Complaint upheld but setting off to third party

DevCoder

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Arrow took the debt on a commercial basis by paying a proportion of the value in the hope of recovering a larger amount and thereby profiting. The debt is settled with the recovery company and the original lender. You should pursue legal action if you cannot get the offset money back.

Not necessarily, hence my comment about a legal deed of assignation.

magpiecottage

I think the OP should refer the matter to FOS. They may decide that the lender is not entitled to pay it to the debt collection agenc although I suspect they could argue that they should withhold the difference between the true value of the debt and what they sold it on for.

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

I think the OP should refer the matter to FOS. They may decide that the lender is not entitled to pay it to the debt collection agenc although I suspect they could argue that they should withhold the difference between the true value of the debt and what they sold it on for.

Well if the debt was bought reasonably recently, I'm guessing most organisations would have some caveat in the event of a furute successful mis-selling claim. I can't imagine many organisations signing over a debt without any consideration for a potential future claim!

In addition, the debt agency presumably may have something in there to say any future upheld complaints on that debt would give them some redress on it - certainly at least for any transactions in recent years.

I would be surprised if both the lender and the debt agency did not have anything to counter an upheld claim!

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

I would be surprised if both the lender and the debt agency did not have anything to counter an upheld claim!

If the OP gets an Ombudsman decision to the contrary and accepts it within the time limit then that is legally binding on the lender.

If they then had to pay it to the DCA as well that is the lender's lookout.

And having been stupid enough to missell this stuff in the first place, what makes you think they have suddenly become sensible?

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

If the OP gets an Ombudsman decision to the contrary and accepts it within the time limit then that is legally binding on the lender.

If they then had to pay it to the DCA as well that is the lender's lookout.

And having been stupid enough to missell this stuff in the first place, what makes you think they have suddenly become sensible?

Maybe not suddenly sensible but I'm guessing with all the PPI saga, they would have something in their transactions with the debt agency to recover losses in the event of ....

However, looking at the op again, it states the debt company took over the debt in 2005 - before the whole PPI thing blew up. In that case, mis-selling complaints might not have been considered at all and thus there may be nothing in place. I would imagine though, any organisation selling a bad debt currently, would have something in place to counter a later upheld claim. Otherwise the lender suffers whatever loss is on a defaulted debt and then would suffer further loss in the event of an upheld claim.

I have no idea how bad debts are sold or how debt agencies close their accounts. Lets say a debt agency buys £1000 of bad debt for £200. They subsequently get £400 from the borrower to close the account. Is the account closed forever, or is there some clause that says the debt agency has some claim for the outstanding £600 in the event of x, y, z.

[Deleted User]

saver861 wrote: »

I would imagine though, any organisation selling a bad debt currently, would have something in place to counter a later upheld claim.

Banks do usually keep the option of setting off even if the debt is "sold on". This is not the first thread on here where a poster has complained that redress from a PPI complaint has been off set against unpaid debt and I doubt it will be the last.

In unrelated aside, has Arrow really been chasing the debt for nine years?

addedvaluebob

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Banks do usually keep the option of setting off even if the debt is "sold on".

In unrelated aside, has Arrow really been chasing the debt for nine years?

Do you have any evidence to support this idea of setting off, particularly for a debt that was settled many years ago

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

a debt that was settled many years ago

The debt was settled at the same time as the OP was making a PPI complaint according to the opening post. The debt itself was apparently taken over by Arrow in 2005, hence my earlier question about it being recovered for nine years.

I posted a link to the "idea" of setting off in post #2 of this thread.

Rangers123

May 2005 is the date given to me by Egg as when Arrow took over the debt. I didn't even open the loan until 2007, so it's just another example of Egg's staggering incompetence. It was actually sold to Arrow in 2011.

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

I have no idea how bad debts are sold or how debt agencies close their accounts. Lets say a debt agency buys £1000 of bad debt for £200. They subsequently get £400 from the borrower to close the account. Is the account closed forever, or is there some clause that says the debt agency has some claim for the outstanding £600 in the event of x, y, z.

That would have to be in the deal between the DCA and the borrower to stand even the remotest chance of being legally enforcible.

Even then I suspect FOS would, as it can, overrule it.