Credit Card Company's Right of Set Off when Debt Has Been Sold

[alangee]

Re: Credit Card Company's Right of Set Off when Debt Has Been Sold

My views on this are very similar to a lot of others, but as there are so many variations the easiest description is probably to say that when an OC assigns all rights as per s.189 then if you do a reclaim at a later date this would be against the original creditor meaning any refund offered should be paid directly to you as the OC would have no rights to sell (offset) the refund to an external DCA as the rights to the original debt were historically sold when the OC sold the debt.

However, lets assume that you always had charges going back years (with an active account) then suddenly decide to reclaim. This would be dependant upon the assignee rights because if the OC had sold the account off in totality as per s.189 then you'd be entitled to the refund directly based on the fact the OC never had any rights to offset it against the debt which now belongs to Z DCA.

This is the scenario that I am trying to explain.

Alan

[Titan121]

Re: Credit Card Company's Right of Set Off when Debt Has Been Sold

My views on this are very similar to a lot of others, but as there are so many variations the easiest description is probably to say that when an OC assigns all rights as per s.189 then if you do a reclaim at a later date this would be against the original creditor meaning any refund offered should be paid directly to you as the OC would have no rights to sell (offset) the refund to an external DCA as the rights to the original debt were historically sold when the OC sold the debt.

So the main scenario would be charges. Lets say you had an old account that was £500 in debt, then years later a DCA writes claiming £2000. As a result of the charges you decide to do a charges reclaim. The lender agrees to a settlement and offers £X to reduce the original debt.

Because you never paid any charges, ie they were applied to the account after you 'left' it the refund should be repaid to the original debt so the bank would be correct in doing this regardless of assignee (they keep their own charges as write off, basically they don't have to refund you as you never physically paid the charges).

However, lets assume that you always had charges going back years (with an active account) then suddenly decide to reclaim. This would be dependant upon the assignee rights because if the OC had sold the account off in totality as per s.189 then you'd be entitled to the refund directly based on the fact the OC never had any rights to offset it against the debt which now belongs to Z DCA.

The same applies with PPI.

Ok so as regard the CCA issue and whether that constitutes acknowledgement of the debt - NO. A CCA (used from our templates) covers this by not asking for a copy of "my" CCA but instead asking for a copy of the alleged CCA.... It's all in the wording but you'll be fine if you've used our templates.

Payment into the account of any past charges (ie a refund of charges/ppi that is offset against the debt) does NOT acknowledge the debt either as it is applied as a retrospective refund meaning it's not actually payment into the account and anyway, it was never paid by you which needs to be the case to acknowledge the debt anyway.

Make sense?

That's my spin on things trying to cover as many scenarios as I can.

Thanks to everyone for all your sterling comments/thoughts on this topic

I will contemplate on what to do now: accept or fight on.

Thanks everyone.

Titan