA would attempt to recover those costs as part of the action. It would have taken one hearing to establish the validity of the transfer, but they chose not to test it in court. The premis that they gave up after 7 or 8 letters is frankly silly.

Maybe I'm just obstinate debtor.... Maybe there should be more of me.....

Then again maybe they were just being decietful.

girlgye
21-12-2010, 02:56 AM
+

I hope that this has been of use to you

Yes your presence here is most welcome :)
As you will see throughout the history of learning on DIF FMOL bar the idiots who come to wreck it, that we have shared our knowledge freely and encouraged others to understand who are new to the table.

Thanks for your contribution we need all the logic we can get.

kodo4
21-12-2010, 12:02 PM
Thank you GG

interdimensional
08-01-2011, 01:16 AM
Just received a letter through the post from Lowell Portfolio with reference to a £450 debt they have recently purchased from Barclaycard.

The debt is from about 2-3 years ago. Escaped Barclaycard originally as I had moved out to Australia. Now I am back in the UK.

Letter is opened and I am not able to comfortably pay it.

Would Lowell have done some research on me/my location etc. before purchasing the debt? Maybe they found out I had returned to the UK from Facebook or Linked In....as the letter is opened I assume it would be pointless to send it back in another envelope saying "no longer at this address"...

I assume this is quite a common occurrence on this forum...any suggestions would be infinitely appreciated.

www.getoutofdebtfree.org

ant777uk
16-01-2011, 09:55 PM
Thanks everyone for your advice and input.

So I requested the CCA well over a month and a half ago, nothing has come to date, I have also written to place the account into dispute and this has also been honoured. The only difference being that Lowell do not use the word "dispute", and instead say that the account is currently on hold and no further action will be taken. They are still trying to obtain the original CCA from Barclaycard.

They have not called me yet, and if they did, I would tell them I only communicate in writing and if they call again it will constitute ‘harassment' under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Is there some kind of legal time limit as to when a CCA/proof of debt must be produced until the debt has been written off? Some guys on the consumeractiongroup forum have advised me that all I can do now is wait...however this sounds a bit boring and I feel like writing another letter. Does anyone know how to clear the debt rather than just place it in dispute..?

For example would something like this work, as GetOutofDebtfree.org suggests:

"Your said failure to provide the aforementioned documentation within ten (10) days, from the above date, to validate the debt, will constitute your agreement to the following terms:

1. That the debt did not exist in the first place;
OR
2. It has already been paid in full;
AND
3. That any damages I suffer, you will be held culpable;
4. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed;
5. You will no longer pursue this matter any further.
6. You agree to pay all fee schedules."

I would then follow it up ten days later with my fee schedules. Has anyone tried this?

ant777uk
26-01-2011, 11:02 PM
Anyway, all sorted:

Received letter from Lowell on Monday with the following:

"We refer to your recent request for a copy of the original credit agreement for this account.

After liasing with Barclaycard in an effort to obtain this document we have been advised that it is no longer available due to the length of time since the account was opened with you.

We are closing your account. At this time we have closed our file and will not make any further contact with you concerning payment against this account unless the copy of the agreement is received at some point in the future from Barclaycard."

The best part is at the end, where, highlighted in yellow, it always says "Your Next Steps" in big letters and "Pay balance in Full" blah blah blah.

Now it says " Your Next Steps: You don't need to do anything"

Victory. Thanks for everyone's input. Will pass on what I have learnt to others. Respect

yetti
27-01-2011, 09:24 AM
well done,

scottishryan
27-01-2011, 09:50 AM
Anyway, all sorted:

Received letter from Lowell on Monday with the following:

"We refer to your recent request for a copy of the original credit agreement for this account.

After liasing with Barclaycard in an effort to obtain this document we have been advised that it is no longer available due to the length of time since the account was opened with you.

We are closing your account. At this time we have closed our file and will not make any further contact with you concerning payment against this account unless the copy of the agreement is received at some point in the future from Barclaycard."

The best part is at the end, where, highlighted in yellow, it always says "Your Next Steps" in big letters and "Pay balance in Full" blah blah blah.

Now it says " Your Next Steps: You don't need to do anything"

Victory. Thanks for everyone's input. Will pass on what I have learnt to others. Respect

Well done my friend!!

I have been witness to a plethora of debt being written off and similar responses from these parasite companies who trade from peoples fear, struggles and the like.

Ask for contract and relevant documentation which is a legal right under Statute law and they fold like a pack of cards.....irrelevant of what the select few system protectors here tell you!!

Take note all in similar situations!! :)

rumpelstilzchen
27-01-2011, 03:21 PM
Well done my friend!!

I have been witness to a plethora of debt being written off and similar responses from these parasite companies who trade from peoples fear, struggles and the like.

Ask for contract and relevant documentation which is a legal right under Statute law and they fold like a pack of cards.....irrelevant of what the select few system protectors here tell you!!

Take note all in similar situations!! :)

I'm not sure I understand your point.
Although I am not a believer in fotl theory that does not mean I am a "system supporter" nor that ant777uk's victory is undeserved. In fact I agree with the method ant777uk used to achieve his success and it is a path I would recommend. ant777uk chose to go the sensible route and use the relevant statutes in pursuit of his aim rather than attempt to use fotl pseudo legal arguments that frankly are gibberish.
Even though this thread is in the fotl section, fotl tactics were not used in this instance and I am pleased to read of ant777uk's good news.

juleswinfield
27-01-2011, 04:55 PM
Even though this thread is in the fotl section, fotl tactics were not used in this instance and I am pleased to read of ant777uk's good news.

+1
Those dreaded statute laws that protect the evil bankers and shit on the little man have done it again..........no wait...its the other way around isn't it?

signalnorth
27-01-2011, 05:16 PM
"Maybe I'm just obstinate debtor.... Maybe there should be more of me....."

I'm one too! They soon get worn down and look for easier targets once they know you are not prepared to lay down and take from behind.

robbo95
28-01-2011, 10:31 AM
Anyway, all sorted:

Received letter from Lowell on Monday with the following:

"We refer to your recent request for a copy of the original credit agreement for this account.

After liasing with Barclaycard in an effort to obtain this document we have been advised that it is no longer available due to the length of time since the account was opened with you.

We are closing your account. At this time we have closed our file and will not make any further contact with you concerning payment against this account unless the copy of the agreement is received at some point in the future from Barclaycard."

The best part is at the end, where, highlighted in yellow, it always says "Your Next Steps" in big letters and "Pay balance in Full" blah blah blah.

Now it says " Your Next Steps: You don't need to do anything"

Victory. Thanks for everyone's input. Will pass on what I have learnt to others. Respect

Well done mate, I never got one back from them after i sent my last one like i said i would.

1 thing people need to remember on purchased debt, they act on the law of property via assignment of debt.

Assignment of debt which is in most contracts, for it to be assigned all 3 parties need to hold an interest in the debt (you, creditor and DCA).

If the original creditor has been paid via DCA (purchased) they are satisfied and no longer have an interest so the assignment fails.
Best way is to check your credit file and see if its been paid, then contact the original creditor and ask them if their credit file is paid and they are happy that the case with them is closed.

LP1 don't have a leg to stand on.

This is not legal advise just information i have found and used. If you ever need to use any info like best checking with a solicitor first.:rolleyes: