Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

by **LionsShare** Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:10 pm

this may have been answered before, appologies if it has.

If Person C owes Person A money & C does not pay up. Under "Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925" I take it gives a Deed of Assignment to Person B. B then starts a process to gain money from C, if C had NO contract to pay B in the 1st place can B legally force C to pay B?

Thanks for any replies - not too sure how the above subject works.

Regards

LS

by Tiggy Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:50 pm

LionsShare wrote:this may have been answered before, appologies if it has.

If Person C owes Person A money & C does not pay up. Under "Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925" I take it gives a Deed of Assignment to Person B. B then starts a process to gain money from C, if C had NO contract to pay B in the 1st place can B legally force C to pay B?

Thanks for any replies - not too sure how the above subject works.

Regards

LS

This is Section 136, it's always good to go to the legislation in question

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

(c)the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—
(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

(2)This section does not affect the provisions of the M2Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

[F1(3)The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed [F2£30,000].]

I think the bits I've highlighted may answer your question.

by **LionsShare** Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:39 pm

Thanks Tiggy, as I am new to this world of debt thing, was wondering if you know from experience if when a Deed of assignment has been given/granted does the DCA actually buy the debt? If so then surely under section 59 (1), (3) bill of exchange act 1882:

59 Payment in due course.

(1)A bill is discharged by payment in due course by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor.

“Payment in due course” means payment made at or after the maturity of the bill to the holder thereof in good faith and without notice that his title to the bill is defective.

(2)Subject to the provisions herein-after contained, when a bill is paid by the drawer or an indorser it is not discharged; but

(a)Where a bill payable to, or to the order of, a third party is paid by the drawer, the drawer may enforce payment thereof against the acceptor, but may not re-issue the bill.

(b)Where a bill is paid by an indorser, or where a bill payable to drawer’s order is paid by the drawer, the party paying it is remitted to his former rights as regards the acceptor or antecedent parties, and he may, if he thinks fit, strike out his own subsequent indorsements, and again negotiate the bill.

(3)Where an accommodation bill is paid in due course by the party accommodated the bill is discharged.

If at that point the debt has been purchased hasn't the debt been paid off, irrespective what was paid to purchase the debt?

by Tiggy Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:07 pm

Have you looked up what a Bill of Exchange actually is and what they're used for and would they actually be used by debt purchasers to purchase debts ?

by **LionsShare** Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:08 pm

Tiggy thanks again. My understanding of a bill of exchange is a written order from 1 person to another to pay on demand a sum of money either now or at some point in the future. When paying a bill bank notes can be used but often some people call a bank note a bill.

Perhaps am slightly confused ?

As to whether they are used to buy debt then as am not a DCA will never know.

by Tiggy Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:17 pm

Bills of exchange are used primarily in international trade, and are written orders by one person to his bank to pay the bearer a specific sum on a specific date. Prior to the advent of paper currency, bills of exchange were a common means of exchange. They are not used as often today.

by sam66 Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 am

Code:: 136 (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which [b]express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or...[/b]

I'm interested in this clause, which as far as I can gather, only an equitable assignment has taken place until such time express notice in writing has been given.

196 Regulations respecting notices.
(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served.

Therefore, am I correct in thinking the assignment is not enforceable if the assignee is unable to prove that the notice was sufficiently served?

by **LionsShare** Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:23 pm

sam66 wrote:
Code:
136 (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which [b]express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or...[/b]

I'm interested in this clause, which as far as I can gather, only an equitable assignment has taken place until such time express notice in writing has been given.

196 Regulations respecting notices.
(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served.

Therefore, am I correct in thinking the assignment is not enforceable if the assignee is unable to prove that the notice was sufficiently served?

Thanks for the point of view - a really good 1. But as am insufficiently knowledgeable - can't answer!

by Tiggy Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:13 pm

sam66 wrote:
Code:
136 (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which [b]express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or...[/b]

I'm interested in this clause, which as far as I can gather, only an equitable assignment has taken place until such time express notice in writing has been given.

196 Regulations respecting notices.
(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served.

Therefore, am I correct in thinking the assignment is not enforceable if the assignee is unable to prove that the notice was sufficiently served?

This is an extract from a defence I submitted, I've no idea how effective (or not) this is, as all the claims against me were discontinued.

c) For the assignment of a debt to be effective (and so giving the Claimant a right of action) a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served upon me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

d) As per C above, a copy of the alleged Notice of Assignment alleged to have been sent by the original creditor to the Defendant, and again details of how this was served upon the Defendant.

by handle Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:22 pm

Tiggy, I have seen that in a defence as well, as well as proof of postage of a default notice. I used both and the claims against me were also discontinued

by Tiggy Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:26 pm

handle wrote:Tiggy, I have seen that in a defence as well, as well as proof of postage of a default notice. I used both and the claims against me were also discontinued

It's part of the template defence I used to post for people.

by Waffle Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:29 pm

Impressive detail work in this thread Very Happy

by sam66 Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:57 pm

Waffle wrote:Impressive detail work in this thread

Thanks Waffle :-)

I do wonder what constitutes a Notice of Assignment. Is there any specific wording creditors should use to for an express notice. I see things like ...
"We have transferred your [account] to [DCA] . ."
"[Bank name etc] has passed your account to us to manage"
"We have decided that we will take the action of selling your debt to another company. We will the transferring ownership to . . ."

Would these be considered as valid NoAs?

by Tiggy Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:19 pm

sam66 wrote:
Waffle wrote:Impressive detail work in this thread
Thanks Waffle :-)

I do wonder what constitutes a Notice of Assignment. Is there any specific wording creditors should use to for an express notice. I see things like ...
"We have transferred your [account] to [DCA] . ."
"[Bank name etc] has passed your account to us to manage"
"We have decided that we will take the action of selling your debt to another company. We will the transferring ownership to . . ."

Would these be considered as valid NoAs?

If you look at Section 136 it only says that a notice has to be sent, it's silent on what should be within a notice.

by **LionsShare** Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:22 pm

True Tiggy so I suppose they could send a piece of paper titled Deed Of Assignement with no narrative in it? Just an idea!

by Tiggy Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:18 pm

LionsShare wrote:True Tiggy so I suppose they could send a piece of paper titled Deed Of Assignement with no narrative in it? Just an idea!

In theory yes, but as it's actually a sales contract assigning accounts, I doubt any Judge would accept it.

by Waffle Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:51 pm

I did see some case law that said something like "it doesn't matter who sends the debtor notice or how its written as long as they are noticed".....

by sam66 Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:13 pm

Waffle wrote:I did see some case law that said something like "it doesn't matter who sends the debtor notice or how its written as long as they are noticed".....

Where do you stand with the authenticity of a trasnfer notice on a single sheet of A4 paper, with one side containing the logo/letterhead of the assignor (let's call them the bankers) and on the other side, the logo/letterhead of the assignee (typically DCA).

by Waffle Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:02 pm

This is what they do sometimes when we print on both sides of a page, they say they didn't turn the page over, you could decide which side of the page you want to read, which one benefits you the most, But in court its probably a small detail that will be overlooked, unless of course Very Happy

you haven't been noticed then the assignment fails.

by sam66 Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:00 pm

It just seems bizarre to have two letters from different corporations on the same piece of paper.

Is there any significance to printing on both sides of a piece of papee, or not?

by Whymeok Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:24 pm

handle wrote:Tiggy, I have seen that in a defence as well, as well as proof of postage of a default notice. I used both and the claims against me were also discontinued

i wonder how this worked for you , did you use any type of wording? notice of deflaut was only by normal post .

by Sponsored content

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

so i wonder if work in my new defence of new ccj to set a side ?

Re: Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925