Tweet
Firstly this is my daughters debt and I have scanned posts since 2018 and through the knowledge gained on here, helped her to prepare a defense, I am now worried I have got it wrong. She gained an Argos loan in 2003, which due to Maternity leave and then out of work defaulted on. Argos offered, without checking her financial status a larger loan to clear the original debt and added PPI, this was in 2004, which of course was useless as she was no longer working.
Due to her request for help in applying for a PPI refund(which was unsuccessful) I told her to stop paying Calbot, as the loan was with Argos and she had never received a Notice of Assignment from Argos. Last payment made April 2016.
All communication was over the phone for years, so it is accepted by her that was how she was notified about sending payments to, Calbot. .She has no paperwork to say pay Calbot.
Over the last 2 -3 years, Cabot have sent numerous letters, including a Letter of Claim dated 14 March 2018, which they argue equals Notice of Assignment and shows transfer of debt was made on or about 29 July 2005.
It went to Court last month and her defense was Section 136 of the LPA 1925 not complied with nor has proof of posting under Section 196 of the*Lawof Property ct*1925 been shown ..
We have the front page of the original Agreement with Argos, this was A4 size but folded in 3, and despite numerous request to Argos, the Terms & Conditions for the Loan were not provided, only that for the PPI and that was barely legible.Restons have now provided* a photocopy of Terms & Conditions, stating that "We can transfer our rights under this agreement at any time" Also the fees are £15 for returned Direct Debit of if we have to contact you about he arrears and £25 administrative charge if we have to instruct agents to collect the debt from you.
At the Preliminary hearing, the Claimant argued that daughter knew about the transfer/assignment as she was making payments to Calbot.* Judge appeared to be inclined to ignore defense, referred us to Civil Procedure 27.14 (g) and has set a date for the hearing in the Small Claims Court.
to summarise and question
1.No Notice of Assignment received from Argos-as required by section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925-we still have not been clearly told if sell of debt was legal or and Equitable Assignment-any ideas why is the Judge is ignoring this Law and allowing case to be heard?
2. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires Notice of Assignment to be sent recorded post.-any ideas why Judge is ignoring this Law and allowing case to be heard
3. Would anyone know if the recently issued T&A stem from 2004, based on the fees mentioned
4. As no Notice of Assignment was sent, there has been no signed document by the Defendant and the Claimant to be Novated-why is the Court ignoring this or is this not requiredi?
5.Terms & Conditions-which were only recently issued state-We can transfer this Agreement at any time. Is there any argument on this as "transfer" is not clear and doesnt explain what they can do
they argue-
A. Defendant knew where to make payments to Claimant.
B.Lombard North Central PLC v Power-Hines 1995 the only requirement is Court satisfied Notice was sent
C Letter of Claim and Pre Action Protocal=Notice of Assignment, is this right or should Notice of Assignment be from Argos
Due to her request for help in applying for a PPI refund(which was unsuccessful) I told her to stop paying Calbot, as the loan was with Argos and she had never received a Notice of Assignment from Argos. Last payment made April 2016.
All communication was over the phone for years, so it is accepted by her that was how she was notified about sending payments to, Calbot. .She has no paperwork to say pay Calbot.
Over the last 2 -3 years, Cabot have sent numerous letters, including a Letter of Claim dated 14 March 2018, which they argue equals Notice of Assignment and shows transfer of debt was made on or about 29 July 2005.
It went to Court last month and her defense was Section 136 of the LPA 1925 not complied with nor has proof of posting under Section 196 of the*Lawof Property ct*1925 been shown ..
We have the front page of the original Agreement with Argos, this was A4 size but folded in 3, and despite numerous request to Argos, the Terms & Conditions for the Loan were not provided, only that for the PPI and that was barely legible.Restons have now provided* a photocopy of Terms & Conditions, stating that "We can transfer our rights under this agreement at any time" Also the fees are £15 for returned Direct Debit of if we have to contact you about he arrears and £25 administrative charge if we have to instruct agents to collect the debt from you.
At the Preliminary hearing, the Claimant argued that daughter knew about the transfer/assignment as she was making payments to Calbot.* Judge appeared to be inclined to ignore defense, referred us to Civil Procedure 27.14 (g) and has set a date for the hearing in the Small Claims Court.
to summarise and question
1.No Notice of Assignment received from Argos-as required by section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925-we still have not been clearly told if sell of debt was legal or and Equitable Assignment-any ideas why is the Judge is ignoring this Law and allowing case to be heard?
2. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires Notice of Assignment to be sent recorded post.-any ideas why Judge is ignoring this Law and allowing case to be heard
3. Would anyone know if the recently issued T&A stem from 2004, based on the fees mentioned
4. As no Notice of Assignment was sent, there has been no signed document by the Defendant and the Claimant to be Novated-why is the Court ignoring this or is this not requiredi?
5.Terms & Conditions-which were only recently issued state-We can transfer this Agreement at any time. Is there any argument on this as "transfer" is not clear and doesnt explain what they can do
they argue-
A. Defendant knew where to make payments to Claimant.
B.Lombard North Central PLC v Power-Hines 1995 the only requirement is Court satisfied Notice was sent
C Letter of Claim and Pre Action Protocal=Notice of Assignment, is this right or should Notice of Assignment be from Argos
Comment