Deed Of Assignment

Walterman

Hi Advisors and Helpers
I need your help with confused messages I have been reading re Deed of Assignment and [/B]Note of Assignment.
I am told that the note of assignment we are allowed to see but not the Deed of Assignment. However, I recently read that Lord Denning has stated in ruling 1965 that "debtor is entitled to view the sale of agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him a good discharge under the contract" does this still stand?
waterman

[Deleted User]

No - you don't get to see the sale agreement.

As long as you know who owns the debt, that's all you need.

Walterman

Thanks, zx81
so it would seem Dennings ruling 1965 Van Lynn Developments v Pelius Construction has been superseded!
Walterman

Walterman

Hi zx81 and fellow advisors
I have been looking into this DOA and NOA again and have some conflicting views as given in various judgments against PRA (PRA Group V Mayhew March 2017) and Van Lynn Developments v Constructions also Segal Judgement....there appears to be an implication that the debtor is entitled to view this! as I am an amateur in this area of law but seek some clarity perhaps you or others could shed some light on the above.
A Grateful Waterman

Matador777

To the best of my knowledge, If your are in a court, under disclosure CPR 31,6 b, You can ask for this. It must be shown, as failure to disclose is breaching Fraud Act 2006 sec 3

Walterman

Thanks Matador777
this is most helpful to know and will keep you and others updated with any new outcomes.

Walterman

Stevespy

The way it works:

"A" sells "B" a debt (or so B claims), the debtor then pays B who pops up with a "notice of assignment" freshly printed by B. A in fact has no contract with B so enforces the debt against the debtor who ends up having to pay it TWICE. That is why you need to see the DEED of Assignment. To ensure that the debt buyer has good LEGAL title to the debt.

That is why in the Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 case, Lord Denning said "the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract"

Of course the Zombie debt buying companies want you to believe that a "notice of assignment" is all they need to send to comply with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, because the don't have a valid Deed of Assignment. What they are relying on is in fact an "Equitable Assignment" and that is not enforceable in County Court. They must attach the Original Creditor to the court case if they wish to proceed under an Equitable Assignment.

If they ever produced what they purchased it would just show a big list of names with numbers next to them. Forensic examination of the document would show that it does not comply with:
Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Because it would be missing the company seal and the signatures of two directors of the Assignor's company or the signature of One Director and a Secretary.

The Debt buyer buys the Zombie debt for about 12% of the value of the alleged debt. Then try's to resurrect the whole alleged debt. They are attempting to profit out of the Litigation. The Zombie debt buying SCAM is big news in America and likely to be big news here soon.

We are wiping lots of these Zombie debts on Beat the Bailiffs, Facebook group using an adapted version of the 3 letter process for Debt Buyers.

sourcrates

I won’t comment on the 3 letter process.

The debtor is entitled to see a copy of the notice of assignment.
That is their right.

The poster above has quoted from a lot of different parts of legislation, mainly applicable to the sale of property, what it actually boils down to is the fact a “deed of assignment” will contain information not just about the debtor, but many other individuals as well.

So disclosure of this document to any one individual named on it, would be in breach of the data protection act (or GDPR).

The judge would consult legal counsel to decide if the interests of the crown outweighed the rights of the individual, or not, as to weather this would be admissible.

Stevespy

[/So disclosure of this document to any one individual named on it, would be in breach of the data protection act (or GDPR).

The judge would consult legal counsel to decide if the interests of the crown outweighed the rights of the individual, or not, as to weather this would be admissible.QUOTE]

Not so. The Claimant can redact other persons names out of the document so not to fall foul of Data Protection:

See (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968.[3] All ER 824) Where Lord Denning M.R. said "the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract"

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

What is actually going on in a whole load of cases is that the Zombie debt buyer does not have valid deed of Assignment, just a list of names and numbers. It's a massive SCAM where companies are profiting out of debt buying and getting away with it because they are being told that a Notice is enough when clearly is isn't.

Walterman

Thanks Stevespy and Sourcrates for this clairification:T
this has been the best explaination of what appears to be a very secreative financial business and good to see the US taking the lead in trying to expose the scam:j
Walterman