📝 “Your Honour, the Claimant has not produced an absolute legal assignment within section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. At best, what they have shown is an equitable arrangement. In law, that does not give them standing to sue in their own name (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction [1969] 1 QB 607). "This is not a matter for ‘balance of probabilities.’ It is a statutory requirement. Unless they produce a valid absolute deed, the claim must fail.” ⚖️ The Law - “He who asserts must prove” → If the claimant says they own the debt, the burden is on them to prove it. - s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 → An absolute legal assignment must be: In writing, signed by the assignor; Notified to the debtor. - Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWCA Civ 1674 → If the debtor squarely disputes title, the claimant must show the actual deed of assignment. - Van Lynn Developments v Pelias [1969] 1 QB 607 → Without an absolute assignment, the claim cannot be brought in the assignee’s own name. So: No absolute deed = no standing to sue. ⚖️ Where Judges Slip Into “Balance of Probabilities” - Civil courts always use the balance of probabilities standard (more likely than not). - If a claimant shows a Notice of Assignment + some correspondence or payment records, judges often accept that as “enough proof” they own the debt. - Unless the LiP pins the judge back to the legal requirement of s.136, courts sometimes treat it as an evidential issue rather than a statutory bar. 🚨 Can a Judge Decide “Balance of Probabilities” Without an Absolute Deed? This question comes up all the time in debt buyer cases, so let’s set it out clearly for everyone here ⚠️ Why That’s a Problem - If the deed produced is shown to be non-absolute (forward flow, buy-back clauses, missing schedules, etc.), then it is at best an equitable assignment. - An equitable assignee cannot sue in its own name. - If a judge rules “on balance of probabilities they own it” despite the deed being defective, that is not just a weighing of evidence — it is an error of law. - That makes the judgment unsafe and appealable.

Hi, I have been sending SAR's(SAR 1 to 4) to the Enforcement Agency(Rundles) that is pursuing me for the alleged debt of council tax on behalf of my local council, Sevenoaks. I have sent them all of the letters up to the notice of intent to prosecute however I have been asking them for the deed of assignment all along and not the liability order. They have now sent me 2 txt messages stating this is the final notification and that they, the enforcement agent will be applying for a committal warrant. I would just like to clarify that I should have been asking for a liability order and not the deed of assignment? If that is the case, do I start the process over asking for the liability order? Thank you in advance!

Hey, i have updated the Chatbot inside of the classroom 'Equitable & GDPR Disarming Debt Collectors' It is far more powerful than the older version, BUT it is a consumer debt tool, not for utility bills or council tax. The SARs and system is specifically designed for credit cards, bank loans, catalogues, payday loans, old accounts like mobiles etc, so do Not mix the process. If you are specific with it, it will guide you correctly. This tool will join forces with th full AI Agent that is currently being built, this is an AI tool that can assist you and any question on the GDPR and SAR process for consumer debt should be asked in here. It will constantly be updated to match the building of the AI Agent, the agent will walk you through the entire process, so once it gets to the N1 and court bundle sections, this AI Chatbot will be updated to match the AI Agent. The building of the agent itself has changed course a few times, this is due to the gaining of more knowledge and the omplementing of said coding knowledge. But it is coming to a conclusion soon and it will be added here as soon as it is complete. This will be a powerful tool to use for your debt challenges to the DCAs. Both the Agent and Chatbot are specifically trained in GDPR, DPA 2018, Equity, FCA, CCA, ICO and other specific legislation. It is formatted so it cannot halucinate, lie, create fake case laws, search dodgy websites, or take you in the wrong direction. Just remember, use it for consumer debt, using the correct tool for the specific job is vital, so no garden forks to hammer in a nail. Use it correctly and it will give the correct results🙏☺️💥

Anyone seen this on FB https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1A9rqo7Gp4/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The old chestnut "i told you so" sent to me by @Geoff Norton myself and @Roy Coughlan have spoken about this, Roy has had a lot of grief for trying to speak out about this very topic