Received notice of claim from Asset Collections and Investigation LTD - Scotland

**Amethyst** · 6th December 2018, 10:43:AM

Yes, procedures are different in Scotland but the principals are the same.

So The default notice is the company who purchased the debt from Uncle Buck trying to rectify issues with the account. However the default notice gives the cause of action and they started the claim before the default notice. The default notice gives you to the 31st to rectify the account after which they may be entitled to take court action- but they already have.

Likely Uncle Buck didn't issue any notice of default or termination at the time.

Could you type out the details from the claim form that should have come with the notice please.

When did you open the account with Uncle Buck ?

Then you should send a CCA request to Asset.https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...etter-example/

And make an affordability complaint to Uncle Buck as you did with the others previously. If that settles before this court claim return date then it's easy - pay it off with any refund ( negotiate a reduction) - https://www.unclebuck.co.uk/complaints

I would also today send a SAR to Uncle Buck - https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ccess-request/

You can do that by email :-

Please contact csupport@unclebuck.co.uk if you would like to exercise any of your data protection rights or if you have any queries in respect of your rights.

You should get replies to those before your return date of 19th Jan.

**ScottishSolicitor** · 13th December 2018, 13:34:PM

I might be able to assist you with this...which court is the case in?

**Sheriff SP** · 6th January 2019, 14:36:PM

You can either be co-operative and try to settle this issue with the parasite that is Asset and Collections Investigations, or, if you have the balls for it: be militant and not pay them a hot penny.

What YOU want to do is up to you, but this is what I would do:

I would not respond to this letter from them in any way, shape or form. This kicks the ball back into their court, they then have to appoint Sheriff Officers/ Messenger-at-Arms to serve a Form 6A (Notice of Claim) upon you. Due to the small amount of money involved, this will absolutely be through the Simple Procedure at your local Sheriff Court.

If it came to it and Sheriff Officers turned up at my door and asked for me by name, I simply wouldn't confirm my name at all (don't actually say it, just don't do it), I would instead ask to see their identification (all Sheriff Officers and Messengers-at-Arms are issued with identification badges from the Sheriff Clerks Office of each Sheriffdom) because:

1. If they couldn't provide it, I would explain to them that I won't discuss anything else with them because I cannot verify their identity and they could be scammers, then close the door in their faces, or,
2. If they did provide it, they may be cheeky breekis (like a certain outfit in Glasgow) and be trying to serve documents outside their Sheriffdom. It's important now to note the difference between a Sheriff Officer (who can only serve documents inside the territorial limits of a particular Sheriffdom) and a Messenger-at-Arms (who can serve documents anywhere inside Scotland). Unless both of them are Messengers-at-Arms then their Sheriffdom on the identification must be the Sheriffdom that you are resident in, otherwise you should note their identification numbers and immeadiately make a complaint to both the Sheriff Principal and to the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers about their fraudulent conduct,
3. If they did have the authority to issue documents in your Sheriffdom, I would still note their numbers and then inform them you need to verify their identity and authority with the Sheriff Clerks Office, shut the door in their faces (locking it behind me), call the Clerk and even if they verify the information as correct, I would still not return to the door and let the two dimwits outside bang on my door, chap the letterbox, knock on the windows and call through the letterbox for a while before they realise you're trolling them and go away. This won't work forever, but it's funny nonetheless, eventually you will be served.

Don't be afraid of Sheriff Officers, until you have a Decree made against you, they are nothing but glorified post men who are merely monkeys dancing to the organ grinders tune. After a Decree is made (which it won't go to unless you fcuk up your defence somehow) then the Sheriff Officers do actually have some teeth in performing their dilligence, but that is a seperate matter and we can cross that bridge if it comes to it.

If I was finally served, I would then check Form 6A to see if they had served it before the last date for service. If they hadn't then I would go my Sheriff Clerks Office and hand the document back noting they served it outwith the prescribed period. I would also write letters of complaint to both the Sheriff Principal and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.

If it was in-time then my first thing to consider is that under Scots Law, the Claimant has to prove to the Court two essential things:

1. That the alleged debt exists, and,
2. That the Claimant has a right to take action to recover the alleged debt.

Therefore I would immeadiately attack the Claim on both of these issues.

I would check the Claimants name, then check with the Financial Conduct Authority if they were registered and authorised to purchase debt. If they are then I would be careful to check if the Claimant and the Registered Entity were the exact same. It's important to note that Asset and Collections Investigations and Lowell Portfolio are both extremely easy to destroy at this first hurdle as they have many, many company names that they use interchangeably, but the fact is that only the entity which is registered and authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority is able to make a Claim on the alleged debt.

If this was matching then my next step is to write to the Debt Collection Agency with a letter which is a request for further information and will include the following:

1. For the Claimant to provide a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement pursuant to either Section 77(1) or 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and,
2. For the Claimant to provide a break-down of the figure of the alleged debt, and,
3. For the Claimant to provide a True Copy of the Deed of Assignment between the Assignee (Debt Collection Agency) and the Assignor (original lender), and,
4. For the Claimant to provide proof of Intimation of the Deed of Assignment upon the Respondent.

You will never get a reply to all of these things, simply because it is impossible for the Debt Collection Agency to provide either the Deed of Assignment (as the debts are bought in bulk and any Deed of Assignment would show the actual amount of money the DCA spent acquiring the alleged debt. Since this would be somewhere in the region of 2.00% to 9.00%, this would limit their Claim to that amount as there are case-law precendents that would make anything over the true figure to be considered unfair under both Section 149 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (see Office of Fair Trading vs Abbey National plc and Others [2009] UKSC 6)). As that precedent was set at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, it holds even in Scots Law at the Sheriff Court.

You will also never see proof of Intimation because for the completion of Intimation you would have had to previously specifically acknowledged the Intimation by writing a letter to the Assignee stating just that.

As such you have probably just torpedo'd the Claim there and then by challenging the Claimants right to make the Claim. However I would for the sake of completness also challenge the alleged debt too.

I would then check the information provided by the Claimant in Section D1 and D4 of the Form 3A that I was served with. If the Claimant did not include direct references from the Consumer Credit Agreement (and include a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement) or note in E2 whether the Claimant stated they would be producing a Consumer Credit Agreement. If not to any of those sections, that tells me the Debt Collection Agency does not have the original Consumer Credit Agreement.

Without being able to see the Consumer Credit Agreement, we cannot build a proper defence to the agreement, so I would Respond to the Sheriff that the Claimants case is critically dependent on the CCA, therefore if no CCA can be produced then the Claim should be dismissed.

If the CCA was made available to me, I would check if the legal entity on the CCA was the legal entity that the Debt Collection Agency had written on the Claim. If it was different I would note it in my Response and ask for the Claim to be dismissed. It's important to remember that (especially for Online Retailer Credit Accounts, Catalogue Accounts, etc) many of the companies that you originally entered into an Agreement with have been bought over, collapsed, merged, etc, so it is always worth noting any differences and asking for the Claim to be dismissed.

After the Claim is dismissed pro loco et tempore, you have just kicked the alleged debt into legal limbo where one of two things will happen:

1. You'll never hear back from the Debt Collection Agency and the alleged debt will become Statute barred, or,
2. The Debt Collection Agency will be stupid any have you served with a Notice of Claim again, to which I would do the same as above again except this time I would ask the Sheriff to absolve me at the Hearing, handing the Sheriff the Order of the Sheriff on the previous occasion.

**Sheriff SP** · 6th January 2019, 14:56:PM

Oh bum, sorry I just properly read your first post and realised that you have already been served a Notice of Claim. Well OK just continue on from my post after the section about the great Five D's of dealing with process servers: "Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge".

**Debt Camel** · 8th January 2019, 11:25:AM

I set up payment plans with the majority, had a few wiped off by creditors who realised they shouldnt have loaned me and was refunded several thousand from wonga after making a complaint. However one I seem to have missed is Uncle Buck.

In addition to paying or defending this Claim, you should also look at putting in a payday loan affordability complaint to UB and to the other payday lenders you used but didn't complain to. See https://debtcamel.co.uk/payday-loan-refunds/ for how to do this.

**Nostrus** · 18th January 2019, 12:17:PM

Originally posted by Sheriff SP View Post

2. If they did provide it, they may be cheeky breekis (like a certain outfit in Glasgow) and be trying to serve documents outside their Sheriffdom. It's important now to note the difference between a Sheriff Officer (who can only serve documents inside the territorial limits of a particular Sheriffdom) and a Messenger-at-Arms (who can serve documents anywhere inside Scotland). Unless both of them are Messengers-at-Arms then their Sheriffdom on the identification must be the Sheriffdom that you are resident in, otherwise you should note their identification numbers and immeadiately make a complaint to both the Sheriff Principal and to the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers about their fraudulent conduct,

Just to note that there are circumstances where a Sheriff Officer can indeed serve papers outside their jurisdiction, primarily where a defender/respondent has moved from an address in their jurisdiction to another address outside their jurisdiction, the Sheriff Officer is permitted to "follow their warrant" and serve the papers at the new address. In years gone by, this would have required endorsation by a Sheriff Clerk, but this is no longer the case.

3. If they did have the authority to issue documents in your Sheriffdom, I would still note their numbers and then inform them you need to verify their identity and authority with the Sheriff Clerks Office, shut the door in their faces (locking it behind me), call the Clerk and even if they verify the information as correct, I would still not return to the door and let the two dimwits outside bang on my door, chap the letterbox, knock on the windows and call through the letterbox for a while before they realise you're trolling them and go away. This won't work forever, but it's funny nonetheless, eventually you will be served.

All they need to do is to confirm with a neighbour that you reside there and they can deposit it through your letterbox and that is considered effective service. If you live in rented accommodation, they can similarly confirm you are still a current tenant at the property with your landlord.

**Amethyst** · 18th January 2019, 13:08:PM

Thistle46 your return date is tomorrow? Have you got things sorted out ?

**Sheriff SP** · 15th February 2019, 01:18:AM

Originally posted by Debt Camel View Post

In addition to paying or defending this Claim, you should also look at putting in a payday loan affordability complaint to UB and to the other payday lenders you used but didn't complain to. See https://debtcamel.co.uk/payday-loan-refunds/ for how to do this.

Your first point relates to when the Respondent has moved address, which is a fair point but my example was supposed on the fact that the Respondent had always stayed at the address as noted from the original alleged debt documentation.

Your second point, whilst also fair, assumes that the landlord is known or that the neighbours indeed know your identity. I dare say that most people in Generations Y and below do not actively engage with their neighbours, in-fact even in my own experiences I have lived next door to my neighbour for six years and I don't have a clue what their names are, nor do I have any interaction with them other than the occasional "hello". Obviously you are indeed correct with what you say but it depends upon other factors being known to the Sheriff Officer/ Messenger-at-Arms and/or the neighbours.

At the end of the day we are engaging in semantics and futility but (for me anyway, other's mileage may vary) it's always worth a chuckle to troll the Sheriff Officers if and when possible as I hold them in little regard. They won't be coming back for collection activities anyway since I have never known a defended CCA claim to ever be successful in Scotland as the Respondent need only challenge the Claimants title to Claim on the alleged debt as the Claimant will never be able to prove assignation of the alleged debt unless the Respondent was an absolute idiot and formally recognised the assignation with a letter, but as most people who have DCA's taking them to Court generally did not correspond with the DCA in the first place then I would doubt such a missive exists.

For anyone in future coming to this post, when you get a Notice of Claim served on you, immediately send your statutory letter (under the relevant section of the CCA) to the DCA and in addition to the usual requests, you should further request that they provide you proof of assignation of the alleged debt as well as a true copy (wording used in the 1862 Act itself, not some Freeman-on-the-Land garbage pseudo-legal jargon) of the deed of assignation of the alleged debt (which they will never do as no such deed exists: these alleged debts are bought in bulk/ bundles by the DCA literally for pennies in the pound. Any document showing the purchase of the alleged debt would not only show the other debts purchased but the sum paid for the alleged debts, the 1862 Act actually pre-empted this in a rare act of foresight by allowing redacted information on the true copy of the deed - but you will never get one anyway because the previous still holds true). These are requirements in Scots Law under the Transmission of Moveable Property (Scotland) Act 1862, if the terms of the Act are not met then the DCA claimant will not have title to Claim on the alleged debt. When you receive no reply to your statutory request within the prescribed time limit then you simply relay this in the Response to Claim which you duly submit to the Sheriff Court. The Sheriff will then send an Order of the Sheriff to the Claimant formally requesting the same, and then you will most likely not hear anything back until you get a notice that the Claimant has abandoned the Claim.

**Nostrus** · 22nd July 2019, 09:27:AM

Apologies for the resurrection, but I have been off-site for several months.

Just to expand on some of your points; Sheriff officers are rarely collection agents (Council tax and some large volume debt agencies excluded). Debt assignation rarely comes to anything when challenged because most of the debt purchasing agencies, although purchasing the debt rarely seem to have the paperwork and must go back to the original debt owners. If they don't have the paperwork, the case can go nowhere. As you have rightly stated, they pay a fraction of the debt value and thus in most cases that do pay, obtain an obscene profit margin and can afford to drop challenged cases (which are probably in single figure percentages.)

With regard obtaining landlord details, all Scottish landlords should now be registered and most local authority landlords shall provide confirmation on request.

Received notice of claim from Asset Collections and Investigation LTD - Scotland