Tracey,(posted 7752 days ago)A solicitor's view re the selling on of a debt is the following:
"My view is that if a creditor sells a debt, the purchaser acquires all the same rights and responsibilities as the original creditor, the vendor.
This happened in a number of pre Bartlett cases, e.g Tupper, Global v Jones, Securum Finance v Ashton and Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalger Holdings (related to the Ashton case). In none of the cases was it even argued that the situation is anything other than the above."
He went on to say:
"Regarding limitations and assigned debts, my view is that the assignment (providing it is properly drafted) makes no diference. If time has started to run against the original lender, it will continue to run against the purchaser of the debt. Likewise, if a debtor has acknowledged a debt to the original creditor, it will have started time running afresh for that original lender, and time will continue to run on the same basis in respect of the purchaser. I can't see any reason why an assignment should restart a new limitation period or change the limitation period applicable to the debt. Liability arises under the original loan/mortgage contract and not under the contract of assignment. If this were not the case, a simple contract could be assigned by way of deed, (a specialty) and thus give the purchaser the benefit of a 12-year period where the original creditor was subject to a 6-year period. This would clearly be illogical, unfair and unacceptable."
He also said that one should ascertain that a debt has been correctly assigned in cases where a debt has been sold on. He would be interested in any arguments to the contrary in respect to the above (so would I). If anyone does have such a legal argument please let me know. Mark.