BASIC TEMPLATE REQUEST FOR DEED OF ASSIGNMENT

📌 Purpose: This letter is to request proof that a Zombie Debt Buyer legally owns the debt they are trying to collect. If they cannot provide this, they may have no legal right to enforce the debt.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Postcode]
[Your Email] (if applicable)
[Your Phone Number] (if applicable)
[Date]

[Zombie Debt Buyers Company Name]
[Zombie Debt Buyers Address]

Subject: Formal Request for Deed of Assignment

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in relation to the alleged debt that you claim I owe, referenced under [Your Reference Number]. I formally request that you provide me with a Deed of Assignment that proves your legal right to collect this debt.

Under the Law of Property Act 1925, if this debt has been assigned to you from [Original Creditor's Name], I am entitled to a copy of the Deed of Assignment. Please provide a certified true copy of the complete document, including the date and terms of the assignment.

Until such evidence is provided, I do not acknowledge any liability for this debt. I also request that all further enforcement action be suspended until this matter is resolved.

If you are unable to provide the requested document within 14 days, I will consider the matter closed.

Please respond in writing to the address provided above.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]

📌 Key Points:
✅ This letter does not confirm that you owe the debt.
✅ It forces the Zombie Debt Buyer to prove they own the debt legally.
✅ If they fail to provide the document, they may have no legal claim.

✉️ Next Steps: If the Zombie Debt Buyer does not respond or refuses to provide the Deed of Assignment, you can challenge them further. 

A court can order the Deed of Assignment to be provided

A court can easily order a debt buyer to provide "evidence of assignment". The only document they could produce to prove evidence of a Legal Assignment would be the DEED of Assignment.

When asked for the Deed of Assignment, a Debt Buyer will claim that they do not have to provide a Deed of Assignment.  They will claim it is a "commercially sensitive" document that they don't have to supply. This is not the case:

See (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968.[3] All ER 824) Where Lord Denning MR said " the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract"

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] " Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

Defective Deeds

Often you can spot a defective Deed of Assignment by simply looking at the Signature page, if you can get them to produce it at court. Their MUST be two signatures from the Assignor company. One MUST be a Director of the company. They are breaching Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 if they only have one signature:

LOWELL DEED SIGNATURE PAGES

CABOT SIGNATURE PAGES

LC ASSET SIGNATURE PAGES

PRA GROUP SIGNATURE PAGES

INVALID DIGITAL SIGNATURE FOR NEWDAY/PRA GROUP

INTRUM SIGNATURE PAGES

JC INTERNATIONAL DEEDS

TWO SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT MET EXAMPLES

Signatures on Separate documents

AMIGO/LANTERN DEED OF ASSIGNMENT

Banks still use Transfer by Company Seal

In Simple Terms

A sells B a debt (or so B claims), the debtor then pays B who pops up with a "notice of assignment freshly printed by B". A in fact has no contract with B so enforces the debt against the debtor who ends up having to pay it TWICE. That is why you need to see the DEED of Assignment. To ensure that the debt buyer has LEGAL title to the debt.

Many "Zombie debts" are resurrected from the Dead by Debt Buyers wanting to scam unsuspecting people sometimes years after the debt was long dead and buried. 

Evidence of Assignment: Why Debt Buyers Have Proof Problems

by Randall Ryder on January 24th, 2017

Assignment is the foundation of the debt-buying industry, and the industry is built on sand. Or a swamp. Because assignment is also the industry’s weak spot, and the reason why most—if not all—debt-buyer lawsuits should fail.

Debt buyers must prove they have the right to collect a debt. To do this, it must show an unbroken, valid chain of assignment back to the original creditor. Most debt buyers cannot do this.

The Smoking Gun (Or the Lack Thereof)

Think of a chain of assignment like a chain of evidence in a criminal case.

In order to connect the smoking gun to the crime scene, the police and prosecutor must be able to account for its whereabouts at every moment from the time the detective put it into an evidence bag at the crime scene to the time it is shown to the jury during trial. If they lose track of it, the evidence is no longer reliable. In order to prove that the gun in court is the same one found at the scene, everyone who was in possession of the gun must come into court to testify, from the detective to the forensics expert to the guy in charge of the evidence room.

The same thing has to happen with a debt. The evidence of the debt is the smoking gun, and the contract from the original creditor to a debt buyer (and from one debt buyer to the next) proves where the debt came from and where it has been since then.

Debt Buyers’ Proof Problems

Debt buyers definitely could prove up the chain of assignment; it just goes against their business model. That business model is to file thousands (or tens or hundreds) of lawsuits without checking to see whether those lawsuits have merit, and hoping to intimidate most consumers/defendants into paying up without asking any more questions.

And most of the time that is exactly what happens. The business model works. But most consumers should actually win their debt buyer lawsuits because the debt buyers in those cases have not and cannot produce any competent evidence to support their claims.

The evidence problems start with the original creditor. Until recently, few kept copies of credit applications with the consumer’s signature, or even a complete set of account statements. Some creditors have improved their record-keeping, but those records rarely travel with the debt as it is bought and sold. That means debt buyers generally do not have those records when they collect on the debts, and most file lawsuits without ever bothering to get this basic evidence.

In part, this is because requesting proof before starting a lawsuit would probably slow down the debt collection gravy train. Also, the debt buyers might actually have to pay for that proof out of their own pockets, which would add expense on top of delay.

But even if debt buyers did spend the money and take the time to get the evidence from the original creditors, there remains the problem of proving its whereabouts from the time the original creditor sold it (think: detective picking up the smoking gun from the crime scene) to the time it wound up in court. It’s highly unlikely that the original creditor and the debt buyer who started a lawsuit are the only two companies who had the debt during that time.

The (Faulty) Paper Trail

Generally, debt buyers produce only a bill of sale as their “proof” of the sale. However, the bill of sale is a generic document that never mentions the debt at issue. That makes it no good proof of anything. What the bill of sale generally does is refer to an exhibit with the list of accounts sold—which is never attached. At best, a debt buyer may produce a single line printed from a spreadsheet (the exhibit is rarely an actual document).

A chain of assignment generally needs to show who/what was transferred and to whom/to where it was transferred. Debt buyers typically purchase debt in bulk—hundreds of accounts at one time.

For example, the bill of sale typically says “Creditor agrees to sell all accounts listed in Exhibit 1 to Debt Buyer.” Exhibit 1 is usually an electronic file that contains of hundreds or thousands of accounts and account information.

When challenged on whether a debt buyer owns an account, a debt buyer will typically produce a one-page redacted spreadsheet that is usually titled Exhibit A. The only viewable information will be the alleged account at issue. It will generally look like a spreadsheet that a five-year old could generate on an iPad.

Are you paying attention? The bill of sale referenced Exhibit 1, and the document produced was titled Exhibit A. On that basis alone, you can argue its not the same document.

Perhaps more importantly, the document produced is maybe 1% (that’s being generous) of the actual Exhibit 1. You’ll never know what the actual file looks like, because they will never produce it. According to them, its a trade secret.

Think of it this way. If someone shows you a small and unidentifiable snippet of the Mona Lisa, and then swears it is the Mona Lisa—how would they know that? Same thing with the alleged documentation in a debt buyer case. Under the rules of evidence, it should not be considered enough to prove their claim of ownership.

Finally, when a debt buyer does produce what seems to be adequate proof, watch out for robo signing which has long been business as usual in the debt-buying industry.

Challenging the Evidence of Assignment

If you challenge the debt buyer with well-drafted discovery requests, you can poke some major holes in their case.

At a minimum, poking those holes will put you in a better position to try and negotiate a reasonable settlement. Those holes will also put you in a stronger position if you decide to move the case forward and fight the case.

Proceed with caution, however. Some judges will find an argument about chain of assignment persuasive, and some will not. If you are rolling the dice on having a potential judgment against you, you need to make a calculated decision about whether the risk is worth the reward (or penalty).

The Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 Supreme Court Case that says they do have to provide it is listed here: 

Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824 

[1968] EWCA Civ J1009-1

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

Between

Van Lynn Developments Limited - Plaintiffs Respondents

and

Pelias Construction Company Limited (formerly Jason Construction Company Limited) - Defendants Appellants

Royal Courts of Justice

Wednesday, 9th October 1968

Before

The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Davies and

Lord Justice Widgery

(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of The Association of Official Shorthandwriters Ltd., Room 392, Royal Courts of Justice, and 2, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W.C.2.)

Mr, A. B. HIDDEN and Mr. I. M. TENNANT (Instructed by Messrs. Booth & Blackwell) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Respondents.

Mr. PETER SOLOMON (instructed by Messrs. Timothy Hardacre) appeared on behalf of the Defendants, Appellants.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: The plaintiff Company, Van Lynn Developments Ltd., is a company controlled by a young man, Mr. Colin Vandervell, who Is a member of a distinguished family. The defendant company was called Jason Construction Co. Ltd., but has changed Its name to Pellas Construction Company. It is controlled by another young man, Mr. Apponyi. In May of this year the Jason Construction Company Ltd. entered into a contract to build a house at Kingston Hill for a sum of nearly £15,000. It needed finance in order to be able to buy the materials and employ the labour. It got the finance through the good offices of Mr. Colin Vandervell. On his personal request, the bank allowed the Jason Construction Company to overdraw quite considerably; but Mr, Vandervell told the bank that the progress payments (to he made as the house progressed) would be paid into the bank when they were received.

After some little time there was a dispute between Mr. Apponyi and Mr. Colin Vandervell-a dispute which I think it is unnecessary to go Into this morning - but In the result Mr. Apponyi Indicated that the progress payments would not be paid into the bank so as to reduce the overdraft. Thereupon Mr. Vandervell went himself to the bank. The Bank Manager saw both Mr. Apponyi and Mr. Vandervell. The Bank manager told Mr. Apponyi that the progress payments ought to be paid into the bank so as to meet the overdraft which was accruing. Mr. Apponyi said that he did not propose to pay them into the bank. Where upon the bank manager said he would have to call in the overdraft. He did so by a let tar of 15 th June of this year. The bank wrote to the Jason Construction Company and gave notice that they required payment of the amount of £5,385 18a 3d. The bank wrote another letter on 21st June saying that unless payment was made they would have to take their legal remedies.

As Mr. Vandervell had asked the bank for the overdraft, he felt under an obligation to them. So he himself gave a guarantee to the bank for the amount of the overdraft. He followed it up by paying off himself the amount of the overdraft and he took an assignment from the bank.

The actual assignment has been produced to the Court. It is dated 26th June, 1968, It is between the National Provincial Bank and Van Lynn Developments Limited (which is controlled by Mr, Tandervell). It says that in consideration of the sum of £5,296 19s 53. paid by Van Lynn Developments Ltd. to the bank, the assigner (the bank) "here by assigns unto the assignee (Tan Lynn Developments Ltd.) all that the interest of the assigner in a debt of £5,296 19. £d. owed to the assigner by Jason Construction Co. Ltd." That was a perfectly valid assignment. The next day the solicitor for Tan Lynn Developments Ltd, wrote the following letter on which the point arises: Was it a valid notice of the assignment?

The letter is dated 27th June, 1968, by solicitors on behalf of Van Lynn Developments Ltd. to Jason Construction co. Ltd.; "Dear Sirs, We have been instructed by our above named clients.— that is Tan Lynn Developments Ltd. "to apply to you for the payment of a sum of £5,296 19s 6d. outstanding to them following the assignment of the debt to them by National Provincial Bank Limited. Notice of this Assignment has already been gives. to you. Unless we receive payment for the full amount of this debt at this office by the first post on Monday, 1st July, we have instructions that proceedings will be taken against you without further notice".

There was one sentence in that letter which was in accurate, It is the sentence, "Notice of this assignment has already been given to you". That was wrong. No notice of assignment had been given. But the question is whether, in spite of that wrong statement, the letter Itself is a notice of assignment such as to satisfy the statute. That is a pure question of law. It Is a point which we can decide today. It is an arguable point, no doubt, but I do not think we should give leave to defend simply to have It argued again. This Court le In as good a position as it ever will be to decide the matter. So I think we should decide It, even under Order XIV.

The relevant section is 136 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, which says that, "Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor … of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor … is effectual in law …. to pass and transform 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.

What Is a sufficient notice of assignment? There are only two or three oases on the subject. There is the case of Stanley v. English Fibres Industries Ltd , ( (1899) 68 Law Journal, Q.B., N.S. 839 ) which was accepted and applied by this Court in W. F. Harrison & Co. Ltd v. Burke ( 1956 2 A.E.R, 169 ), Those cases show that, if a notice of assignment purports to identify the assignment by giving the date of the assignment - and that date Is a wrong date. then the notice Is bad. The short ground of those decisions was that the notice with a wrong date was a notice of a non-existing document. Assuming those cases to be correct, they leave open the question whether it is necessary to give the date of the assignment. Test it this way: Suppose the mistaken sentence were omitted in this latter so that it ran: We have been Instructed by our above-named clients to apply to you for the payment of a sum of £5,296 19 6d. outstanding to them following the assignment of the debt to them 

by The National Provincial Bank. Limited", would that be a good notice, even though it gives no date for the assignment? I think it would. I think the correct Interpretation of this statute was given by Mr, Justice Atkin in the case of Penney. Gaequet. and Metcalfe T, Conklin (1913 3 £.B. 177), It is quite plain from his judgment that no formal requirements are required for a notice of assignment, It is sufficient if it "brings to the notice of the debtor with reasonable certainty the fact that the desi does assign the debt due from the debtor so as to bind the debt in his hands and prevent him from paying the debt to the original creditor". It seems to me to be unnecessary that it should give the date of the assignment so long as it makes it plain that there has in fact been an assignment so that the debtor knows to whom he has to pay the debt in the future. After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that It is valid, and that the assigns can give him a good discharge. But the notice itself is good, even though it gives no date,

This notice does, however, go on to make an In accurate statement. It says that, "Notice of this assignment has already been given to you". But, as Lord Justice Davies said In the course of the argument, that is merely an in accurate surplusage. It can be ignored.

In my opinion, therefore, the notice of the assignment was good. The provisions of the Statute are satisfied, Van Lynn Developments Limited had a good cause of action on the date when they Issued the writ in this action, namely, on 1st July, 1968.

Mr, Solomon argued that there were other matters to be investigated. It appears that, when asked for the assignment, the plaintiff's solicitors at first handed over an inaccurate copy of the assignment. It was a draft which contained the figure of £5,239 instead of the figure of £5,396 19s. 5d, But the plaintiff's solicitor afterwards handed over an accurate copy which gave the correct figure of £5,296 19s. 5d. The explanation has been given to us. I do not think there is any need for any further investigation.

I ought to add that in his affidavit Mr. Apponyl went so far as to seek to suggest fraud or conspiracy between Mr. Vanderve and others. All I would say about that is that I think there le not the slightest shadow of basis for that suggestion, and it le a pity it was ever made.

It comes back to this: Here is a sum of money, over £5,000, owed by the Jason Construction Co. Ltd., which they have not paid. They ought to have paid the progress payments into the bank, and they did not. Naturally enough, Mr. Vandervell paid off the bank and took an assignment. The assignment is properly sued upon here. I do not see that there is any defence of any substance in the case whatsoever.

Something was said about the new wording of Order XIV, Rule 3. I do not think it makes any alteration from the previous wording. It only states in simple words the principles on which we have acted for many years under Order XIV.

The Judge gave leave to defend conditional on the full amount being paid Into Court. The defence was so shadows' that the condition was rightly imposed. I agree with Mr. Justice Fisher, and I would dismiss this appeal.

LORD JUSTICE DAVIES: I agree, and would only add some observations about the case of Denny. Gasquet. and Matoalfe v. Conklin to which my Lord has already referred. In the first place, it is to my mind clear that the document relied upon there as a notice of assignment and held by Mr. Justice Atkln to be a good notice of assignment was very much less precise than the document of the 27th June which falls to be considered In the present case. In the document In Penney's case no mention of an assignment was made at all; it referred to a deed of arrangement, though it la true it did give the date of that deed of arrangement. Secondly, there was no mention of the amount that lfad been assigned and was claimed by the assignees; it was merely a request for an account showing all dealings as between the debtor and the assignor. Thirdly, it is very interesting to notice, as was pointed out by my Lord during the argument, what was the unsuccessful argument by Mr. Groom Johnson for the defendants. According to the report, he submitted that "In order to be valid the notice must expressly state (l) that there has been assignment; (2) the names and addresses of the assignees so that the debtor may be in a position to seek out the new creditors created by the assignment for the purpose of paying the debt; arid (3) what has been assigned". The present document does show all that. It sets out the amount of the debt assigned by the bank to Van Lynn Developments Ltd. and claims that that should be paid forthwith. It seems tome that, leaving out of consideration the last sentence of the first paragraph of that letter, that Is a perfectly satisfactory notice of assignment in every respect, and that its validity cannot be destroyed by the inaccurate statement in the second sentence of that paragraph.

I agree, for the reasons which my Lord has given, that this appeal should be dismissed.

LORD JUSTICE WIDGERY: I agree and would point out that the only formality required by the section is that express notice in writing be given to the debtor. The section does not speak of "a notice" it speaks of "notice". Accordingly, It is wrong to suppose that a separate document purposely prepared as a notice, and described as such is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. The statute only requires that information relative to the assignment shall be conveyed to the debtor, and that it shall be conveyed in writing. That fact Is fully demonstrated by the Judgment of Mr. Justice Atkin to which reference has already been made. Once it is appreciated that the section requires no more, it becomes obvious that the objection to the notice in this case, that it was not intended as a notice but merely to record the fact that notice had already been given, must fail. The letter of the 27th June in my Judgment undoubtedly contains the necessary particulars and it matters not in the

slightest that the writer did not think when he wrote the letter that he was performing the function of giving notice under the section. So far as the argument based on failure to give the date of the assignment is concerned, It seems to me it would be very undesirable to attach, to this procedure, technicalities which are not mentioned In the statute and which are not necessary to give effect to it. The notice is a notice given by the assignee for his own protection, It is given by the assignee In order to prevent the debtor continuing to deal with the assignor. It is clearly necessary that the debtor should be given information which tells him that an assignment has been made, which identifies the debt, and which sufficiently identifies the assignee. I see no reason at all why other and Irrelevant Information should be required as a feature of the notice. It is said that in some instances the debtor would want to know the date of the assignment. For my part I find it very

difficult to visualise a case in which the date would have any relevance at all so far as the debtor was concerned, and I would certainly regard it as a retrograde step to require, as a general rule, that the notice should specify the date of the assignment, I would therefore dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed with costs in any event, such costs to Include the costs of the hearing before Mr, Justice Crichton.

Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd (formerly Jason Construction Co. Ltd) 1968

Summary

Contract - Parties - Assignment

Key Subsequent TreatmentsSee all

• Distinguished in Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 48

• Considered in Santander Uk Plc (Claimant/Respondent) v Keith Harrison & Susan Patricia Harrison (Defendants/Appellants) [2013] Bus LR 501

• Followed in Sena Land Development Sdn Bhd; Sungei Way Leasing Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 37

Key Cases ConsideredSee all

• Applied Denney, Gasquet and Metcalfe v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177

• Distinguished Harrison (W F) & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

• Distinguished Stanley v English Fibres Industries (1899) 68 LJQB 839

Legislation ConsideredSee all

• Law of Property Act 1925 s. 136 (1925 c. 20 s. 136)

Presumption of due execution

There are two statutory presumptions of due execution in favour of third parties dealing with a corporation:

1. Section 74(1), Law of Property Act 1925 (1925 Act). This provides, in favour of a purchaser, that a deed is deemed to be executed by a "corporation aggregate" (for example, a registered company, local authority or building society) if the common seal is affixed to the deed in the presence of, and attested by, the corporation's clerk, secretary or other permanent officer or their deputy and a member of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the corporation.

   • The purpose of section 74 of the 1925 Act was to make it unnecessary for a purchaser to require proof of a corporation's formal compliance with the provisions of its memorandum and articles or its charter.

2. Section 36A(6), Companies Act 1985 (1985 Act). This provides, in favour of a purchaser, that a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company or a limited liability partnership (LLP) if it purports to be signed by a director and the secretary of the company or by two directors of the company or two members of the LLP.

   • The apparent intention of section 36A(6) of the 1985 Act was to extend the protection under section 74(1) of the 1925 Act to the situation where a company (or LLP) signs under section 36A(4) of the 1985 Act. However, significant inconsistencies remained:

These inconsistencies have been resolved by Article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 which provides that section 74(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 will:

• Allow for the seal being affixed in the presence of and attested by two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body (as an alternative to one board member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer or deputy).

• Refer to any "instrument" instead of "deed".

Delivery of deeds

A simple contract is effective on execution, but before a deed can take effect it must be "delivered". Delivery fixes the date at which the party is bound. Once delivered, a deed is irrevocable (in the absence of an express right of revocation). A deed is delivered when a party evinces an intention to be bound, even though the party retains possession of the document (Xenos v Wickham [1867] LR 2 HL 296). It does not matter whether this intention is actually communicated to the other party.

The 1985 Act contains two presumptions on the timing of delivery of deeds executed by companies:

• A document executed by a company, which makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed, is delivered on execution unless a contrary intention is proved (section 36A(5), 1985 Act). This rebuttable presumption applies whether execution is under the common seal or in accordance with section 36A(4) of the 1985 Act. Article 6 of the 2005 Order deletes section 36A(5) and moves this rebuttable presumption to a new section 36AA(2).

• Article 4 of the 2005 Order adds a new section 74A to the 1925 Act, which provides that an instrument is validly executed by a corporation aggregate as a deed for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (1989 Act), if it is duly executed by the corporation, and it is delivered as a deed. An instrument shall be presumed to be delivered for these purposes on execution, unless a contrary intention is proved.

• There is a presumption in favour of a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration that a document has been executed by a company if it purports to be signed by a director and the secretary of the company or by two directors of the company. Where it is made clear on the face of the document that it is intended to be a deed, there is an irrebuttable presumption that the document has been delivered on execution (section 36A(6), 1985 Act).

• This irrebuttable presumption causes problems in practice. Although it would appear on its face to apply only where a company executes by two directors or a director and secretary, and not if it executes under seal, a court has held otherwise (Johnsey Estates [1990] Ltd v Newport Marketworld, 10 May 1996, unreported).

The Law Commission recommended that the irrebuttable presumption should be repealed and the 2005 Order includes provisions to this effect (Articles 5, 6, and 10(2) and Schedule 2, 2005 Order).

Face value requirement

To be validly executed as a deed, it must be apparent from the face of the document that it is intended to be a deed (section 1(2)(a), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) (the face value requirement). Standard wording on the face of a document will usually fulfil this requirement (for example, "Signed as a deed by..."). It has been unclear whether the mere presence of a seal without any mention of the word "deed" satisfies the face value requirement.

The 2005 Order removes the face value requirement from the 1985 Act (Articles 5, 6 and 8, and Schedule 2, 2005 Order). Article 8 inserts a new section 1(2)(A) into the 1989 Act, which confirms that the face value requirement is not satisfied merely because an instrument is executed under seal.

Equitable Assignment

A debt buyer may claim that there is NO Deed of Assignment, in which case the Assignment would be one based on the rules of Equity (natural justice and fairness).  If this is the case, the claim can only be brought to court if a Notice of Assignment is received from the Assignor as well as the Assignee and that both the Original Creditor and the Debt Buyer must be party to the proceedings.

Mitchelle Mcfarlane and partners ltd vs Formans ltd 2002 - States a section 10. "Even If I had held that the Notice of Assignment had not be given, I do not think it would have made any difference.  As an Equitable Assignee Foremans could not have brought an action in Law without joining the Assignor, old Foremans." Meaning that if a debt buyer wishes to bring a court action for an Equitable Assignment, they must have the original creditor as a party to the action.

There is  NO legal obligation to pay the assignee. That’s why it’s "commercially sensitive".  As there is no legal relationship between the parties. It’s again unilateral like the charging order, there is  No consideration. Therefore no claim at law, Only a claim at equity. County court being the wrong jurisdiction and no claim in Chancery in equity as they are a purchaser without the exchange of consideration between the parties. It is thereby unenforceable. Equity will not assist a volunteer, and they are a volunteer because no relationship with the debtor. 

Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925

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 M2 Policies 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].]

Section 74 Law of Property Act 1925

74 Execution of instruments by or on behalf of corporations.

(1)In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if a seal purporting to be the corporation's seal purportsto be affixed to the instrument in the presence of and attested by—

• (a)two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the corporation, or

• (b)one such member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer of the corporation or his deputy.

Ammended by - S. 74(1) substituted (15.9.2005) by The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1), 3 

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 Arts. 1(1), 3

Execution by corporations:

3.  For section 74(1) of the 1925 Act substitute— 

“(1) In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if a seal purporting to be the corporation’s seal purports to be affixed to the instrument in the presence of and attested by— 

(a)two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the corporation, or

(b)one such member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer of the corporation or his deputy.”.

Section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 requires that the signature of a deed by an individual and the witness attestation should form part of the same physical document that includes the other clauses of the deed 

The Invisible Deed of Assignment under Common Law

This is why they dont like you to see the deed of assignment;

under the Companies Acts

On 6 April 2008 section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 came into force and applies to deeds executed on or after 6 April 2008 by companies registered under previous Companies Acts and also to companies registered in Northern Ireland.

3.1 Execution by a company under its common seal

This is the common law method of execution by corporations, preserved for companies registered under the Companies Acts by section 36A(2) of the Companies Act 1985 and for documents executed on and after 6 April 2008 by section 44(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2006.

Where this form of execution is adopted, the common seal will normally be affixed to the deed in the presence of the company secretary and one director, or two directors, who attest the sealing by countersigning the deed and describing themselves by their respective offices of ‘secretary’ and ‘director’ or ‘director’ and ‘director’. If this is done, a purchaser is from 15 September 2005 protected by section 74(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (Prior to 15 September 2005, when the amendment to section 74(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 by the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 came into effect, the protection was limited to cases where the seal is affixed in the presence of a director and secretary):

“In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if a seal purporting to be the corporation’s seal purports to be affixed to the instrument in the presence of and attested by –

• (a) two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the corporation, or

• (b) one such member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer of the corporation or his deputy.”

Defined in section 205(xxi) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to mean “a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration” and to include “a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property”, with “valuable consideration” including marriage or civil partnership but excluding “a nominal consideration in money”.

Are they are just buying Title to the debt?

DCA's purchase Titles from Banks and Utility agents, they make payment for the "rights" to collect any purported "debt". The figures are minimal. There is no buying of debt, nor purchasing of debt, merely a purchase on the "Title", a Legal upon Legal chose, for which they may be paid commission as an agent. It is vital this is comprehended. When a so-called mortgage is assigned to an assignee, there is a fee paid by the assignee, typically around 1% for the rights to collect the purported debt, no debt is bought, merely the rights to be an agent. Every other forum fails to comprehend this issue, so it is vital again this fact is comprehended particularly in a DCA or mortgage servicing matter in Litigation and the relevant information presented to the Court as unequivocal evidence that no equitable consideration was paid, only consideration to be an AGENT. Hence, an agent cannot give good discharge. 

DEBT BUYERS IN NEW ZEALAND RUNNING SAME SCAM

A case successfully challenged in NEW ZEALAND. Despite pointing out that the Deed was INVALID as only signed by ONE person, the Zombie Debt Buyer claimed that according to the Assignor's constitution, a Director could sign on his own. Upon READING the company constitution it clearly states the signature MUST be witnessed.

Further Reading