message for bluebottle

[miliitant]

Re: message for bluebottle

Bateman and another v Hunt and others [1904] - No time limit for giving NoA
present in statute. Notice does not have to be given by assignee or assignor.

this is important for me to get my head around pt2537

what then to 196 (4) of the lop act

can a creditor (dca) demand payment and take litigation on a account where no notice of assignment has been given as to 196 (4)

you state there is noware in statute but we have the lop act 1925 that turns over any 1904 case law

please do not be offended by my question as i realy do not know and would value your comment on this

regards

millitant

[bluebottle]

Re: message for bluebottle

As I have said in other threads, if in doubt, insist on Certified Copies. DCAs and creditors can bleat as much as they like about the Carey judgment, but a debtor or alleged debtor has a right to establish whether or not a debt or alleged debt is genuine or not. As I have noted, in other threads, some reconstructed/reconstituted agreements are so dodgy it can be reasonably argued they are forgeries. In my considered judgment, the ruling in the Carey case, although allowing reconstructed/reconstituted agreements, does not relieve DCAs and creditors of their obligation to prove a debt is genuine and the best way to do that is by way of a Certified Copy, which protects all parties involved - Creditor, Debtor and DCAs.

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

this is important for me to get my head around pt2537

what then to 196 (4) of the lop act

can a creditor (dca) demand payment and take litigation on a account where no notice of assignment has been given as to 196 (4)

you state there is noware in statute but we have the lop act 1925 that turns over any 1904 case law

please do not be offended by my question as i realy do not know and would value your comment on this

regards

millitant

no that is what was held in the case not what my personal view was. As for the 1925 LOPA overturning this case? where in the LOPA does it say that firstly that there is a time limit on giving notice? and where does it define whom must serve notice of assignment?

Id point to Lord Dennings view that notice must tell the Debtor who he has to pay, who owns the debt and who can give good discharge under the contract nothing more nothing less, no where in any case law or statue that im aware of does it say the assignor must serve notice?

There is also case law that says if a notice is posted by the ordinary course of posting and its recieved then recorded post is totally irrelevant.

Kinch and another v Bullard and others [1998] - Ordinary post used and is deemed
served under s 196(3) of LoPA.

[miliitant]

Re: message for bluebottle

136. Legal assignments of things in action. — (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

it must be noted that this is an absolute assignment from the creditor to a dca


Surely this means it must come from the Original Creditor

and to be valid, even if sent through normal post, the creditor must be able to prove receipt by the debtor such as recorded mail or a process server

sorry to keep hamering it out but one thing allways contradicts another

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

136. Legal assignments of things in action. — (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

it must be noted that this is an absolute assignment from the creditor to a dca


Surely this means it must come from the Original Creditor

and to be valid, even if sent through normal post, the creditor must be able to prove receipt by the debtor such as recorded mail or a process server

sorry to keep hamering it out but one thing allways contradicts another

yes, means that the assignment must be under the hand of the asignor, this supports the principle of nemo dat non quod habet which simply means you cannot sell what you dont own.

the assignee cannot transfer the account only the assignor can do that.
meant to say that the assignment is not the notice of assignment and there is nothing in the LOPA, Halsburys laws of England, Chitty on contract or any of the other authoritive texts i have that tells me who must send the notice of assignment, notice is not the assignment merely notice of it

[miliitant]

Re: message for bluebottle

can i have your comments on this please pt2537

regards

millitant

http://news.roslingking.com/?p=391

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

can i have your comments on this please pt2537

regards

millitant

http://news.roslingking.com/?p=391

i dont see what that article has to do with the points taken in this current thread.

In fact it clearly does not suggest that the creditor must send the notice and it also says registered post is acceptable if proof of posting is retained not necessarily by recorded delivery

[miliitant]

Re: message for bluebottle

the point i am making is different people, solicitors, judges, etc all interpret the law of property act in different ways. at the end of the day it is what the judge decides on the day.

like most of our uk laws derived from common law is out of date and this version of the law of property act 1925 does not resemble in any way current economic conditions of the 21st century and the act needs to be repealed to fit into todays society

this debate will continue and continue until we all have clear direction

many thanks for the debate pt2537 which has been a pleasure and i have learned a lot by your comments

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

i have defended numerous HFO actions in County Court and all of which the notice of assignment was served by a third party not the creditor or the claimant in the claim

not once did the court see any issue with the assignmenmt

[labman]

Re: message for bluebottle

i have defended numerous HFO actions in County Court and all of which the notice of assignment was served by a third party not the creditor or the claimant in the claim

not once did the court see any issue with the assignmenmt

Probably because there wasn't one!

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

Probably because there wasn't one!

lol there was, just pretty bad ones in our view but the court wouldnt entertain it and in any event we got judgment in our favour without it so its the result that matters really

[ODC]

Re: message for bluebottle

lol there was, just pretty bad ones in our view but the court wouldnt entertain it and in any event we got judgment in our favour without it so its the result that matters really

And probably that is one of the reasons why HFO is history

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

And probably that is one of the reasons why HFO is history

not yet they arent, they are still very much alive and litigating

[ODC]

Re: message for bluebottle

not yet they arent, they are still very much alive and litigating

DCA placed into liquidation


I thought they were

[pt2537]

Re: message for bluebottle

DCA placed into liquidation


I thought they were

nope thats holdings uk limited

That is the owner of HFO Services Limited but not Capital

and services are still a going concern too