Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

[andi-leigh2]

I wonder if I may share this case here and seek peoples views on the chronology of this case.
2004 - Account opened
2009 - Default Notice Issued (Contents appear to be as required)
Hear nothing other than a few random letters and calls from various debt collectors & a firm of solicitors who soon
backed down.
March 2010 - Received claim form via CCBC direct from Claimant (not agent).
Poorly put together POC's and SOT signed by Claimant digitally and not by an employee (in ink)
acting for / on behalf of Claimant - eg employee. Now I understand from a thread somewhere that complex
CCA matters fall down because the SOT needs to be signed, and I belive that a DJ/DDJ somewhere threw out
a case because of this.
The CC A'ment is a photocopy, lacking all prescribed terms on the same actual sheet of paper. It is an impossibility for
them to have the original, dont ask me why on here, but can assure you they dont. No T&C's with claim form.
The CCA is illegible in places.
Send in AOS - OK
Provide well drafted defence - OK
They try and enter Judgement - Court laughs and chucks it out.
Case becomes stayed, and remains so as I checked yesterday.
In the meantime 2 and a quarter years passes and we're now in August 2012 and an assignment has taken place in the interim.
The new claimant is an associate company of the original claimant - same address - same details - same case matter.
Receive new claim form (another claim number) with the claimant shown as the Assignee. Now considering that they would have received all the rights of the account with the assignment, issuing a new claim is clearly an abuse of process (Buckland v Palmer (1984) 1 WLR1109 where it was held in The High Court as such. Clearly the new owner should have applied to the court to lift the stay on original claim.

Second claim form was also from CCBC and digitally signed by a person who is presumably an employee.

Anyway, second claim was suitably defended and subsequently stayed soon after and it remains so as of yesterday.
Nearly 4 years passes, we're now in April 2016 and another assignment allegedly takes place, contact having been made to me by the DCA who are an associate company of the newly claimed assignee.
No acknowledgement / admission of liability / payment, or anything by me either verbally or in writing at any time, even before the default notice was issued.

Im not mentioning any corporate names here, but anyone who's genned up knows who I am probably talking about.
This case any many others similar to it is rather like "deja vous" considering another set of debt purchasers who acted in underhand ways a while ago and lost.

Comments appreciated.

[Kati]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=2]Celestine[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION] ... an interesting one for you here Can you legally be taken to court 3 times for the same debt??

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

March 2010 - Received claim form via CCBC direct from Claimant (not agent).
Poorly put together POC's and SOT signed by Claimant digitally and not by an employee (in ink)
acting for / on behalf of Claimant - eg employee. Now I understand from a thread somewhere that complex
CCA matters fall down because the SOT needs to be signed, and I belive that a DJ/DDJ somewhere threw out
a case because of this.

It can be signed by entering a name of a person electronically. No ink required.

You need to sort your shit out. 2nd claim needs an application to get rid of it as it's quite clearly an abuse of process to have a 2nd claim for the same thing as an already liv claim.

The 1st needs an application to boot it out because bringing a claim with no intent to litigate is an abuse of process.

Of course before you proceed with costly applications you need to lay the ground work to make sure the court boots their balls severely enough that the costs fall out of their pockets in large amounts. To do so you should contact them and tell them about their shoddy work and invite them to discontinue.

M1

[nemesis45]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Hi,
There has recently been considerable amalgamations and restructuring within debt purchaser for example the Compello Group (MKDP et al). Resulting in a multiple application for " change of claimant " being submitted to the high court and being granted.

If a claim is stayed when such a transaction takes place the " new" claimant can pay the court fee to lift the stay and continue the claim.

nem

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

If there was so much wrong with the previous claimant's case, why was it only stayed?

Did the court issue an 'unless' order.

Why did you not apply to have it struck out on either of the 2 occasions? (Previous court cases)

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Thank you for your three replies from various members.

Ill answer them in the order they were posted.

"Mystery1"

I read something somewhere, I think from PT's blog that a DJ kicked out a case because of the complex nature of it and stated that the CF should have been signed by an individual personally on behalf of the claimant. How does the claims affect the SB considering that the DN was issued in Sept 2009 and no phone calls, letters have taken place other than dealing with the CF and CCBC.

"Nemesis45"

I have read all about these companies and have made it my business to find out about their corporate structure. What concerns me is that HPH2L do not have current FCA authorisation, so how can they deal in any CCA affairs and instruct RW. I though that to enforce and collect an account the legal entity in itself had to be compliant.

That may be the case for the Court to grant substitution of claimant in something recent, or documents which are correctly issued, but this is a mess from start to finish. A few lines of POC on the CF, refers to DN as final demand, on the other one it doesn't state when the assignment took place, only that they alleged to have informed me. The whole thing is a mess. You need to see the redacted CF's I have prepared to be able to make an informed opinion. No other docs were issued with the CF's and no mention of them "To Follow" was made in either instance.

"CharityNJW"

No "Unless Order", just a bog standard reply letter from CCBC on both occasions stating that defence had been filed, and should the Claimant wish to proceed then they would contact me. That's that. Nothing else. It didn't get allocated to an external local CC, its still at CCBC. Phoned them the other day, nothing other than my enquiries over the years.

Ive made no applications and left the ball in their court as its them who has been the instigator. Once I put my defence in then its their move. Ive suffered from Clinical Depression for 15 years since 2001, and been through all the shit before with HFO et al. This is the last thing I need after all these years now that my CF has cleaned itself up.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Quite honestly, I need a decent CCA brief to deal with this for me. What with the new Court Fee Structure, its beyond a joke and its quite honestly taking affordable justice right out of the hands of people who need it. I know someone who is more than capable of sorting this for me, having had plenty of dealings with these people before, but apparently is not taking new cases at present.

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

I read something somewhere, I think from PT's blog that a DJ kicked out a case because of the complex nature of it and stated that the CF should have been signed by an individual personally on behalf of the claimant. How does the claims affect the SB considering that the DN was issued in Sept 2009 and no phone calls, letters have taken place other than dealing with the CF and CCBC.

That would, i think, have been where some idiot at, e.g. restons, put Restons soloicitors LTd, instead of Joe Bloggs and then putting the solicitors name (Restons) in the correct place. A firm cannot sign for 2 reasons. 1. Only a person can write, not a building or desk or plaque etc & 2. Said person needs to be responsible for what they write and held accountable for any shite the write down. The penalties include jailtime and a firm cannot goto jail (directors can but you know what i mean).

My best guess would be that if all claims are booted then the clock would be at the position it would have been if there were no claims.

For solicitors http://lbcompare.co.uk/listings/?fwp...mer-credit-act

If that doesn't show the results i get when putting in Birmingham then #1 is PT at Howlett Clarke #2 is Joanna Connolly #8 is Joannas old employer (i think) MSB and #3 is Stephensons all of which i know are at least decent on CCA stuff. That'd also be the order in which i would approach them if i lived on the Sassenach side of the wall and needed help.

M1

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Please find redacted CF's with POC's as submitted by Claimant's

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Default Notice Questions :

Does this have to be issued by the OC on their letterhead ?

Can DCA (acting on their behalf only, and not an assignee of account) issue the DN on OC behalf on DCA Letterhead, or must it be OC personally ?

What if they issue DN but it never gets registered with any CRA, and subsequently never appears on CF ?

Thank you

[nemesis45]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

I wonder if I may share this case here and seek peoples views on the chronology of this case.
2004 - Account opened
2009 - Default Notice Issued (Contents appear to be as required)
Hear nothing other than a few random letters and calls from various debt collectors & a firm of solicitors who soon
backed down.
March 2010 - Received claim form via CCBC direct from Claimant (not agent).
Poorly put together POC's and SOT signed by Claimant digitally and not by an employee (in ink)
acting for / on behalf of Claimant - eg employee. Now I understand from a thread somewhere that complex
CCA matters fall down because the SOT needs to be signed, and I belive that a DJ/DDJ somewhere threw out
a case because of this.
The CC A'ment is a photocopy, lacking all prescribed terms on the same actual sheet of paper. It is an impossibility for
them to have the original, dont ask me why on here, but can assure you they dont. No T&C's with claim form.
The CCA is illegible in places.
Send in AOS - OK


Provide well drafted defence - OK
They try and enter Judgement - Court laughs and chucks it out.
Case becomes stayed, and remains so as I checked yesterday.
In the meantime 2 and a quarter years passes and we're now in August 2012 and an assignment has taken place in the interim.
The new claimant is an associate company of the original claimant - same address - same details - same case matter.
Receive new claim form (another claim number) with the claimant shown as the Assignee. Now considering that they would have received all the rights of the account with the assignment, issuing a new claim is clearly an abuse of process (Buckland v Palmer (1984) 1 WLR1109 where it was held in The High Court as such. Clearly the new owner should have applied to the court to lift the stay on original claim.

Second claim form was also from CCBC and digitally signed by a person who is presumably an employee.

Anyway, second claim was suitably defended and subsequently stayed soon after and it remains so as of yesterday.
Nearly 4 years passes, we're now in April 2016 and another assignment allegedly takes place, contact having been made to me by the DCA who are an associate company of the newly claimed assignee.
No acknowledgement / admission of liability / payment, or anything by me either verbally or in writing at any time, even before the default notice was issued.

Im not mentioning any corporate names here, but anyone who's genned up knows who I am probably talking about.
This case any many others similar to it is rather like "deja vous" considering another set of debt purchasers who acted in underhand ways a while ago and lost.

Comments appreciated.

At this stage and state of the debt purchase industry with so many changes and acquisitions etc., going it's hard to conclude with any certainty which companies you are referring to. Advice/Comment will not necessarily be appropriate.

Cabot et al. Lowell Group, Hoist, PRA, Compello/ MKRR. MKDP??? All are possible.

nem

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Tradepro, to MKDP, now Hoist/RW. See original CF Ive posted. Thanks

- - - Updated - - -

BTW the alleged initial DCA was CDC which is a trading title of Tradepro Card Services Limited as it used to be

- - - Updated - - -

Both the CF's are defective IMHO and if it wasn't for these then the account would be SB anyway

[mystery1]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Default Notice Questions :

1. Does this have to be issued by the OC on their letterhead ?

2. Can DCA (acting on their behalf only, and not an assignee of account) issue the DN on OC behalf on DCA Letterhead, or must it be OC personally ?

3. What if they issue DN but it never gets registered with any CRA, and subsequently never appears on CF ?

Thank you

1. No and No. It can be on a blank bit of paper and must contain the statutory requirements http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../made/data.pdf (as well as some company act info but that won't help you if it's missing even if it lands them in the shite)

2. I don't think the OC has to issue it personally, they can, imo, get someone to do it for them but the regulations do not change in respect of the required information and format.

3. Nothing to do with anything. Certainly not the enforceability of the debt. If they report account activity it's has to be accurate if they report nothing then they do nothing wrong as it's not a mandatory requirement to report a credit activity to a CRA.

M1

[nemesis45]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Please find redacted CF's with POC's as submitted by Claimant's

What are the issue dates on these claims?
Default Notices are not actual defaults, creditor may not always ( and are not obliged to) register defaults with the CRA's for a number or reasons e.g. an arrangement to pay is entered into.

Bear in mind that each any of the debt purchasers could when they were the beneficial owners of the account issue a CC Claim, BUT may not for reasons known only to them decide not to continue the claim through to trial.

It may be decided on possible costs / return basis it's better for them to sell the debt on just to make a few quid. It is more than probable that the " new" owner has no idea there has been any attempt at litigation.

nem

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Tradepro, to MKDP, now Hoist/RW. See original CF Ive posted. Thanks

- - - Updated - - -

BTW the alleged initial DCA was CDC which is a trading title of Tradepro Card Services Limited as it used to be

- - - Updated - - -


Both the CF's are defective IMHO and if it wasn't for these then the account would be SB anyway

Lol!
TradePro have long gone; MKDP couldn't produce a compliant agreement (Hence, I suspect, the stay).
Compello have now themselves disappeared, swallowed up by Hoist. (How can they magic up a compliant agreement; you already have proof that the MK mob couldn't!).

IMHO go for a strike out.

Or you could wait for Hoist to try & take it further & defend with the evidence that is in your possession already.