BTBAB - Beat the Bailiffs and Banks - worse than GOODF

[SteveUK]

I'm looking forward to the and improved '3 letters MkII'.

I've always thought it lacked enough thumbprints and postage stamps to be truly effective.

[FatGambit]

That's as much of a template reply from RW as the one they received, i guess even debt collectors get fedup and just copy/paste stuff (first time I saw that wording was 4 years ago).

[Firthy2002]

That's as much of a template reply from RW as the one they received, i guess even debt collectors get fedup and just copy/paste stuff (first time I saw that wording was 4 years ago).

You can't really moan about getting a template response to a template though. Especially when the original template is complete bollocks.

[FatGambit]

Proving a claim isn't complete bollocks though, it's why Lowell loose so many of those pesky defended claims.

[Firthy2002]

Proving a claim isn't complete bollocks though, it's why Lowell loose so many of those pesky defended claims.

True, except the claim is proven in the first correspondence with the debtor. If it was unlawful to buy and sell debts, there wouldn't be debt collectors. Or they wouldn't be operating openly, at least.

[FatGambit]

Nothing is proven until a judge says it is, if it was Lowell wouldn't loose so many cases, and RW wouldn't send them back to the OC because they don't have the authority to do anything.

Why do you think the likes of Philip Green are millionaires yet leave a trail of bankrupt businesses behind them? It's because they have legions of Lawyers on the books who's sole job is to argue the finer points of proof, rights etc.

I realise this view does not follow the quatloos whip but it's fact that in civil court you have to prove on the balance of probability that the claim happened, and if you bought the rights to enforce it, you actually did this properly and within the terms of the original agreement, if you can't do that and the person you are suing knows what they are doing, you've lost.

What you may call bollocks, someone else may see as a legitimate issue, happens more than you'd think too, I agree tacit agreements are silly, but the concept of proving something is as sound as evidence in a criminal case.

[Bones]

The sale of a debt can happen one of two ways. It can either happen at law or in equity and is done via assignment.

A credit agreement, does not need to include a clause to permit the sale of the debt to a third party, as it is something that is owned by the creditor and they are free at law and in equity to sell it at anytime and to who they wish. It is only when a "contract" specifically includes a clause which does not permit the assignment, is a creditor prevented from selling the debt.

If a debt is sold in equity, any legal action must be in the name of the original creditor, if the assignment was a legal assignment and notice of the assignment (as per s.136 of the LPA 1925) has been given to the debtor, legal action can be in the name of the new owner.

The reason that DCA's do not take action is because they usually only buy the debt in equity and when challenged, it is easier for them to just give the debt back to the original creditor, especially when there are problems with the credit agreement (being lost etc).

The 3 letters, I am afraid are complete and utter bollox and have been disproven in law around the world, one letter will suffice, in which you can request a copy of the agreement. Obviously since the CCA 1974 was amended by the CCA 2006, the rules have changed somewhat in favour of the the creditors - putting aside the freeman crap about no money being loaned etc.

For every one "success" posted on sites such as GOODF, there are at a guess hundreds who did exactly the same thing and it didn't work. Reading forums such as GOODF etc, you quickly notice that people told tend to post the failures, they simply stop posting and to be never heard of again.

[Bones]

Sorry to bring some actual law and facts to the forefront, but I see this posted over and over again with claims made that don't stock up against established common law (real common law not that made up freeman common law shite)

A credit agreement, does not need to include a clause to permit the sale of the debt to a third party, as it is something that is owned by the creditor and they are free at law and in equity to sell it at anytime and to who they wish. It is only when a "contract" specifically includes a clause which does not permit the assignment, is a creditor prevented from selling the debt.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... lkrn-1.htm

Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward) (FC) (Appellant) v . Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand (a firm)) (Respondents)

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

15. The reason that the debtor's consent is not required to an assignment of a debt is that the assignment cannot prejudice him. The assignment is subject to equities, which means that any set-off which the debtor may have against the assignor can be asserted against the assignee. On bankruptcy the trustee is in no better position than his bankrupt; a creditor's right to sue his debtor vests in his trustee subject to equities. It would have been inappropriate to allow PwC to take any part in the proceedings in the bankruptcy court. They were brought to resolve a dispute between Ms Mulkerrins on the one hand and her creditors, represented by the trustee, on the other. PwC were debtors with an adverse interest to Ms Mulkerrins and her estate. They could not be prejudiced by the vesting of Ms Mulkerrins' claim vesting in her trustee; and a fortiori they could not be prejudiced if it remained in her. They had no legitimate interest in the question to be decided.

[Firthy2002]

If a debt is sold in equity, any legal action must be in the name of the original creditor, if the assignment was a legal assignment and notice of the assignment (as per s.136 of the LPA 1925) has been given to the debtor, legal action can be in the name of the new owner.

Does the first letter from the DCA to the debtor satisfy this condition though?

[Bones]

If a debt is sold in equity, any legal action must be in the name of the original creditor, if the assignment was a legal assignment and notice of the assignment (as per s.136 of the LPA 1925) has been given to the debtor, legal action can be in the name of the new owner.

Does the first letter from the DCA to the debtor satisfy this condition though?

S.136 of the LPA 1925 states:

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

I have seen it posted on many "debt help" websites that this means that the notice of assignment must come from the original creditor. However, this is incorrect, as this refers to the deed of assignment and not to the notice of assignment. In terms of your question, it would depend if there is a deed of assignment between the original creditor and the dca and if the letter from the DCA was an "express notice" - in otherwords makes it obvious that the DCA has brought the debt.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... 538752ed36

United Kingdom October 17 2012

Notice of assignment

Notice of assignment can be given by either the assignee or assignor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

This was the High Court's finding in Smith v 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and another.

[AndyPandy]

If a debt is sold in equity, any legal action must be in the name of the original creditor, if the assignment was a legal assignment and notice of the assignment (as per s.136 of the LPA 1925) has been given to the debtor, legal action can be in the name of the new owner.

Does the first letter from the DCA to the debtor satisfy this condition though?

S.136 of the LPA 1925 states:

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

I have seen it posted on many "debt help" websites that this means that the notice of assignment must come from the original creditor. However, this is incorrect, as this refers to the deed of assignment and not to the notice of assignment. In terms of your question, it would depend if there is a deed of assignment between the original creditor and the dca and if the letter from the DCA was an "express notice" - in otherwords makes it obvious that the DCA has brought the debt.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... 538752ed36

United Kingdom October 17 2012

Notice of assignment

Notice of assignment can be given by either the assignee or assignor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

This was the High Court's finding in Smith v 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and another.

I think Section 82a of the Consumer Credit Act dealt with assignment, it was introduced in 2010 and then omitted in 2013, so I think it's only Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which remains

82a Assignment of rights

(1)Where rights of a creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement are assigned to a third party, the assignee must arrange for notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor—
(a)as soon as reasonably possible, or
(b)if, after the assignment, the arrangements for servicing the credit under the agreement do not change as far as the debtor is concerned, on or before the first occasion that they do.
(2)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.

s. 82A omitted by S.I. 2013/1881 art. 20(32)]

[FatGambit]

Some older credit agreements have the no asignment clause in, but even so none of the above explains why Lowell etall loose so many defended claims (granted for every 1 they loose there's 99 where they obtained a default judgement because the claim was ignored).

[littleFred]

... it's why Lowell loose so many of those pesky defended claims. ...

... if it was Lowell wouldn't loose so many cases ...

... none of the above explains why Lowell etall loose so many defended claims ...

What proportion of claims do Lowell et al lose? Or what proportion of defended claims do they lose? With citations, if any, please.

Yes, I've seen woolly statements like that on GOODF. In the absence of real information, I can only assume this is mere bravado.

[katiHWB]

What proportion of claims do Lowell et al lose? Or what proportion of defended claims do they lose? With citations, if any, please.

Yes, I've seen woolly statements like that on GOODF. In the absence of real information, I can only assume this is mere bravado.

I can't give you numbers, but I know that a fair few defended claims are won by those helped on sites like CAG and legal Beagles ... mainly for Statute Barred debts or those where Lowell et al don't have agreements/Ts&Cs and either discontinue or lose the claim due to them failing to follow the judges' directions

[letissier14]

As an ex admin on GOODF, I have seen many court cases where Lowell have lost in court, though the exact number I have no idea of, but i would imagine it would be a very tiny percentage overall.

Lowell being one of the main players in debt collection industry and a very successful one at that, have a policy of writing debt off quite quickly if they think it will be a struggle to collect the debt, and therefore concentrate their efforts mainly on those who can and will be pay, which results in bigger profits and less time waste on non payers.

The 3 letters as a concept has no standing, but lots of people have used them and because the debt has been written off they believe it is the letters that made that happen, rather then the fact it was probably written off for a commercial reason, or they didn't have the correct paperwork, it was statute barred, there was no notice of assignment or because of the terms in Deed of Assignment.

The trouble I find is that the debt collection industry, whilst being regulated, is more often than not, abused by the debt collection companies and despite have rules and regulations to follow, often disregard those, and harass the debtor by demanding unrealistic repayment programmes, chasing the debtor when they don't even have the paperwork, hound the debtor by constantly phoning them, often 5 or 6 times a day, and numerous other things which they shouldn't.

Until such time that the debt collection industry gets its act together, sites like GOODF, btbab and Ca3 will just get bigger and bigger.

[letissier14]

Someone has a parking ticket on btbab.

As you can see from the screenshots below, Nasty Nadine and her fellow admin soon start to ban and abuse people

[FatGambit]

Going back to Lowell for a mement, personally of the claims I've been involved in, they've lost all of them one way or another, but overall I have no idea.

I'm not quoting case numbers on an open forum, you'll just have to take my word for it. If you would paid as much attention to what i said as you did cherrypicking the quotes out you'd have realised i said "defended claims", I wasn't assuming to say they lost the majority of those they issue because most go undefended, like I also said, but the ones that do get defended, often Lowell loose.

[littleFred]

If debt collectors are losing cases because they haven't followed the rules, that's good. (The official rules, I mean, not invented ones.) I'm happy with that. But there seemed to be a feeling, expressed here or on GOODF, that (a) they usually don't follow the rules or (b) cases defended on spurious grounds are usually defeated.

I was trying to get an idea of any truth behind (a) and (b).

[letissier14]

If debt collectors are losing cases because they haven't followed the rules, that's good. (The official rules, I mean, not invented ones.) I'm happy with that. But there seemed to be a feeling, expressed here or on GOODF, that (a) they usually don't follow the rules or (b) cases defended on spurious grounds are usually defeated.

I was trying to get an idea of any truth behind (a) and (b).

You're quite correct that; a) Many on GOODF tend to make up rules and certainly don't follow the correct rules/procedures when trying to defend a claim against them, and b) Many are told to lie

[Skeleton]

Nadine Potter will instantly kick anyone who disagrees with benefit fraud, and her wing man Carl Cunningham seems to spend his life spouting bollocks about nothing in particular, i am assuming he has to put his bong down just long enough to type more bullshit though. Bans being handed out left right and center because people actually agree you should not park on double yellow lines (no parking at all for American viewers) should come as no surprise. She really is as thick as mince but has found a little power, it is the main reason the group is in such a mess.