The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Tuco
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:35 am

The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Postby Tuco » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:17 pm

When someone takes out a bank loan/credit card agreement etc, once the agreement is signed, it becomes an instrument of value. It is traded throughout the financial sector and effectively disappears off the face of the earth.

Is this legal? I would venture that it is not. I suspect the regulars on here will disagree with me.

I have personally stopped paying two debts until the DCA could produce the original agreement. I stated that I would pay the entire debt in full if the DCA could produce the original agreement. In both cases, the DCA could not/would not and instigated proceedings against me. In both cases, I issued a counter claim and in both cases the DCA offered to withdraw their claim if I did the same.

I was many thousands of pounds better off which I put towards a brand new Mercedes e class, complete with sat nav, heated leather seats and electric reclining mirrors.

Thoughts please....
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1127
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Postby AndyPandy » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:27 pm

Tuco wrote:When someone takes out a bank loan/credit card agreement etc, once the agreement is signed, it becomes an instrument of value. It is traded throughout the financial sector and effectively disappears off the face of the earth.

Is this legal? I would venture that it is not. I suspect the regulars on here will disagree with me.

I have personally stopped paying two debts until the DCA could produce the original agreement. I stated that I would pay the entire debt in full if the DCA could produce the original agreement. In both cases, the DCA could not/would not and instigated proceedings against me. In both cases, I issued a counter claim and in both cases the DCA offered to withdraw their claim if I did the same.

I was many thousands of pounds better off which I put towards a brand new Mercedes e class, complete with sat nav, heated leather seats and electric reclining mirrors.

Thoughts please....

The debts were capable of being assigned under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the debts deemed unenforceable under either section 77.6, 78.6 or 79.6 of the Consumer Credit Act and as such are nothing to do with Sov. Citizens or any other Scam and therefore, not appropriate subject of discussion on this site.

Tuco
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:35 am

Re: The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Postby Tuco » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:32 pm

AndyPandy wrote:
Tuco wrote:When someone takes out a bank loan/credit card agreement etc, once the agreement is signed, it becomes an instrument of value. It is traded throughout the financial sector and effectively disappears off the face of the earth.

Is this legal? I would venture that it is not. I suspect the regulars on here will disagree with me.

I have personally stopped paying two debts until the DCA could produce the original agreement. I stated that I would pay the entire debt in full if the DCA could produce the original agreement. In both cases, the DCA could not/would not and instigated proceedings against me. In both cases, I issued a counter claim and in both cases the DCA offered to withdraw their claim if I did the same.

I was many thousands of pounds better off which I put towards a brand new Mercedes e class, complete with sat nav, heated leather seats and electric reclining mirrors.

Thoughts please....

The debts were unenforceable under either section 77.6, 78.6 or 79.6 of the Consumer Credit Act and as such are nothing to do with Sov. Citizens or any other Scam and therefore, not appropriate subject of discussion on this site.


But surely all Sov Citizens need do is to ask for the original loan agreement rather than send three letter then? The end result is the same.
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1127
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Postby AndyPandy » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:35 pm

Tuco wrote:
AndyPandy wrote:
Tuco wrote:When someone takes out a bank loan/credit card agreement etc, once the agreement is signed, it becomes an instrument of value. It is traded throughout the financial sector and effectively disappears off the face of the earth.

Is this legal? I would venture that it is not. I suspect the regulars on here will disagree with me.

I have personally stopped paying two debts until the DCA could produce the original agreement. I stated that I would pay the entire debt in full if the DCA could produce the original agreement. In both cases, the DCA could not/would not and instigated proceedings against me. In both cases, I issued a counter claim and in both cases the DCA offered to withdraw their claim if I did the same.

I was many thousands of pounds better off which I put towards a brand new Mercedes e class, complete with sat nav, heated leather seats and electric reclining mirrors.

Thoughts please....

The debts were unenforceable under either section 77.6, 78.6 or 79.6 of the Consumer Credit Act and as such are nothing to do with Sov. Citizens or any other Scam and therefore, not appropriate subject of discussion on this site.


But surely all Sov Citizens need do is to ask for the original loan agreement rather than send three letter then? The end result is the same.

yup

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: The Selling of Loan Agreements-Is it Legal?

Postby Bones » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:41 pm

Tuco wrote:Is this legal? .


I will let you decide for yourself Ronnie J, sorry I mean Tuco

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/136

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)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, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

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

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

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.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest