Arrow Global

[charitynjw]

Re: Arrow Global

Just a thought here.

Arrow are the ones who have recorded the default.

Suzisu says that there was no prior communication mentioning Arrow's involvement.

But there has to be a legal notice of assignment, sent in the proper manner, for the asignment to have force.

I would be asking for proof that notice of assignment was actually sent.

But I'm like that, lol!

[labman]

Re: Arrow Global

Why? (Don't answer that - it's cos you're you!)

As far as the OP is concerned the debt was repaid. If Arrow recorded a default, then they get one chance to remove it, harassment mention, then straight to the ICO.

Keep it as simple as possible for them.

[charitynjw]

Re: Arrow Global

I was just considering the possibility that, due to the negligent action of Arrow, a loss of chance may have occurred.......

[labman]

Re: Arrow Global

My understanding of the Cauasation 'Loss of Chance' is that it only comes into play where the defendant's negligence has caused the loss of a business deal (Stovold v Barlows [1995] NPC 154).

Clients are unlikely to succeed ina claim for loss of chance for just 'negligence' (Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176).

In Suzisus case I think they'd be happy to just get it sorted and behind them, hence my attempts to keep things as simple as possible. That doesn't of course make me right!

[Suzisu]

Re: Arrow Global

Thanks for your replies.

I will write to Arrow about the illegality of the default and contact Phoenix. I have also emailed back to shopdirect asking if the assigment was equitable or absolute and asked for copies of correspondence they sent to the wrong address.

I noticed something interesting though....the cheque I sent to Phoenix recoveries was made payable to Great Universal.....how then could they cash it?

[labman]

Re: Arrow Global

If it was an Equitable Assignment, they could cash it with no problem as they were acting purely as the agents of GU. Infact this would make me 99% sure it was indeed an Equitable Assignment.

Unfortunately they creditors like to play silly games to confuse and distress you telling you that you have to deal with x rather than y, when y could perfectly well deal with it.

[charitynjw]

Re: Arrow Global

My understanding of the Cauasation 'Loss of Chance' is that it only comes into play where the defendant's negligence has caused the loss of a business deal (Stovold v Barlows [1995] NPC 154).

Clients are unlikely to succeed ina claim for loss of chance for just 'negligence' (Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176).

In Suzisus case I think they'd be happy to just get it sorted and behind them, hence my attempts to keep things as simple as possible. That doesn't of course make me right!

Agreed 100% (but only on the 'keeping it simple', lol!)

[Guest]

Re: Arrow Global

What a beep mess for you!

Right let's go back to the beginning and think through this logically, step by step.

You purchased goods from GU on a Buy NowPay Later Scheme to the value of £103.

Regardless of who the goods went to, you kept some of the goods and returned the others for which, presumably, you have proof.

Later, following a letter from a recovery company, you paid a F&F sum + 10% interest to Phoenix which they cashed.

Beyond this, in my opinion you don't really need to go. They can have passed it to every DCA out there, but they are the ones responsible for cashing that cheque and they have had your money.

This leaves you with GU and Phoenix in the picture. GU have put it in writing to you that the debt was legally assigned to Phoenix. Unfortunately, it is unclear at present whether this assignment was Equitable (they were just trying to collect the money for GU) or Absolute (they bought the debt in its entirity off GU and therefore effectively became GU as far as you are concerned).

You then wrote a letter to Phoenix offering a full and final settlement, then later posted cheque for this which they cashed - hopefully with a letter stating it was in full and final settlement of AC No ABC123.

As they did not write back pretty much immediately (within two weeks at the very most) stating the cheque had only been cashed on account, then the contract is formed and your bill is discharged. You owe no further money. Full stop.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________
.

Hi Labman

Just for reference do you have the case law you mention.
I have done a litle work on F and F settlememts the only succesful ones can think of are ones paid by a third party. Could be wrong of course.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Arrow Global


Hi this may help understand the situation
This principle can be traced back as far as 1602. In construction, the principle was aired before the Court of Appeal 30 years ago in the case of D&C Builders v Rees (1966). The plaintiff carried out work worth £482 for the defendant. The plaintiff pressed for payment for months. Finally, the defendant's wife, who knew the plaintiff was in financial difficulties, offered £300 to settle the debt, saying that if the offer was not accepted, nothing would be paid. The plaintiff accepted a cheque for £300 and gave a receipt "in completion of the account". It later sued for the balance and the question arose whether the action was barred by accord and satisfaction. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not barred from recovering the balance as there was no accord. The plaintiff's consent had been obtained under pressure.The defendant argued unsuccessfully that the principle of equitable estoppel applied to make the plaintiffs "acceptance" binding.
This principle has been applied to cases where a creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum in discharge of a greater sum. But there is a qualification to applying this principle. The creditor is barred from asserting his rights only when it would be inequitable for him to insist on them. Where the creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum, and the debtor pays the lesser sum, it is then inequitable for the creditor to insist on the balance.
Peter

[Suzisu]

Re: Arrow Global

So if it was an equitable loan, GU stand as responsible for thr actions of the DCA and should be getting the default removed?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hi this may help understand the situation
This principle can be traced back as far as 1602. In construction, the principle was aired before the Court of Appeal 30 years ago in the case of D&C Builders v Rees (1966). The plaintiff carried out work worth £482 for the defendant. The plaintiff pressed for payment for months. Finally, the defendant's wife, who knew the plaintiff was in financial difficulties, offered £300 to settle the debt, saying that if the offer was not accepted, nothing would be paid. The plaintiff accepted a cheque for £300 and gave a receipt "in completion of the account". It later sued for the balance and the question arose whether the action was barred by accord and satisfaction. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not barred from recovering the balance as there was no accord. The plaintiff's consent had been obtained under pressure.The defendant argued unsuccessfully that the principle of equitable estoppel applied to make the plaintiffs "acceptance" binding.
This principle has been applied to cases where a creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum in discharge of a greater sum. But there is a qualification to applying this principle. The creditor is barred from asserting his rights only when it would be inequitable for him to insist on them. Where the creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum, and the debtor pays the lesser sum, it is then inequitable for the creditor to insist on the balance.
Peter

Not sure I fully understand this, but there may be a problem in my case in that I offered and sent a cheque at the same time, there was no negotiation, and they just cashed the cheque without saying on what grounds they were accepting it.

[Guest]

Re: Arrow Global

So if it was an equitable loan, GU stand as responsible for thr actions of the DCA and should be getting the default removed?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Not sure I fully understand this, but there may be a problem in my case in that I offered and sent a cheque at the same time, there was no negotiation, and they just cashed the cheque without saying on what grounds they were accepting it.

Yes in my opinion they would have no problem claiming the balance as far as the full and final argument is concrened as i say only my opinion.
Usually it is better to get the settlement paid by a third party then a new contract is formed.

As far as getting the default removed from your credit file i would contact the person whose name is on the entry they are the ones that put it there, they may say that it was from a previous loan but it is upto them to either show that it is valid or remove it in my opinion.
Peter

[Suzisu]

Re: Arrow Global

I dropped the ball on this one for a while due to illness and christmas, but need to get back to it as it's seriously affecting my credit rating and ability to sort out my debts at decent interest rates!

To update, I made contact with GU, who state that in their opinion my account with them was based at a previous address (say add1), which I dispute as it looks more like they have merged the GU account I opened whilst at add2 with an LX Direct order I made when at add1, when the two companies merged. Although I have proof of informing them when I moved to add3 after the purchase, they say because I did not log into my account and change the address there, it was not formally recorded. They say they sent all paperwork to add1 as per their data info. I did ask for a copy of the statements and default notices, but they said I would need to go through another service to request those. They also stated they had no record of me returning any of the goods, and unfortunately, due to the move to add3 and clearout of all paperwork following my divorce, I no longer have any proof of return either!

They say the loan was legally assigned to Phoenix Recoveries and they no longer have any responsibility for it.

Phoenix recoveries it seems accepted my cheque as part paymdnt but then sold the debt onwards.

So now it sits with Arrow who are recording defaults on my credit history without any contact with me

The debt in itself is less than £150. Not alot I know, but I have tried to stand my ground out of principle, however I'm now too ill to deal with the stress of fighting and just want it cleared.

Can anyone advise me how I can go about successfully getting Arrow to remove the record against my credit rating in return for me clearing the debt? If the result is me paying and still having the black mark there is no benefit for me as it will stay on my records for years, in which case I may leave it all til a time I might have enough strength to fight the injustice!

Thanks for your time

Suzisu

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arrow Global

SAR GU.

[Suzisu]

Re: Arrow Global

hi Cleverclogs,

That will cost me money and get me what back, seeing as they have already said they take no further responsibility?

Thc

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arrow Global

That will cost me money and get me what back, seeing as they have already said they take no further responsibility?

If that is their response to a Subject Access Request, they would be wrong and could be fined by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The SAR should get you details of how the money-grubbing momzers at GU had, most unreasonably, ramped up charges on your account.