Debt purchasers not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority cannot sue in the county courts

[Joanna Connolly]

On 24 April 2019 I was successful in a consumer credit claim appeal. The Claimant debt purchaser admitted they were not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority but said they could rely on the S.55 FSMA 2000 exemption because they had a valid servicing agreement in place with an affiliated 3rd party who was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.

It was accepted on the facts of the case by both parties that there was a valid servicing agreement in place. The issue was could the Claimant debt purchaser rely on the S.55 Exemption to issue proceedings in the county court.

The Circuit Judge held as a general principle of law that the Claimant debt purchaser was not able to rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated 3rd party (and the exemption under s.55 FSMA) for the purpose of bringing a claim. The agreement was unenforceable, and the order of the court below was set aside, and the Claim dismissed

[BigAl1968]

Great result, another blow for the debt purchasers, How ide have loved to have seen the ceo"s face once he heard the result )

I have a couple of debts with Cabot and Intrum so am very interested in these recent developments.

Why are these debt purchasing companies allowed to carry on issuing court claims if they are not authorised to do so,
I know they play on the fact that most debtors wont contest the case and they will get judgement by default, but why are the authorities than govern them not clamping down on it , surely its an abuse of process if there is no authorisation in the first place ? even more so now a court has agreed..

Could these unauthorised debt purchases upon realising they could be challenged in the court on this issue simply just sell the debt on to another company/subsidery who does hold the correct authorisation ?

Thanks

[Roger]

Its a complex legal argument as I understand.

But anybody can lodge a claim.

[Warwick65]

Great result, another blow for the debt purchasers, How ide have loved to have seen the ceo"s face once he heard the result )

I have a couple of debts with Cabot and Intrum so am very interested in these recent developments.

Why are these debt purchasing companies allowed to carry on issuing court claims if they are not authorised to do so,
I know they play on the fact that most debtors wont contest the case and they will get judgement by default, but why are the authorities than govern them not clamping down on it , surely its an abuse of process if there is no authorisation in the first place ? even more so now a court has agreed..

Could these unauthorised debt purchases upon realising they could be challenged in the court on this issue simply just sell the debt on to another company/subsidery who does hold the correct authorisation ?

Thanks

The problem they have is that there are tens of thousands of these debts owned by non regulated companies. The other point is that only a tiny minority ever get defended let alone by someone who can back up their argument so why not chance their arm and go ahead . If someone instructs Joanna Connolly they can always discontinue

You do ask a very relevant question- why are they allowed to carry on- why indeed. From my point of view it is called corrupt capitalism but that is just my own personal political viewpoint ( I don't have a quote from Marx in my avatar for no reason)

[ohitsonlyme]

This is interesting, in so much that Cabot have recently contacted me regarding a CCJ I had against me from Black horse in 2010, I had not heard anything until late alst year so I tried out a statute barred letter and got back today details of the CCJ from Cabot
What can they do now to enforce I realise it would have to go back to court if it were blackhorse and it would be inlikely to be enforced due to the time delay

How should I reply to the "not statute barred letter"

Only me again

[The Tech Clerk]

A CCJ does not get statute Barred BUT if it has been in existence for quite few years they would need a dam good excuse as to why actioned not earlier? sure others will verify if I am right or wrong?

[Warwick65]

Just a couple of questions- ok maybe 3

1) Who got the CCJ against you, BH or Cabot?
2) When did you last pay anything towards it?
3) is there some history on the forum about this debt ?


So if I have read this correctly the CCJ was granted in 2010 . Technically there are no limitations on CCJs but if a company want to enforce after they need to go back to court. If this is more than 6 years after the CCJ they need specific permissions and would need a good reason as to why they didn't do so beforehand.

Assuming there are no good reasons (for example you vanished/went abroad/went to prison (half joking)) then personally I would do nothing at the moment.

[ohitsonlyme]

Wow you guys are on the ball this morning thank you.
I dont have another thread about this I may have posted many years ago about the black horse debt
Black horse gained the ccj I have not paid or acknoweldged the debt to them since CCJ was issued
I cant see Cabot trying to go back to court especially given the success shown in the original psot on this thread, (if that success is relevant)
They havent threatend going back to court only telling me to call to make an arrangement plan whcih of course I will not

I havent been hiding at all same address for 12 years and no communication from cabot til late last year when I tried a statute barred letter just incas they didnt have the info re CCJ I dont hink they will chance their arm but I want to reply letting them know that they cant enforce and I dont know how to phrase it

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Black horse gained the ccj I have not paid or acknoweldged the debt to them since CCJ was issued
I cant see Cabot trying to go back to court especially given the success shown in the original psot on this thread, (if that success is relevant)
They havent threatend going back to court only telling me to call to make an arrangement plan whcih of course I will not

I havent been hiding at all same address for 12 years and no communication from cabot til late last year when I tried a statute barred letter just incas they didnt have the info re CCJ I dont hink they will chance their arm but I want to reply letting them know that they cant enforce and I dont know how to phrase it

I wouldn't reply to that letter from Cabot in case it only provokes them to seek enforcement. Whether they'd be successful or not is another matter.

You can't tell Cabot that they can't enforce the CCJ, only a Judge can decide that.

What was the reason you didn't pay anything following the CCJ in 2010, did nobody even ask for the payments ever? Was it a 'forthwith' Order (everything there and then) or was it an 'instalment' Order?

How much is the CCJ?

Di

[ohitsonlyme]

I wouldn't reply to that letter from Cabot in case it only provokes them to seek enforcement. Whether they'd be successful or not is another matter.

You can't tell Cabot that they can't enforce the CCJ, only a Judge can decide that.

What was the reason you didn't pay anything following the CCJ in 2010, did nobody even ask for the payments ever? Was it a 'forthwith' Order (everything there and then) or was it an 'instalment' Order?

How much is the CCJ?

Di

Hi Di Thanks for the reply,
The ccj was for £11k and it was forthwith , but was never followed up by black horse,I have been on the electoral roll at my current address and easily traceable for at least 10years, the ccj was addressed at my old address which I still rent out and I have always received the mail
my old and new address are on the credit agency sites as linked addresses
I didnt pay as I could not to afford to

Onlymeagain