Bills of exchange act 1882

conkerlad

Hi all, 
Just wanted to delve into this somewhat and hoping people far more clued up than me, can divulge a little. 
So when debts are bought by a 3rd party, as I understand they are buying the debt for pennies in the pound, therefore they are clearing the debt with the original lender yes?

I wont go into the dark world of how banks actually get paid out 3 times over on a loan but anyway.

3rd party companies with or without using the CCA they then say you now owe them this money.
Under the Bills of exchange act 1882 (section 23) it would seem that its not enforceable?
Also, a CCA is not a deed of assignment nor a deed of novation, these surely have to be provided with signatures from original lender and the 3rd party?

I am just interested because currently it seems if a 3rd party produces a CCA we are led to believe we need to roll over and accept fate.

Thanks

fatbelly

The selling of debts (rights and responsibilities) is fully accepted by the courts as legitimate.

FOTL-type arguments have a history of very poor results at court but may appear to work at an earlier stage in much the same way as telling a creditor that you are from the Planet Zog and Earth laws do not apply.

conkerlad

fatbelly said:

The selling of debts (rights and responsibilities) is fully accepted by the courts as legitimate.

FOTL-type arguments have a history of very poor results at court but may appear to work at an earlier stage in much the same way as telling a creditor that you are from the Planet Zog and Earth laws do not apply.

Is that not because no one challenges beyond the CCA? 

I don't understand how this is a FOTL-type argument when it has valid claims and legitimacy?

As I have stated, just intrigued.

MorningcoffeeIV

conkerlad said:

, therefore they are clearing the debt with the original lender yes?

No.

They are buying the account and the rights within the agreement.

Floss

conkerlad said:

Under the Bills of exchange act 1882 (section 23) it would seem that its not enforceable?

The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 was amended by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, so while it has not been repealed, the CCA is the relevant Act.

DjangoUnchained

i have wondered why, when they buy these debts do they not insist on getting the cca with them?

sourcrates

DjangoUnchained said:

i have wondered why, when they buy these debts do they not insist on getting the cca with them?

One creditors loan book can amount to 100,000 separate accounts, imagine the paperwork involved !!

Its much easier, and simpler, to bypass the niceties of paperwork, and take your chance with what you have bought.

sourcrates

conkerlad said:

Hi all, 
Just wanted to delve into this somewhat and hoping people far more clued up than me, can divulge a little. 
So when debts are bought by a 3rd party, as I understand they are buying the debt for pennies in the pound, therefore they are clearing the debt with the original lender yes?

I wont go into the dark world of how banks actually get paid out 3 times over on a loan but anyway.

3rd party companies with or without using the CCA they then say you now owe them this money.
Under the Bills of exchange act 1882 (section 23) it would seem that its not enforceable?
Also, a CCA is not a deed of assignment nor a deed of novation, these surely have to be provided with signatures from original lender and the 3rd party?

I am just interested because currently it seems if a 3rd party produces a CCA we are led to believe we need to roll over and accept fate.

Thanks

There are a minority of folk who attempt to use the act you mention, when dealing with debt purchasing companies.

But as Floss has pointed out above, consumer credit agreements are governed by the consumer credit act 1974, not the Bills of exchange act 1882 (section 23 or otherwise).

When debts are legally assigned, you normally receive a notice of such assignment, you have no right to see a deed of assignment, as that document includes personal details of debtors whose accounts have also been assigned.

A deed of novation would again not apply in this instance, as debts are legally assigned to a 3rd party, which means you remain a party to that agreement, and are still liable for your obligations under that contract.

Whereas novation releases you completely from the rights and obligations under the original contract as you are no longer a party to the original contract. 

This is why not one single case brought using the bill of exchange act 1882 as a defence to a claim, has ever won.

Save yourself the time and effort of looking silly, and simply send a "provit letter", if they can provide evidence of your liability, fair enough, if they can`t then it ends there.

conkerlad

Thanks all, makes sense. PRA did send me my CCA from Halifax when it requested it. I am in an arrangement with them anyway.