What to do when your account is Assigned?

[samsmum]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

I know I know but it's good to know that Paul watches over us even late on a Saturday night

As you would say each case in different even though Arrow Global is the common denominator here.

I'm calm

Me too. Surprisingly. That chilled i'm just about to book our first holiday for years. For medical reasons you understand

[pompeyfaith]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Guys,

Honestly an NOA merely means the debt has been sold to a DCA monkey, you have been dealing with this scum for a longtime in you UE threads.

Nothing changes they will carry on as before and if niddy said they where UE they remain UE.

So lets have some calm here

[samsmum]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Guys,

Honestly an NOA merely means the debt has been sold to a DCA monkey, you have been dealing with this scum for a longtime in you UE threads.

Nothing changes they will carry on as before and if niddy said they where UE they remain UE.

So lets have some calm here

Ok. Off back to me word association

[garlok]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

I think that the call for calm is a good one here. Send the "Account whilst in Dispute" letter as advised by I2D above would be my first move. Give it a couple of weeks and see if they respond. Whether they do or not, me being me and having been turned into a nasty B**** by these sorts of people, I then send a standard CCA request. The premise for this being that they are new owners and as such have purchased ALL of the obligations and liablilites of the alleged orginal agreement. This in my view puts them on the back foot a bit. They have to respond or make the account UE anyway. It also tells them that you are not just going to roll over and capitulate to their often spurious demands.

It can often work in your favour. They may attempt to produce documentation which is significantly different to what you already hold and was provided by the OC.

regards
Garlok

[Paul.]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

right, well firstly Arrow Global were on my radar for not having a CCA licence!!! however that is Arrow Global USA

I had to check of course because no licence means no debt collecting

next point

This is a formal notice of assignment. While t he previous creditor may well be aware of any issues you have, the new creditor will not.

If you ignore this, then the Court will take a dim view of this, with the expectation it seems that people should engage with the opponent not ignore them. The point springs to mind that the assignee would have a very good argument to say well i never knew of the issues not my fgault gov, the burden is on the debtor to tell us atleast something is wrong.

Given the Courts are currently happy to find against debtors, my advice to people is always build up an evidence file of correspondence, as it assists greatly if you ever walk into my office with a claim form in your hand.

so yes, i do disagree that ignoring this is the best way. This is the ideal opportunity to lay the cards on the table from the outset

if you ignore you become the filthy debt avoider in the eyes of most judges ive come across

and if you want an example i can post up HFO vs Moyle for all to see on this

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Paul

Of the 4,120 debts I last had note of - less than 20 users here replied to NoA and of those 0 started action.

I keep stats.

We tend to ignore NoA and write when they follow up with a normal threat. Works a treat.

[Deepie]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

who do we listen too here ?

[samsmum]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

who do we listen too here ?

I'm well confused

[Paul.]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Paul

Of the 4,120 debts I last had note of - less than 20 users here replied to NoA and of those 0 started action.

I keep stats.

We tend to ignore NoA and write when they follow up with a normal threat. Works a treat.

Well, out of the 23 judgments passed to me recently up and down the country from the few other law firms i am in contact with, the theme running through them was criticism from the judge on the debtor for failing to engage the creditor

one comment stands out clearly where the DJ said "the creditor for their part cannot be criticised here for their course of action, they do not have the benefit of being able to read the debtors mind as to what thoughts are going through it, they did not have the benefit of being told what the debtor was disputing, therefore, i take the view that the debtors conduct in this matter was wholly unreasonable and therefore in my view these proceedings could have been avoided by correspondence between the parties......." he then went on to award costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct per CPR part 27.

As i said, im just pointing out what i would advise someone walking through my door,

people make their own choices on what they do, but evidence turns cases on their heads, a good correspondence file helps wonders

have you all read cresswell?

And having seen Dr Cresswell give evidence, and noted the care that he took when this matter came into dispute, nor can I imagine that error would have escaped his attention.

I was taken to Dr Cresswell’s file of correspondence which he passed on to his solicitor. He was somebody who wrote letters to the bank and responded to the letters that they sent to him. I have no reason to doubt what he says about not receiving a default notice from the bank. Further it seems to me he would have recalled it. On the balance of probabilities I find that he would have responded to it, for the figures were incorrect. Having seen the correspondence he has written in the past, it seems to me the first thing he would have done is raise the inconsistent figures with the bank. Even today Counsel for the Claimant is unable to explain one of the figures and why it comes, as it does, in the section under Further Action on page 198. The best she can do is to suggest that the bank were requiring a repayment of less than in fact they were entitled to, which I regard as somewhat unlikely.

Harrison v Link also addressed this point too

So my view is writing back gives you an evidence file. In cresswell, the fact the judge was persuaded by Dr Cresswells file that he was a person who did write back meant the judge was happy to find the default notice was not served, and thus the claim failed on that point

[Paul.]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

To assist, i am merely putting forward my view, i do not say i am right or someone else is wrong.

It is for the person to make their decision based on being given both sides of the argument.

if both sides of the argument werent laid before you you couldnt choose which one to follow could you ?

[Paul.]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Heres another point to ponder

two scenarios

first one

C: did you recieve the default notice Mr xxxx?

D: no

C: oh really? so you never recieved that document?

D: no

C: so what about other correspondence? did you for instance recieve this letter? or that letter?

D: yes.

C: oooh ok so what did you do with them?

D: i ignored them

C: thank you, then isnt it the case that you also received the default notice and decided to ignore that too? My submission to the Court is that it can find on balance that the Defendant did receive the notice and chose to ignore it in the manner it chose to do with all other correspondence

or

C: did you recieve this notice Mr xxxxx?

D: no sir i did not

C: oh you didnt? please tell me did you recieve this letter? and what about this letter?

D: yes i received these letters and if i can take you to exhibit XXX 4 of my witness statement you will see i replied to each of them. It was your client who failed to address my concerns

C: thank you, but you say you didnt recieve the Default notice?

D: no and if i had i would have wrote to the creditor setting out the reasons why i was challenging this matter

I think a judge would have a far greater difficulty in finding against the debtor in the second scenario than he would in the first and my point is clearly supported by the cresswell case

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

To assist, i am merely putting forward my view, i do not say i am right or someone else is wrong.

It is for the person to make their decision based on being given both sides of the argument.

if both sides of the argument werent laid before you you couldnt choose which one to follow could you ?

Fair do's. So sending an account sold in dispute ought to cover the adequate response.

My argument remains when a creditor sells the rights to the debt they SHOULD also send copies of latest complaints as well thus it's the OC's duty to inform of problems/queries. Not the debtors.

[Paul.]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

Fair do's. So sending an account sold in dispute ought to cover the adequate response.

My argument remains when a creditor sells the rights to the debt they SHOULD also send copies of latest complaints as well thus it's the OC's duty to inform of problems/queries. Not the debtors.

yes, i accept that point, but it would help by reminding the new owner of the OFT guidance on s77-79 if there is a failure to comply as the OFT say clearly that the creditor should make clear enquiries of the original owner and obtain documents before proceeding with litigation

that really does help the debtor i feel, as you can then take the moral high ground

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

yes, i accept that point, but it would help by reminding the new owner of the OFT guidance on s77-79 if there is a failure to comply as the OFT say clearly that the creditor should make clear enquiries of the original owner and obtain documents before proceeding with litigation

that really does help the debtor i feel, as you can then take the moral high ground

Fair enough. Thanks Paul for taking the time to explain this point. Based on the fact you're right and you're who we refer people to, I'll agree and suggest we start sending a sold in dispute or other relevant acknowledgement letter, in such instances. We can adapt for future cases, and I'll encourage it.

* I'll add a new acknowledgement template later in the week *

[mk_chatham]

Re: bobogosing's UE diary

because I have a letter from MBNA saying they can't find it

Hi PlanB

I have tried to find your diary to read about this but can't find it I did not know you had a letter from MBNA stating this .

Anyway, if you have a letter stating that MBNA do not have the original agreement then you can send "Letter Previously Confirming No CCA" along with a copy of the original letter from MBNA instead of - Account sold in dispute.

I had a similar letter from Marbles confirming that they did not have the original CCA. When it was assigned to Crapquest I sent a copy of the original letter plus the template above.

Crapquest investigated, confirmed the account was UE, apologised and closed the account. The account and default has now gone from my CRA reports, where to I don't know

MK