Re: HSBC advice please.

by **Lopsum** Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:52 pm

this bit from Daves NOCA
"(9) Please also supply a certified copy of any Deed of Assignment. As per Van Lynn
Developments Ltd. v Pelias Construction Ltd.1968[3] All 824. Where Lord Denning
M.R. stated "The debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the
assignee can give good discharge under the contract".
I am prepared to accept a redacted copy with the redactions limited to those
referring to any third parties. See also Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ." where the
debtor is entitled to see a redacted version"."

They are entitled to see the redacted evidence but you are correct that the judgement doesn't in itself make that a rule. But just because there was private info on there did not stop it being inspected.
Dont we know the real reason they dont want to show it , its because they dont have it? Or they would show a redacted version wouldnt they? Surely if it meant having the debt settled?. or risk breaching the fraud act, failing to disclose?

by **daveiron** Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:19 am

Also if you study the links i posted above ,there are numerous examples of many assignments not not meeting the prescribed process. They get very sloppy when greed
plays a part.

by flyingfish Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:39 am

Lopsum wrote:this bit from Daves NOCA
"(9) Please also supply a certified copy of any Deed of Assignment. As per Van Lynn
Developments Ltd. v Pelias Construction Ltd.1968[3] All 824. Where Lord Denning
M.R. stated "The debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the
assignee can give good discharge under the contract".
I am prepared to accept a redacted copy with the redactions limited to those
referring to any third parties. See also Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ." where the
debtor is entitled to see a redacted version"."

They are entitled to see the redacted evidence but you are correct that the judgement doesn't in itself make that a rule.

My concern is that misquoting case law detracts from the other and valid arguments. It's an easy error for the other party to pick up, as they did in this instance.

by **Lopsum** Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:04 am

Its not misquoted though, i think you have a fraction of a point however , but one can infer from the case that a document of evidence should not be with-held due to info about 3rd partys being part of it. It can simply be redacted. You need to examine both up at the light i suppose. It just isnt the clearest.
Also i heavily dispute that "they picked up on the error" , no they deliberately miss read it.

by flyingfish Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:38 pm

Lopsum wrote:Its not misquoted though.

It's the bit in quotes which I've highlighted in bold. Im calling that a misquote because as far as I can there's simply no such reference in the judgement. It's maybe also the use of the word "debtor" making it worse. But it's not just that. The claimant had already been provided with redacted copies. Even if the school originally resisted providing them and had to be compelled, it's not mentioned anywhere in this judgment.

"where the debtor is entitled to see a redacted version"."

I was trying to find a better case to cite. No luck so far, there's lots about whether redaction is or is not permissible. What we really want is a case showing that it's not permissible to withhold a document altogether rather than offer it in redacted form.

I'd be interested to know which part of their response was incorrect. They gave only a very brief summary, mainly addressing the "debtor" context, but i can't see anything actually incorrect.

by **Lopsum** Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:04 pm

ok they werent incorrect,but they dodged the real issue because the case was included personal data of 3rd partys.

potentially there is the fraud act failure to disclose.

by **daveiron** Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:14 pm

FF. alternatively i can find no case anywhere that states a NoA can be withheld from the court or the debtor .It is after all the foundation document for any claim.
As i see it ,it confirms the Denning judgement.

by Trishiapp28 Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:33 am

The way I see it, and I appreciate this is a very simplistic view: if you buy something, you get a receipt. No receipt no proof what you bought is yours.

I have sent the 4th notice, amended in places to respond to some of their arguments. SAR sent to both, Overdales and PayPay.

Request to Overdales sent to clarify with Lowell who produced that letter ( purporting from PayPal) that the alleged debt was transferred over to Lowell.

Thank you all for your kind support & the interesting discussion from which I learnt even more.

Warmest wishes to you all.

by flyingfish Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:53 am

daveiron wrote:FF. alternatively i can find no case anywhere that states a NoA can be withheld from the court or the debtor.

I can't either. In a sense it's not needed because the right lies under CPR with the onus on the creditor to show exemption. I have a recollection of cases at CC level where it was not produced but the court nevertheless found for the claimant. I can't believe none of those went to appeal. But all I seem to find at a higher level is discussion about acceptable redaction.

We probably have enough for this thread, maybe it should be separated if/when we find more material.

by waylander62 Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:27 am

Trishiapp28 wrote:Oh my lord!

As per Waylander’s advice, I checked the supposed PayPal letter. Would you believe it ( I’m sure you do) the side numbers are exactly as Lowell’s!! There are no other PayPal details apart from Lowell’s account reference & PO Box number! They have committed fraud because they used PayPal as a header in the left hand side and signed it off as PayPal Credit!

well well well i am surprised Wink

if you have any letters or statements from paypal look at their headed paper all will be the same, the notice wont be, for a document that is supposed to prove beyond any doubt legal assignment ( according to overdales ) i would call that one out.

save that under important should they decide to issue a claim.

by waylander62 Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:47 am

Have gone on to read some other posts.

i have just defeated the lowell overdales combination, got the same garbage responses as in this thread.

we got fed up of playing letter tennis so let them issue a claim, defended on a number of points but targeted their dodgy N of A , and the necessity to have the deed produced, they were floundering now as we submitted a part 18 for further information.

the N of A was clearly produced by lowell or overdales so we called it out, the response was, to the part 18, that it was a reconstituted notice Shocked

i kid you not

well there was now a gap big enough to drive a bus through so we did, eventually they discontinued.

sometimes victory can be found in the small details too often overlooked.

in just the assignment you have an argument.

now the notice refers to the default notice, so have you had a copy of this ? ( this could be another trick which i can explain another day )

by Biggiebest Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:48 am

I too am having tennis games with Overdales.
I will start another thread rather than jump in on yours Trish. However, despite sending 1st NOCA to them + all four to Lowell, it would appear they are playing the same game with me.

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 5:59 am

Biggiebest, I’m now at the point where I have them in tacit agreement, so won’t be responding to them for much longer. All I need from them now is SAR and to answer whether they fraudulently issued that NoA. After that, they are not getting any more responses & they can take me to court for this alleged debt, should they wish to.

I think the reason why they keep going with letter tennis is because they want us to slip up on something. Please don’t give them that opportunity! I’m rooting for you

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:13 am

Waylander, thank you for your response and continued support, I very much appreciate it.

Indeed, devil is in the detail. I called it out and am awaiting a confirmation under personal liability as to who produced that NoA. Let’s see what nonsense they respond with, and I know it’s going to be nonsense. I will respond to it & point out to them that I would love to have the opportunity to expose their fraudulent activity in court, should they wish to proceed with their claim.

I had a check and the only default notice I have received is from PayPal.

After I receive SAR and the above, I will no longer respond to their letters and put my efforts into court preparation and further learning.

Have a lovely day everyone.

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:14 pm

so you have received a default notice from paypal, have you checked this ?

that it was served in the correct manner and complies with the CCA act ?

they need by law to give you 14 days to remedy any breach, did you get 14 days ?

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:16 pm

on the issue of the deed of assignment : have overdales at any time said there is no deed but just a simple sale agreement ? this has been their standard response to seeing the deed of late .

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:21 pm

for others in respect of seeing the deed, looking at county court cases is a waste of time, they are not binding and it is common practice for judges at this level to wash over it and side with the claimant.

you need to be looking in the higher courts particularly the court of appeal.

in my experience lower court cases are not usually appealed unless a solicitor or Barrister is involved and wish to go to appeal. LIP's always get a raw deal in this area.

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:33 pm

Thank you Waylander.

On the D of A, this is what I received from Overdales:

“ There is no legal requirement for assignment of debt to be in the form of a Deed. In most cases this is done by simple contract ( a Debt Sale Agreement). Our client is under no obligation to disclose the Debt Sale Agreement to you. This is a private contract between our client and the original creditor, the terms of which are commercially sensitive and confidential. No part of the Debt Sale Agreement could provide or assist in any Defence you may wish to raise and you have neither need nor right to be privy to that content. The N of A was sent to you which discharges our obligation.”

Presumably they mean the dodgy N of A.

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:34 pm

Also, will check the default notice properly when back home.

Thank you again Waylander.

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:02 pm

Waylander, re: the PayPal default notice, just checked, and they did give me 14 days to remedy. They didn’t specify 14 days but the date by which they wanted the account cleared amounted to 14days.

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:04 pm

yes as i expected a classic overdales response so.....

all those looking and posting on this thread re the D of A, well overdales are saying there isn't one it doesn't exist this particular 'account' was legally assigned using a simple contract referred to by them as the Debt sale Agreement.

It is a private contract between LP1 and the OC.

i will leave it there. have fun.

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:06 pm

Trishiapp28 wrote:Waylander, re: the PayPal default notice, just checked, and they did give me 14 days to remedy. They didn’t specify 14 days but the date by which they wanted the account cleared amounted to 14days.

i have experience with looking at PayPal, i will bet it doesnt ! again the devil is in the detail people really need to look properly at their paperwork ( no offence ).

so.. answer me this, what is the date of the default notice ? and what is the date by which you have to remedy this alleged breach ?

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:14 pm

Thank you Waylander, of course I don’t take an offence and always welcome your wise advice

The date on the notice is: 22/09/2022

The breach payable by 6th of October 2022 to remedy.

by waylander62 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:41 pm

ok so lets say

the default was created on the day of posting 22/09/22 ( i'll bet it wasn't posted until the following day at the earliest but we will give them the benefit )

again lets give them the benefit under the PO act 48 hours for 1st class mail to reach its destination so therefore you received it on the 24/9/22

so you are now in receipt of the default notice (giving them all the benefit of the doubt) on the 24/9/22

do you have 14 days to remedy the breach ?

by Trishiapp28 Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:45 pm

Ah, I see what you mean now! Based on your comments, no I wouldn’t have been given the statutory 14 days to remedy the breach!

I have sent SAR to them, so hopefully it will show up when this notice was posted.

by Sponsored content