Possible counter-claim before it reaches court???

Hi

Builder - i think so, a nice bit of Conditional Acceptance goes a long way!

If this is their first contact though, and you're up for a bit of fun, i've got a letter you can send. Nobody here has tried it yet, it's an idea i got from a now-banned member 'debt-less'.

If you'd like to try it i'm sure you could still use the CA3 method if it doesn't work. The possible benefits would be they back off and (if you let us know the results) we all learn something new. It goes like this....

Dear Howie,

i'm so glad you contacted me, you saved me a job in seeking you out.

You say your client has purchased an account bearing the name JOHN DOE and it was legally assigned to your client? That's great!

Barclaycard owes me money from that account, but if they have assigned it to your client then it is your client who is obliged to make good on the account - at least he does if the assignment was 'absolute' (according to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

Please advise, by return of post, with hand-signed documentary evidence, details of whether your client acquired rights to this account via legal assignment or by legal absolute assignment.

Looking forward to your reply,

Yours sincerely

Etc.

i suspect this might have a surprising result, but if they do reply 'that's nonsense' then the follow-up letter will kill 'em......

If it doesn't then you can use the CA3 just the same.

Anyway, it's just an idea. If we're lucky then Tiggy will return with some good advice for you.

Cheers!

Hi

Awww, c'mon!

No-one got an opinion on that letter?

i think it counts as a valid basis for a counter-claim before it reaches court. They would certainly be obliged to address the issue. They can't prove the 'OC' don't owe you money, can they? Not if the assignment is absolute. And if the OC does owe you money then LOPA says that liability now lies with the assignee absolute, doesn't it? Which means they may drop proceedings against you rather than face having to honour the OC's alleged debt.

Isn't this challenging the assignment directly? Without a need to involve a court? Isn't that a good thing......?

Someone's gotta be up for trying it one day.....

Cheers!

I wish I had a debt so I could try this. My son had a good few debt's and they used to write to my house (we have the same name) but it's been a couple of years since I've had a letter now and all I did was totally ignore. This year he has opened a new bank account at his new address and his credit rating is totally clear. But if another letter ever comes I would try it. Only one of the debt's were assigned if I remember rightly and I can't remember if that was for a credit card or being overdrawn on a bank account. He didn't intentionally default on the account's he probably paid them back more than what he had off them overall but the balance would never go down and he was digging deeper holes until he said sod it they can chase me for it. I actually think he could probably claim back unfair charges but I'm not going to try that while it's all quiet.

You'de be better off mentioning the Unfair Relationship clause in the Consumer Credit Act Sections 140 a,b,c & d.

Also, I'd be tempted to put in that you believe they are attempting to Unlawfully Enrich themselves at your expense.

HI iamani

Their solicitor will just say ok , prove it , see you in court.
if a debt is statute barred , you would of just acknowledged the debt,
you need to use the new 3 letters WHEN  you received your first letters from the DCA
if the DCA solicitors write to you , then you must think about court but you still want the information from the 3 letters , the agreement , default notice and more ,
The solicitors want to make money and know 90% of people will not go to court and lose by default they dont care what you say and its not a game to have fun with.

Hi

Jinxer - thanks buddy, looks like you're in the same happy boat as i am - no unmanageable debt. Which is great.

Tiggy - thank you, I think you get where i'm going with this. But i would say the OC has already Unlawfully Enriched themselves.....

Petesomething - thank you, in this instance it is not barred. And we're not acknowledging a debt we are claiming to be the OC to the supposed 'OC' who's rightful role was that of administrator. We created the funding. i'm taking this originally from 'debt-less' with confirmation from romley - have you seen 'THE-PERFECT-CRIME: Conversion' posted by SOTS on general? Eye-opener alert, you gotta see it!

It wouldn't make it to court imo. The judge will take one look at this letter and the follow-up letter and tell the solicitor to do one!

This needs testing, i really think it will scare them off.

Thanks for the replies guys, i appreciate it.

Cheers!

HI iamani

In court the judge will look at the evidence , the agreement default notice , if you want start a new post on your method do so , this was offered to debt-less

Hi

Petesomething - why? i'm offering a possible method that is relevant to the OP's' position, there's no thread-drift here. On top of that, the OP is not complaining - why would you?

If it gets to court the judge will be obliged to look into the claims made on both sides. Being that he will be in the know as to what's really going on - i'm pretty sure he won't want to be the judge who deals with that.

So it won't see a court house.

Debt-less was considered disrespectful in offering untested advice here before their intent was established. Why would you compare me with them?

Cheers!

Hi iamani

hI sorry i am not complaining ,( why say this, )
Debt-less method was to be abusive when challenge , this will not work here , or to any solicitor never mind the court,

Hi petesomething

Oh, sorry, i misread the tone.

You're right about being abusive or belligerent not helping us, i definitely concur.

Thanks for the clarification - you had me worried there for a moment!

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi

Petesomething  -  why? i'm offering a possible method that is relevant to the OP's' position, there's no thread-drift here. On top of that, the OP is not complaining  -  why would you?

If it gets to court the judge will be obliged to look into the claims made on both sides. Being that he will be in the know as to what's really going on  -  i'm pretty sure he won't want to be the judge who deals with that.

So it won't see a court house.

Debt-less was considered disrespectful in offering untested advice here before their intent was established. Why would you compare me with them?

Cheers!

What on earth makes you think these people are dishonest with each other ?

Am I reading this corectly ?

You will claim a debt that doesnt exist,
then Hoist portfolio will Phone barclays ,
and ( Honour among thieves )
Barclays will tell them the debt is Wholly fictitious.

Their solicitors will Jump at the chance of putting that before a Judge surely ?

It may buy some time, but seems risky.

Hi

Society of the Spectacle - excellent questions, thanks for posing them.

'You will claim a debt that doesn't exist' - oh, but it DOES exist! That's what will have them soiling themselves....


'...then hoist portfolio will phone barclays.......' - who will tell them to 'piss off - absolute assignment makes it your problem'. Or they might even offer to buy the debt back......

'...Barclays will tell them the debt is wholly fictitious...' - yes, they might..... but only vocally, theirs no way they will deny it in writing.....

'...their solicitors will jump at the chance of putting that before a judge surely?' - no. No they won't. ESPECIALLY after talking to Barclays....

There's no risk SOTS, none at all.

And as i said, the follow-up letter will tie them up in knots trying to drop the hot potato.

i know i don't need to ask you to watch 'conversion' - i only saw it because of you, and i suspect you were just as impressed with it as I was.

It was that video that confirmed to me the validity of this method. True, i had to watch it twice and think hard - but it's a little gem!

Cheers!

i know i don't need to ask you to watch 'conversion' - i only saw it because of you, and i suspect you were just as impressed with it as I was.

My memory is playing Up.
Which video was that exactly.

And i think you have the wrong Idea about these people.

George Carlin said
"It's a big club and we aren't in it"

But they are , and there is HONOUR among these thieves.

Hi

Society of the Spectacle - 'THE PERFECT CRIME' Justinian Deception (think it's on 'latest news').

No, i'm fully clued-up on how T.H.E.Y. are, and yes, they collude in order to keep the gravy train running behind our backs.

But this letter will do to them what they've been doing to us so well - divide them.

Someone will have to deal with the questions posed in that letter. They can't avoid it or find a way between themselves to put the ball back in our court - there isn't one to find!

When they realise that, it will be every man for himself on their side and the matter will be dropped.

......imo, of course.

Please keep the questions coming - if i'm wrong i'd rather know sooner than later.

If i'm right then we have a shiny new arrow......

Cheers!

rather than thrash it out in here it would be better in its own thread ,then we can see .

Hi

Lopsum - good call, best place for it, thanks.

Odds are whoever first reads that letter will laugh out loud (lol!).

But they will have to give you details of the assignment THEY made claim of having. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof, yes?

If they can't/won't provide the proof of their claim (to which you are now doubly entitled...) that they made in writing to you, it ends there - they have 'noticed' you with a claim, you have made the correct response with a'notice' of counter-claim. You have pointed out to them in writing their obligations as assignee absolute. It even has a kind of Conditional Acceptance included! You now have a defence if it dId ever go to court.

Help me see how it could go wrong, please. i'll get over looking daft if i'm wrong....

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Help me see how it could go wrong, please. i'll get over looking daft if i'm wrong....

Cheers!

Quite simply, you accept the debt and put in a claim / counter claim saying 'yes, I accept this is my account / debt but although they claim I owe £xxxx, they in fact owe my £xxx'.

The burden of proof now switches to you to prove your counter claim, because you've accepted the debt they need to provide no further proof of claim.

If you can't prove your claim is higher then theirs, you're stuffed.

However

To counter claim there is a fee,
If someone wants to counter claim in a small claims,they must pay the fee that would be payable as if they started the claim,
so you have accepted the debt , but now have to pay a fee say on £6000 the fee would be about £455
Goods news, the court will make more money they will get a fee from the claimant and the defendant,
So you have to prove your claim higher but also win your claim

petesomething wrote:However

To counter claim there is a fee,
If someone wants to counter claim in a small claims,they must pay the fee that would be payable as if they  started the claim,
so you have accepted the debt , but now have to pay a fee say on £6000 the fee would be about £455
Goods news, the court will make more money they will get a fee from the claimant and the defendant,
So you have to prove your claim higher but also win your claim

Yup, that's about the size of it.

Not only that in acknowledging the debt is yours, then under Section 24 of the Limitations Act you've given them an additional 6 years to pursue you for the debt !

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to thrash this out, i hope to address all of your concerns with the following text, but if i haven't then please let me know which points are contentious and why, so we can maybe fix it.

1) The OP didn't state statute barred, but i do agree that if it was SB then this letter to Howie might not be the best approach.

2) i agree it might be a good idea to include the premise of Unlawful Enrichment. i was saving it for the second letter, but it's open for discussion of course.

3) i don't think there's anything that precludes one from using the CA3 if this letter doesn't work - am i missing something? If so please pipe-up.

4) i actually think it IS a game to have fun with - all of it, the whole thing. Otherwise you are choosing to live in fear. It's no way to live, is it?

5) Yes the judge will look at the evidence, and the agreement default notice - but he'll also see your CA3-counter-claim-hybrid letters (both of them) and be obliged to address your quasi-claim first because if the DCA have brought proceedings against someone who HAS NOT refused to pay, it will be obvious to the judge that private administrative process has not been concluded, which puts the DCA in a bad spot......

6) The judge will also notice that the Deed of Assignment is central to both claims, and needs to be produced whatever happens. (i still assert this case woildn't get this far though).

7) To say that one has accepted the debt with this letter is a bit like saying you accept the debt with the usual CA3 letters, isn't it? Even with the CA3 you're acknowledging your connection to the account.

The burden of proof starts and ends with them - same as with the CA3, and being that the CA3 is in itself a counter-claim that is FREE but for the price of postage, this letter does the same thing - it refutes their claim by asking for proof of claim.

9) Additionally, there is an added compulsion to produce the elusive Deed of Assignment. If they provide that then isn't that now your evidence to say, sans agreement with said DCA, that your part in the transaction is now lawfully concluded? The Holy Grail?

10) i think i've addressed SOTS's concerns as he has yet to reply. Let me know if you need more, SOTS.


'Quite simply, you accept the debt and put in a counter-claim saying 'yes, i accept this is my account/debt, but although they claim i owe £xxx, they in fact owe me £xxx'

11) There is (deliberately) no mention, acknowledgement nor acceptance of one's alleged debt. i deliberately excluded the very word 'debt'. The burden of proof remains with them, i have no need to prove my claim until they produce the deed of assignment - catch22 for them as that would extinguish one's alleged debt. Oh, and you couldn't possibly put a price on what they owe 'you'......

OK, i've tried to explain it as best i can. i hope some of you can see the potential now.

What do you think....?

Cheers!

You've said it here in your letter

"Barclaycard owes me money from that account, but if they have assigned it to your client then it is your client who is obliged to make good on the account - at least he does if the assignment was 'absolute' (according to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925)."

You've said it here, 'Barclaycard owes me money from that account'. That's an acknowledgment the account is yours, how else would Barclaycard owe you money?

From that point on the burden of proof rests with you to prove an amount is owing to you and that amount is greater than what you owe.

You say the Judge will look at the CA3 process first. No he won't, he'll look at your admittance that the account is yours and weigh the evidence you provide of your counter claim.

There's absolutely, no need for them to provide the Deed of Assignment as you're not contesting the fact they have absolute assignment, you even thank them for having been assigned the account.

By all means try this yourself Iamami and see how you get on but until you've proven it works then please don't advocate it to anyone else, for most people this is NOT a game.

Hi

Tiggy - there you go. One little edit took care of that. Take a look.

i repeat - you are not accepting the debt any more than you do with the CA3, in both instances you have to identify with the account. Burden of proof remains with them.

You have not admitted they have been assigned the debt - you're asking for proof of claim, same as with the CA3.

i think the rest of your post is opinion. You are, of course, entitled to that.

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi

Tiggy  -  there you go. One little edit took care of that. Take a look.

i repeat  -  you are not accepting the debt any more than you do with the CA3, in both instances you have to identify with the account. Burden of proof remains with them.

You have not admitted they have been assigned the debt  -  you're asking for proof of claim, same as with the CA3.

i think the rest of your post is opinion. You are, of course, entitled to that.

Cheers!

Please let us know how you get on with it, but again until it's a proven method please don't advocate it's use.

The debt collectors seem to be threatening Court action a bit more than what they used to since the new guidelines came into play. New ways need discussing otherwise when they have worked around the 3 letters everyone will be stuffed. Not all part's of the 3 letters work, I mean who has successfully ever billed them, but some people still try it. I think one guy even got landed with 3 grand costs on top of his debt for trying. I've saw a couple of posts recently where the Judge has took no notice about the deed of assignment and was happy to rule just on statements.
Let's not dismiss new ideas to quickly or what's the point of posting one. No one get's a gun put their head to try these things out, but I do agree not to try these things until all else fails, but if the letters start failing something new needs finding.

Hi

Jinxer - you missed your calling fella, you'd make a good diplomat. Thanks buddy.

Tiggy - thanks for your input.

Cheers!