Lola girl UE diary...newbie!

[Pat]

[QUOTE=Roger;n1547988
.."
They are infering that the figures in their Default Notice are likely to have been wrong. Overstated and this is important[/QUOTE]

I don’t think they are suggesting anything other than something was amiss in their procedures. If you made that suggestion to a judge their first questions would be evidence and evidence.

[Roger]

I don’t think they are suggesting anything other than something was amiss in their procedures. If you made that suggestion to a judge their first questions would be evidence and evidence.

What Procedures PAT?
This is a CCA 74 Account. Its the terms of that Agreement that relevant. An ex gratia payment suggest that an error on the part of the Bank!
The BANK is NOT a Charity it has sold this Account and now admits what?
Its NOT for you to prove! Its for any claimnant to PROVE to a Judge and if they don't know! The inference is that the amount owed is £50.00 overstated.
Not your problem don't over think.

[Pat]

What Procedures PAT?
This is a CCA 74 Account. Its the terms of that Agreement that relevant. An ex gratia payment suggest that an error on the part of the Bank!
The BANK is NOT a Charity it has sold this Account and now admits what?
Its NOT for you to prove! Its for any claimnant to PROVE to a Judge and if they don't know! The inference is that the amount owed is £50.00 overstated.
Not your problem don't over think.

I’m not overthinking I am just thinking!
If you put in an affirmative defence the onus of proof is then on you- so if you say the DN sum must have been wrong because they sent me £50 you would be laughed at.

Of course banks are not charities but they do things because they have to. For example they do not make money from basic bank accounts but they have been told to provide them by government and regulators.

Even if you claim no DN some judges will ask why that is important. Remember they are not experts in the CCA.

Avoid court at all costs- well not all costs but if at all possible.

[Timewilltell]

The problem with courts is you are relying on one persons opinion/judgment and as highlighted no one person can be around all laws to know them all well enough? So it’s a gamble, and yes you can employ the services of Jcs or any other solicitor but as any will tell you even they can’t guarantee a win.
so play the long game and avoid court until you can no longer.

[Roger]

The AAD approach to Debts is a good Diary.
We make notes for yourself and yes SILENCE.
Tactics have changed in the last 2-3 years.
We are lucky because JCS will permit the initial interview FREE.
So it stands to reason if and or when you might need Legal Advice make sure that your DIARY is factually up to date.

Now back to the point here. The Original Debtor has sold the Debt then at some future date sends a cheque refering to some generalise unspecified irregularity.
These debts are under CCA 74 and this includes specific LEGAL documents that have to be factually correct.
Well the presumption is that the BANK is now admitting a failure under the terms of the CCA 74 else why send a cheque?

[Timewilltell]

Assume nothing prove everything. (If you really need too)

[Roger]

Assume nothing prove everything. (If you really need too)

CCA 74 isn't a assumption its the Consumer's Credit Act for the conduct of the Account on both parties Creditor and Borrower.
The legal Documents have to be accurate especially the value of the DEBT.
The onus is on the Claimant to Prove their Claim. Since the Debt has been sold the Claimant will be the DCA not the Bank.
The Bank won't be in Court!
Don't over think and don't presume. Record Make Notes and yes SILENCE

[Pat]

CCA 74 isn't a assumption its the Consumer's Credit Act for the conduct of the Account on both parties Creditor and Borrower.
The legal Documents have to be accurate especially the value of the DEBT.
The onus is on the Claimant to Prove their Claim. Since the Debt has been sold the Claimant will be the DCA not the Bank.
The Bank won't be in Court!
Don't over think and don't presume. Record Make Notes and yes SILENCE

Roger
you really do not get it do you? If you use an affirmative defence such as I received no DN or the amount was incorrect you have to show why, on the balance of probabilities your assertion is correct and why it is important.
Even if you didn’t receive one, the claimant can then show records to say one was sent. The appeal Supreme Court has said as much.

It is not the diary that is important, it is good record keeping. Hence I scan every letter and store it in the cloud as well as keeping a hard copy.

Have tactics changed? If it’s a small claim and you go to court, either you represent yourself, never easy, or you have to pay solicitors to help you.

It is sad you need to pay professionals to assert your legal rights. Capitalism gone mad.

[Roger]

[QUOTE = Pat

I don’t think they are suggesting anything other than something was amiss in their procedures. If you made that suggestion to a judge their first questions would be evidence and evidence.

The Banks Procedures in LAW are CCA 74. The evidence is the Banks letter and the Cheque.

I haven't yet mentioned a SAR but this of course evidences what the Bank has on their records!

Banks sell Debts to DCA's for pennies in the pound. These Debts are written off for Tax purposes. So the actually DEBT NOLONGER exists ie its been written off.

BUT the DCA's pursue the face value of the DEBT (not what they paid for it). As has been pointed out the DCA's have minimal information at the time of the |Debt purchase. They Buy the Debts in tranches of Debt

The DEBTOR pays a harsh price for bad Debts because their Credit is penialised for 5/6 years through the Reporting Agencies.


NOW
the Bank sends a Cheque admitting Procedure error without specifying what this was or wasn't.
BUT THIS PROCEDURE RELATES TO WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE DEBT WAS SOLD DOESN'T IT!!
In other words the FACE value of the DEBT that was sold was overstated!

The Claimant will say the DEBT was £xxxx.xx (the face value of what they brought from the Bank)
But the Bank in writing admits procedure error in the sum of £50.

This is what the Court sees.

The Default Notice is about the terminating of the Account before action can be taken isn't it!

If the figures in the Default Notice are wrong because of Procedure error THIS CALLS INTO QUESTION THE BANKS TAX BENEFIT (FOR THE WRITING OFF OF THE DEBT) and or indeed whether the Account was wrongly (in CCA 74 Law) terminated.

Defective DN cannot be corrected after a DEBT is SOLD.

The letter is the Evidence of the BANKS error isn't it!

It is for the DCA claimant to prove that their purchased Debt Value is correct and hence their claim AGAINST the evidence of the BANKS LETTER that this Value was incorrect.

[Pat]

[QUOTE = Pat


I don’t think they are suggesting anything other than something was amiss in their procedures. If you made that suggestion to a judge their first questions would be evidence and evidence.

The Banks Procedures in LAW are CCA 74. The evidence is the Banks letter and the Cheque.

I haven't yet mentioned a SAR but this of course evidences what the Bank has on their records!

Banks sell Debts to DCA's for pennies in the pound. These Debts are written off for Tax purposes. So the actually DEBT NOLONGER exists ie its been written off.

BUT the DCA's pursue the face value of the DEBT (not what they paid for it). As has been pointed out the DCA's have minimal information at the time of the |Debt purchase. They Buy the Debts in tranches of Debt

The DEBTOR pays a harsh price for bad Debts because their Credit is penialised for 5/6 years through the Reporting Agencies.


NOW
the Bank sends a Cheque admitting Procedure error without specifying what this was or wasn't.
BUT THIS PROCEDURE RELATES TO WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE DEBT WAS SOLD DOESN'T IT!!
In other words the FACE value of the DEBT that was sold was overstated!

The Claimant will say the DEBT was £xxxx.xx (the face value of what they brought from the Bank)
But the Bank in writing admits procedure error in the sum of £50.

This is what the Court sees.

The Default Notice is about the terminating of the Account before action can be taken isn't it!

If the figures in the Default Notice are wrong because of Procedure error THIS CALLS INTO QUESTION THE BANKS TAX BENEFIT (FOR THE WRITING OFF OF THE DEBT) and or indeed whether the Account was wrongly (in CCA 74 Law) terminated.

Defective DN cannot be corrected after a DEBT is SOLD.

The letter is the Evidence of the BANKS error isn't it!

It is for the DCA claimant to prove that their purchased Debt Value is correct and hence their claim AGAINST the evidence of the BANKS LETTER that this Value was incorrect.
[/QUOTE]

Good grief
The cheque and letter says or admits nothing specific other than an error in collection processes. It does not say what it was. It might be a timely lack of NOSIA or something else.

Uou are sounding dangerously like a freeman on the land here and we all know that does not hold any water. Contracts say accounts can be assigned so of course it still exists.

If it didn’t don’t you think lawyers up and down the land would be winning defences using that argument.

Yes a DSAR may be useful but again I know you do not always get everything and the problem there is, you can not ask for something you don’t know exist.

[Pat]

Oh by the way. Bank procedures are not all CCA requirements. Some are FCA rules as allowed by the FSMA.

FCA guidelines are often the ‘rules’ that are broken.

£50 seems to be the default amount a firm offers when they make a mistake. I recently had that from a firm because they didn’t comply with a DSAR in a timely manner.

[Roger]

Oh by the way. Bank procedures are not all CCA requirements. Some are FCA rules as allowed by the FSMA.

FCA guidelines are often the ‘rules’ that are broken.

£50 seems to be the default amount a firm offers when they make a mistake. I recently had that from a firm because they didn’t comply with a DSAR in a timely manner.

BUT IF THE DEBT HAS BEEN SOLD THE INFERENCE , WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS THAT IT WAS INCURRED BEFORE THE SALE AND HENCE WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE FINAL DEBT AS SOLD ON.
YOU CAN'T CORRECT A DN AFTER THE SALE.
You don't have to prove this it is for the DCA to prove otherwise isn't it?

I am saying enter into the Diary! SILENCE don't alert the DCA.
You wouldn't wont to restart the Statute Bar by say engaging with the FCA , and thus admitting the DEBT would you.
Pocket the Money! AND Save the Banks Letter!
SILENCE!!!!

[Timewilltell]

I think Roger is an idealist not necessarily a realist, my wife is very similar. In an ideal world the letter of the law would be defined to an exact result, sadly in a real world every written word is open to interpretation by the individual reading it, hence why judges come to differing conclusions.
solicitors attempt to find a path that supports their interpretation of the law and when successfully find one, continue to use it using a previous win case as further support to their argument.

[Roger]

I think Roger is an idealist not necessarily a realist, my wife is very similar. In an ideal world the letter of the law would be defined to an exact result, sadly in a real world every written word is open to interpretation by the individual reading it, hence why judges come to differing conclusions.
solicitors attempt to find a path that supports their interpretation of the law and when successfully find one, continue to use it using a previous win case as further support to their argument.

Debt Collection Companies are GLOBAL buying UP Debt including Government BONDS.

In this country there is CCA 74 which has many significant variances over the years PLUS current CASE LAW which binds the lower Courts
I am a realist recognising that what we did a few years ago is inappropriate today!

The CASE Law at the moment on calculating Statue Bar is taken from the Default Notice !
This means the Default Notice and its content and its accuracy has the potential to be an Achilles Heel for the DCA's

Its interesting that certain Banks with known flaws in the Past to their Documentation inclduing for instance IRON MOUNTAIN have been sending these Cash cheques. Unsolicited they arrive through the post. The written content is not particularised but generalised. Search AAD and you will find many and good examples of this.

Now instead of pre judging or worse this depressing negativity AAD has helped me and many others into a Positive taking control of Our Lives and in many cases beating without the courts these DCA's.
Knowledge PLUS a good Diary is the AAD way to peace of mind.

DON'T Assume! DON'T pre judge learn from AAD Diaries and comments it is from this that your confidence will grow.

Lets go back to the simply fact here.

1/ A Bank has sold a Debt to a DCA the presumption is that the various documents and procedures were followed by the BANK before the Debt was sold at a considerable discount to the DCA and before it was written of for TAX Purposes.

2/ Unsolicited letter arrives several years later in many and my case with a cheque and refering to Procedures.

3/ Obviously my relationship with the BANK ended when the Account was sold and the DCA's starting demanding the FULL FACE VALUE of the Debt.
I would have been very happy to settle with the BANK for the sale price offered to the DCA
If it had been offered to me. This would not have prevented the Bank claiming TAX write off.

4/ So it seems there is a very cosy and mutually beneficial relationship between the GLOBAL DCA's and the GLOBAL Banks.

5/ So any Procedural issue MUST have been before the Bank sold and closed the relationship between Me and the Bank.

6/ Meaning if they had settled the Procedural issue before the sale it would presumably have lowered the DN Debt figures indeed may even have rendered the DN unnecessary.

7/ The reasonable presumption is this money should have been applied to the DEBT before it was sold. Therefor the DN if issued is in question and AFTER A SALE THE DEFAULT NOTICE cannot be remedied!

I have spent far to much time here when only trying to offer LOLA girl deal with this latest correspondence!
If you query AAD you will find I have written nothing NEW

A Good Diary is the road to good advice and taking control of your DEBT. I thank along with many others AAD for helping me through a very difficult period of my LIFE.

This ends this matter for me

[Timewilltell]

No one disputed anything about a good diary, of course this is required.
it is your assumption that the £50 is debt related rather than a procedural issue. If the letter doesn’t state the procedural issue then assuming it’s debt amount effective is wrong.
I don’t think you have to accept the payment is taken off the debt unless it is specifically related to an incorrect calculation. If it’s a gesture then it’s not debt related in a financial way so could be paid to you without affecting the balance.