''Assignment''

[middenmess]

Hi Guys

It's been a while since I've been around but after 8 months of nothing I've now received a letter from lowlife purporting to now ''own'' my 1998 BC account.

This is a follow up to my thread on here from the early part of this year

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=25288

The ''BC'' letter is written by lowlife but pretends to come from BC but they couldn't get the font size similar or even get the colours of the BC logo correct.

Account number is not mine.

Despite repeatedly asking BC to respond to my requests for a legible agreement and my correct T & C's during 2009 & 2010 I have had no reponse from them since Nov.2010 when they sent me another set of T & C's which were different from the first set that they had sent me and filled their letter up with irrelevant cut & Pasted drivel.

Advice please...

Should I ignore lowlife for the time being or should I inform them of their errors so far?

Is now the time to commence a claim for PPI and if so would that now be lowlife's responsibility? [It would be more complicated than most claims as I had claims paid out but as the charges were added on to the card account and interest charged on them which I understand to be a no-no,it has some merit]

Or is another course of action open to me?

Should I have total disdain of a company that cannot spell ''receive''?

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

Great to see you on here again!

1. Report BC et al to FOS pointing out what you have here.
2. As you intend reclaiming ppi you might as well get that underway - it also removes the issue of acknowledging or not acknwledging a debt.
3. I would send this to BC so you know where you stand
(with thanks to Priority One):
Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Ref: xxxxxxx

This is a formal request under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

I require your organisation to provide written confirmation that states clearly whether you currently hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement, or whether you do not hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to myself.

For the avoidance of doubt, an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement is just that; not an application for credit and not a reconstructed or microfiched document from other sources.

Please note that until such times as a legally enforceable, original Consumer Credit Agreement can be produced and a copy sent to me by return, then this letter is not an acknowledgement of debt.

Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request will be brought before the court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless.

Yours faithfully,

[Bill-K]

Re: ''Assignment''

Walter Scott:

"...what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

[my emphasis] LOL - did I spel that rite ? You'd think that a DCA might - just might - mannidge to spel 'receive' propperly, eh ?

MM - I'm sure I speak for many here....can you post up a high-res scan of that work of art (surreal though it may be !!!) - for us all to admire ?

FWIW, I have used a fairly standard letter that has stood me in good stead with these DCA's over the years. Perhaps you can adapt it to suit your own circumstances. Espeshully in this case !!!

Dear XXX

Alleged Debt to XXX - Client Ref: XXX

I acknowledge receipt of your recent letters, demanding money and threatening me with litigation.

If I am to treat your demand with any seriousness at all, then I must insist that you arrange for the Original Creditor - allegedly and presumably XXX - to DIRECTLY provide me with FULL details of this alleged debt, along with a proper Notice of Assignation of the same to yourselves.

If you are indeed a legitimate DCA, then I am sure that you will be aware that this is not just a matter of common courtesy - but is a legal requirement. Until such time as you can supply clear proof that this alleged debt exists and is lawfully enforceable, AND that you have been lawfully and properly authorised to pursue it, then I would politely – but firmly - suggest that you refrain from threatening me with litigation.

Should you attempt to pursue this matter through the courts, then please be aware that the court will require certain pre-action protocols to be observed. This includes viewing the conduct of all parties in the matter prior to the claim being submitted. I am not sure that the court would view the conduct of your client or yourselves thus far in a very favourable light.

As things stand, I have no indication of what this sum of money is for, nor whether you have any authority to request it from me. I am sure, therefore, that you will see that the only sensible action I can take is to treat your claim as fraudulent, which – incidentally – is why your original letter was treated with the contempt it appeared to deserve, and was simply ignored.

I appreciate that you may well be doing a difficult job with the sincerest of intentions. However, I must ask you to similarly appreciate that there are a great many fraudulent operations in the field of Debt Recovery, and that I must - with all due respect - assume that your demand is fraudulent. Therefore, unless and until you can provide the lawfully-required documentation to support your claim WITHIN 14 DAYS of the date of this letter, it will be deemed by default that you have confirmed your abandonment of this pursuit.

I am sorry to have to take this stance with you, but I have been defrauded before, and am so much the wiser for that. Please be advised that further unlawful attempts to obtain money from me will be referred to the Police as fraudulent.



Yours sincerely

Bill-K

Use it or bin it. No problemo.

EDIT: I see Labman has posted a response here, now, too. Looks good to me !!!

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

Hi Labman & Bill-K

Thanks for your replies.
I'll read through my 'case files' to refresh my memory about this issue as I've put this out of my mind for the past 8 months before deciding what response I'll make to them -- I'll post up their letter later today if time permits.

Should I be replying to lowlife or should I be directing my correspondence to BC as technically with only an iffy default notice from Mercers, an iffy termination letter from Caldwells and no direct assignment to lowlife, BC still own the account as far as I'm concerned.

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

Hi Bill - I love that letter. Just one thing - rules over NOA's have changed and the onus is now on the person being assigned the debt to send an NOA (only strengthens your letter) and in some circumstances a NOA does not have to be issued, though most DCA's don't know that as they don't know the law.

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

What exactly constitutes a 'Notice of Assignment' --it must have a defined format to prove to the debtor that a debt has been legally transferred/sold and that that a new entity is now entitled to the benefit.

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

What exactly constitutes a 'Notice of Assignment' --it must have a defined format to prove to the debtor that a debt has been legally transferred/sold and that that a new entity is now entitled to the benefit.

The answer to that depends what sort of assignment it is, Equitable (where just the equity is assigned, -ie- the money you owe, but the debt is owned by the OC still) or Absolute, where the debt, along with all its rights and duties is assigned -ie- the DCA or assignee effectively becomes the OC, so, for example, can then take you to court without going back to do so alongside the OC.

Here's a good example of an Notice of Assignment in Absolute:

Notice of assignment

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

So lowlife's MM letter with an incorrect account number has the same legal value as a sheet of loo paper?

I presume that an equitable assignment would be in a similar format to the absolute one that you linked to?

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

Same value as loo paper - yes.

Equitable Assignment is likely to be just a letter -eg- from Labman PLC to Middenmass stating that Barclays Bank have assigned account number 12345678 to Labman PLC.

Often they lead you to believe it is an Absolute Assignment, but unless it talks about assignment of rights AND DUTIES it is likely to be Equitable. 95% of assignments are Equitable.

There is also a document called the Deed of Assignment for an Absolute Assignment, but it is nigh on impossible to ever get sight of this.

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

My last letter to them which needless to say was never replied to read...

I am receipt of a 'Formal Demand for Payment' from Calder Financial dated as 1 April 2010 and received by me on 8th April,2010.

As this termination follows the sending of a defective default notice issued whilst the account was in dispute following your continued failure to respond to my legal request for a copy of the original agreement,such action is an unlawful repudiation of any such agreement if any ever existed between us.
I accept your unlawful action and now consider myself relieved of any obligations that may have existed in the event that the alleged agreement did indeed exist between us.

Kindly advise me of the amount of genuine arrears,if any,outstanding as at the time of termination of the agreement.
Against any genuine arrears may be a claim for unlawful rescission.

Yours Sincerely


Here are the 2 letters received from lowlife.
Assigned debt...account sold... Not really designed to confuse is it!

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

I would say this was Equitable as they specify it was sold to us in respect of the balance.

Had it been Absolute, I believe it should mention rights and duties as well.

As I said - they try to make you believe any assignment is absolute, but in reality they rarely are, wording is critical.

Obviously I can't be 100% certain, but I think Lowells are just trying to collect, I don't think they have any more powers than me to come demanding money from you unless acting with Barclaycard as the OC.

[mystery1]

Re: ''Assignment''

I would say it's non existent if it has the wrong account number.

M1

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

Hi M1-good to find that you're also still on here.

I would say it's non existent if it has the wrong account number.

M1

That's the way I tend to think at the moment--the one on their letter also has only 13 digits and B/card numbers are 16 digits and even with an additional 3 digits it would still be incorrect.

My instinct is to not respond at this stage as I feel that they have bought/acquired/imagined a sizeable 'debt' for peanuts and to stand even a snowflakes chance in hell at collecting anything the very least they will have to do is to formulate a comprehensive and legally correct letter with all the 'i's dotted and all of the 't's crossed before I begin to take them seriously.

[middenmess]

Re: ''Assignment''

I would say this was Equitable as they specify it was sold to us in respect of the balance.

Had it been Absolute, I believe it should mention rights and duties as well.

As I said - they try to make you believe any assignment is absolute, but in reality they rarely are, wording is critical.

Obviously I can't be 100% certain, but I think Lowells are just trying to collect, I don't think they have any more powers than me to come demanding money from you unless acting with Barclaycard as the OC.

They also state ..

''Your outstanding account with B/card was sold to us''

''Our aim is to help you bring your outstanding account up to date...''

The imitation B/card letter says my account was sold but how can B/card sell my account--surely they can only sell the alleged debt and even if I had a funny turn and paid lowlife the full asked for amount it could never bring my account ''up to date'' as the account no longer exists if the iffy Mercers/Caldwell's notices are accepted?

[labman]

Re: ''Assignment''

They also state ..

''Your outstanding account with B/card was sold to us''

''Our aim is to help you bring your outstanding account up to date...''

Totally agree about the account number. Wrong account number, wrong person!

The outstanding account comment would be very consistent with an Equitable Assignment.