Buying an assigned loan doesn't give a lender a stronger right to payment than the original creditor had. In People First Credit Corporation v. Angeles, 2026 BCCRT 1483, the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed a claim for $2,901.35 arising from a door to door vacuum sale. The buyer had tried to use the seller's promised return option, but the seller could no longer be found.
Ma Patricia Ledesma Angeles purchased the vacuum in 2021 and agreed to 36 monthly payments of $162.98, including borrowing costs. People First Credit Corporation later acquired the loan from LendCare Capital. Angeles said she'd felt pressured when signing, hadn't understood the financing terms and had been promised a 30 day opportunity to return the vacuum. She made payments for about 2 years before stopping. The lender sought the unpaid balance under an assignment clause that allowed transfers without advance notice.
The Tribunal considered British Columbia's direct sales consumer legislation, but concluded an exemption in the regulation as it stood at the time appeared to apply because the seller had attended at a friend's or relative's advance request. That didn't dispose of the case. The seller's own contract referred to a right of cancellation and a 10% cleaning and restocking fee, while the buyer's unchallenged account established that a 30 day return option had been promised. The reverse side of the sales agreement, where cancellation terms were said to appear, wasn't produced.
The Tribunal accepted that Angeles attempted to return the vacuum within that period but couldn't reach the seller at the stated address or number. Making an agreed return impossible was a breach of the sales contract. A successful return would have left her liable for only the 10% restocking amount, and she had already paid substantially more. The loan and purchase were signed together, identified the same goods and their purchase price, and were fundamentally integrated. Because the loan's enforceability depended on the sale, its assignee couldn't avoid the seller's breach by relying on the assignment alone.
The lender's claim and fee request were dismissed. It was ordered to reimburse Angeles $25 in Tribunal fees within 21 days, with applicable postjudgment interest. The result doesn't invalidate ordinary loan assignments or create an unrestricted return right for direct sales. It shows why anyone purchasing consumer receivables should assess the underlying sales agreement and evidence of unresolved consumer defences, rather than treating a signed loan document as conclusive.