Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Thank you for confirming my initial thoughts. Continuing with the same question. What would be the best defence for the debtor to the creditors for not continuing paying to the debt and be successful? I would appreciate your comments
Thank you for your comments.
Is it not a defence for the debtor that the new owner of the debt has to prove that has acquired from the original creditor? If this is not done then there such a debt (I think this is under a 1925 Act) does not exist? If case went to court the Judge would be asking for this evidence (cannot remember the name) and if this is not produced then case could be thrown out? I would appreciate your comments.
You mentioned that the they have to show that the money was borrowed and they are empowered. I presume there is a definition of to have to show and they are empowered under some relevant Act? In this case the original creditor was over 6 years ago.
If there is no such definition in any relevant Act there has to be some sort of standard/format which is acceptable i.e. signature of debtor/creditor, when the borrowing occurred by whom etc. otherwise it would be farcical anyone could demanding money after certain time. I would appreciate your comments.
Thank you for your replay.
So there are no rules/standards within the legislation regarding the new creditor to demonstrate on how they have been empowered not even a Notice of Assignment pursuant to Law of Property Act 1925?
If there was no such rules/standards then there is business niche for Debt Collector companies (DBC) to check in Experian, etc for customers who have borrowed in the past and chase them for non payment (even if they have fully paid their borrowings) as the majority do not keep receipt. By the way I am not aware that DBC are doing these sort of things. However, I hope you can see the point.
I would appreciate your comments.
Thank you very much for your comments.
I would appreciate if you would like to tell me where in the web I could find case law regarding debtors (common people) vs creditors where i could be able to see the the common cases. I am thanking you once again for all your help.
Thank you for the link and your advice.
One more question, regarding to the initial question. Although you have dismissed all my arguments I was thinking that in Housing legislation and particularly when serving eviction notices they have to follow an strict procedure when serving these notices. By extrapolation Creditors don't owe similar strict rules towards their customers (debtors) i.e. keeping them informed that they are going to sell their debt, etc, and keep evidence of the steps taken towards them?
I would appreciate your comments
Thank you for your reply.I am aware that Housing Legislation has no application, however, I have brought it as an analogy. Is it there any case law to support that creditors do not have a duty to inform debtors that the debt has been sold? it is my understanding that there are code of practice (quasi law) regarding to the best practices and judges tend to follow the best practices. I would appreciate your comments.
Thank you for your comments. I have not said that the debt cannot be pursued what I implied was that if case was pursued through the Courts then the Judge was likely to dismiss the case due to some practical irregularities i.e. not formally informing the debtor of the action taken by the creditor and subsequent buyers. I am referring to this as I have said earlier the 'creditor' needs to prove that the 'debtor' owes money. I understand that the issue debt/creditor can be pursued but through the courts the onus would be on the creditor to prove that the debtor owes and debtor has created a contract with the new creditor. I would appreciate your comments.
Thank you for all you replies. I am concerned that you have dismmissed most of my arguments, however, in no one momments you have mentioned that under the consumer protection Act a lender in order to be lawful has to comply with a number of sections. If a borrower, becomes a debtor and the lender decides to sell the debt then it has to comply with a protocol stipulated within the CPA1974 otherwise the debt could not be enforced through the Courts.
i would appreciate your comments
Thank you for your final comments. I think you are right it would be better to check with others to see their views. I fully aware that feelings and the law do not go together. It is awful to think tha someone does not want to pay a debt. However, in my opinion everyone wants to pay a debt which is lawful in the first place. Although I am not entirely sure whether your comments were supported by the spirit of the law I have nevertheless appreciated your comments.