Lien on a Scottish debt purchaser .

I have a lien on a Scottish debt purchaser and I am finding it very difficult to find out if the lien is pre judicial in Scotland .

How did the lien arise? .

FRAUD ACT 2006
1. Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are –
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
I will add redacted accusations later.

Sorry allegations

Allegations:
The following allegations arise from the conduct of Lien Debtor & the Agents of, indirectly and/or directly, in relation to an alleged agreement between the parties, having regard to ACCOUNT NUMBERS
There is no evidence to suggest that there is a legally enforceable agreement in existence between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor, by its dishonour of Lien Claimant’s Notices dated as well as the Estoppel dated respectively, is not concealing material facts pertaining to any existing and legally enforceable agreement between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

2. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor owns and holds the true original agreement showing the allegedly outstanding balance of £ or that any ownership can be verified by Lien Debtor, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has any legal or equitable relationship with Lien Claimant, and that Lien Debtor is anything more than a 3rd party interloper that is trying to construe a trust relationship in regards to specific property; with Lien Debtor as the beneficiary and Lien Claimant as the trustee. This is shown by the fact that Lien Debtor has used their own specific account number to identify the Lien Claimant and the account, which is different to the Bank’s specific account number which identifies the Lien Claimant and the account, Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence of any legal or equitable relationship exists.
(Gilbert Law Summaries 2008 page 9 says under point 4a the guide for distinguishing between Trust relationships and Debtor-Creditor relationships
“It is sometimes difficult to tell whether a debt or trust relationship was intended in a given situation. The crucial distinction is usually whether the parties intended to create a relationship with respect to specific property.”)

4. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has suffered any harm or loss due to the actions of Lien Claimant and that Lien Debtor is anything more than a debt purchasing company who is seeking to make a profit out of Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

5. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor is not in multiple breaches of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Guidance on Unfair Business Practices in the Consumer Credit Handbook.

6. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has purchased the original agreement (security, purported loan note) from Bank; at most Lien Debtor has purchased a list of names and addresses and as such has only purchased the rights/chose in action to pursue those on the list for alleged debts, Lien Debtor in that case would not be the legal owner or have a legal assignment, they would only have an equitable assignment and as such would be an agent of Bank without any right to make a claim in their own name, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
(It has long been the case in law under the rules governing Equitable Assignments that an equitable assignee cannot bring an action in its own name as the assignor remains the legal owner of the entirety, the assignee must therefore join the assignor as party to the action. This is evidenced in the case law of Mitchelle Mcfarlane and Partners ltd versus Formans LTD [2002] – Section 10 states, “As an Equitable Assignee, they could not have bought an action at law without joining the assignor.”)

7. There is no evidence to suggest that Bank’s valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt can be validated upon reasonable request by Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

8. There is no evidence to suggest that Bank provided valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

9. There is no evidence to suggest that Bank did not accept an item of value from Lien Claimant that was used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

10. There is no evidence to suggest that Bank followed UK GAAP (the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

11. There is no evidence to suggest that the intent of the alleged loan agreement is that the party who funded the loan is not the party that is to be repaid the money, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

12. There is no evidence to suggest that all the material facts of the alleged loan agreement have been disclosed to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

13. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant was obliged to lend the note to Bank or another financial institution, in order to fund the alleged loan, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

14. There is no evidence to suggest that the original agreement (security, purported loan note) has not been sold, altered or stolen, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

15. There is no evidence to suggest that the alleged borrower (Lien Claimant) did not provide the funds that the alleged lender claims it lent to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

16. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor does not owe Lien Claimant a sum of money treble the value of Lien Debtor’s invalid claim, plus the alleged amount outstanding, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant has not already procured the tacit agreement of Lien Debtor that all of the allegations set forth in this Affidavit are factually correct, true and complete, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

Nothing was rebutted point for point by Lien Debtor

Not sure what you mean by "pre judicial". But in any case that lien won't have any legal effect in Scotland.

When you say Lien as no legal affect is that due to jurisdiction ?
As An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce

I meant non judicial- If the Lien debtor does not contest the claims there is no dispute to be adjudicated thus the appropriate damages are consensually agreed-upon.

wakey wakey wrote:When you say Lien as no legal affect is that due to jurisdiction ?

In UK law a unilateral "agreement" has no force. The agreement had to be made, explicitly or in some cases by performance if the other party accepts the benefit of such agreement.

So your saying a/my lien is a unliteral agreement ? Would you please explain as I followed the Lien process and if I have made mistakes I want to learn from them , so I dont make the same mistakes again.

To be honest in my opinion the mistake was trying to follow the "lien process" in the first place. It has no validity in the UK.

By unilateral I mean that in law lack of response does not constitute agreement.

There is a full course on liens at you and your cash for members.

I got remedy for my daughter in a dispute in Aus ,just by the threat of placing
a lien on a property.

There is a full course on liens at you and your cash for members.

Yes I am a member and have access to course , thanks daveiron