Assignment of Debt

[ODC]

Hi folks I need some clarification re S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

So far I have had hello letters from Lowells and Go Debt regarding to alleged debts that have supposedly been assigned to them.

I stand to be corrected but surely for this assignment to be legal I should have been informed by the OC that the alleged debt had been assigned to a DCA. Surely this letter assigning the debt must according to the Act be sent by either recorded delivery or registerd post or indeed served in person to make the assignment legal. In the meantime I am ignoring the DCAs as I dont believe the law has been complied with.


Discuss

[Curlyben]

Re: Assignment of Debt

FULL details here: Debt purchasing and assignment - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Thanks Ben I did read your sticky. The two questions I need answers are
1 Must I be informed in writing by the OC that they have assigned the debt to a DCA or does the Hello letter from the DCA suffice

2 must the notice of assignment be sent by recorded or registered post.

3. If the above has not been complied with then should I just file under ignore.

[Curlyben]

Re: Assignment of Debt

1. yes, hello letter aint worth toffee
2. to comply with LoP yes, although NoA from the OC if fine(ish)
3 always

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Good news then Ben. I will ignore the begging letters for now. If things get serious I will then ask about the assignment of the alleged debt

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Receiving regular begging letters from the Leeds Losers and Go Debt but as I have not received notices of assignment from either of the OCs I am just ignoring the begging letters in the meantime.

Maybe I should write and ask them for notices of assignment.

Yeh Right.

They are the so called professionals so they should have their papework in order before sending me begging letters

[Curlyben]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Send em a Prove It if you feel like poking them a bit

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

With caller display and all witheld calls blocked I can deal with their begging letters. When I can be arsed I will maybe send them a prove it letter but in the meantime I will wait for the Leeds Losers to upgrade me to Hampton ilLegal and for go to issue an SD

[pt2537]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes - [1973] 2 All ER 476

Notice of assignment need not be from the creditor, it may be from the assignee.

The key point, is that the notice must be received. S196 LOPA 1923 stipulates two key points in respect of good service

Firstly service is good if served by process server at the last known abode.

Secondly, service is also good if sent by Registered mail and the post is not returned, but per holwell it is only effective when it is received not when it is sent. Hence if service is disputed, then the assignee needs to produce proof of service

[Curlyben]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Yes indeedy.
I have helped have a couple of Stat Demands thrown out due to non-compliance with assignment

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes - [1973] 2 All ER 476

Notice of assignment need not be from the creditor, it may be from the assignee.

The key point, is that the notice must be received. S196 LOPA 1923 stipulates two key points in respect of good service

Firstly service is good if served by process server at the last known abode.

Secondly, service is also good if sent by Registered mail and the post is not returned, but per holwell it is only effective when it is received not when it is sent. Hence if service is disputed, then the assignee needs to produce proof of service

So basically a hello letter is no good unless it was personally served or they can produce proof I received it,

[Nibbler]

Re: Assignment of Debt

One thing I did read the other day....

If no NoC is received and you pay the OC, then the debt is discharged. Doesn't matter that the assignment is completed prior to that. It is your 'notice' of it that matters.

Make sorta sense, but is that correct?

Also that the NoC coming from the assignee is important as that dives them a claim against the debt that supersedes anyone else who may later erroneously claim to be have been assigned it?

[pt2537]

Re: Assignment of Debt

So basically a hello letter is no good unless it was personally served or they can produce proof I received it,

ahh now your talking a different issue,

The contents of a notice, well, there is no statutory requirements as to form, the form requirements are set out in case law

The date if stated must be accurate (harrison v Burke) but if no date is stated then that doesnt matter (van pelias construction)

The amount of the debt must also be acccurate, although that is obiter from Denning MR in Van pelias construction

The notice must convey to the debtor who owns his debt, who he has to pay and the amount of the assignment.

[mystery1]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Somebody once said :-

20. Notice in writing.



In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3. The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.
It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.
The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.
The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee17.
In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient18.
It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority19.
If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque20.







1 Amalgamated General Finance Co Ltd v CE Golding & Co Ltd [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 (no legal assignment because no notice to underwriters); Shaw v Applegate [1978] 1 All ER 123, [1977] 1 WLR 970, CA (equitable assignment of benefit of negative covenant became legal when notice given to covenantor). It seems that notice should be served on every person who would be a necessary party to a claim on the debt: see Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723 at 736, [1937] 3 All ER 722 at 727–728, CA, per Greer LJ, and at 740 and 732 per Slessor LJ. Notice should, accordingly, be given to all trustees: see para 53 post. In relation to a cause of action in tort see also Perry v Tendring District Council [1985] 1 EGLR 260; RL Polk & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v Edward Hill & Partners [1988] 1 EGLR 142.
2 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1). An assignment will be good in equity as between assignor and assignee without notice: Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber and Gutta Percha Works (1886) 34 ChD 128, CA. See further para 42 post. The suspensory character of the proviso in Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 489 meant that the notice of assignment did not satisfy the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 s 136 (as amended).
3 Insolvency Act 1986 s 345(4); Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723, [1937] 3 All ER 722, CA.
4 Denney, Gasquet and Metcalfe v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177.
5 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.
6 Hockley and Papworth v Goldstein (1920) 90 LJKB 111 (where the debtor's inability to read was well known to all the parties, and clear oral notice was given but was ineffective).
7 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1).
8 Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1, [1942] 1 All ER 404; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476, [1973] 1 WLR 757 (affd [1974] 1 All ER 161, [1974] 1 WLR 155, CA); and see para 21 post.
9 Lee v Magrath (1882) 10 LR Ir 313 at 319, 326, CA (where the transferor appointed the debtor her executor); Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104 (payment of interest to assignor of fund before notice of assignment of fund). Cf Jenkins v Jenkins [1928] 2 KB 501.
10 Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839; WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA. It is not so in the case of an equitable assignment: Whittingstall v King (1882) 46 LT 520.
11 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.
12 WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA, obiter per Denning LJ.
13 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.
14 Walker v Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 QBD 511; Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104.
15 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA.
16 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.
17 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA (where the notice was given by the executor of a sub-assignee).
18 William Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905] AC 454, HL (a decision on an equitable assignment).
19 See Marchant v Morton, Down & Co [1901] 2 KB 829.
20 Bence v Shearman [1898] 2 Ch 582, CA.



Can't think who put that together

M1

[ODC]

Re: Assignment of Debt

Basically my argument is that the original creditors have never informed me that they sold the debts on to two dcas.

All I have is the DCAs word that they have a legal right to be chasing me and we all know what a DCAs word is worth