Lord alcohol.

I use the term statute to cover all applicable legislation, Acts, Regulations etc, ie, in a broad sense

 

The SIs I mentioned do not modify the 1974 CCA. The CCA itself carried provision for other 'statutes' to govern, regulate or control particular aspects of it. Hence they are a Statutory Instrument, a document gaining its authority from the CCA itself. To say that they modify the Act is stupid. They are allowed for by the Act and address particular issues only. They are an extension to the Act, intended to be there and intended to cover particular, specific parts of governance and regulation.

 

Regardless of all that, we are not considering a single 'statute'. We may be considering a single Act, the 1974 Act as amended, but are also considering various other documents such as SIs which impact on particular aspects of the Act. The Act cannot be considered in isolation. If the Act covered everything there wouldn't be any other regulations!!

 

Bennions comments, unless attributed in an official, interpretative (of the Act) capacity, are interesting, but nothing more. I haven't even seen the original source of that quote, and I don't suppose many people have, so it may be taken completely out of context. In any case, his opinions are just that. His intentions are just that. It doesn't matter what he thought or intended. He simply drafted the document. It was approved by Parliament, and its Parliament's intentions and opinions that matter. His thoughts carry no official weight. A court should enforce the law, not heresay opinions. I would hazard a guess that Bennion was in overall control of the drafting of the document, and didn't draft every word of the act. In such a case he may very well simply be claiming credit for the work of another. He may very well not have realised the impact of the clause concerned at the time (who could have?) but is simply capitalising on it. Who knows?

 

It is the court's job to interpret the law, ask any judge, and it their opinion as to the merits of any particular part of any statute.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above, any argument that the CCA and associated SIs etc should be interpreted as a whole is interesting, but I fear not of much help to MandM.

 

The last thing I think he needs is to widen the scope and bring in arguments of interpretation of many documents. His situation is quite clear - his agreement is ended and as such, the creditor cannot impose or take advantage of any requirements or provisions of the agreement that applied when it was live. That includes serving CCA required documents such as DNs.

 

There is however, another argument on this site that even after termination, an agreement is still subject to the CCA. In that case, it refers to the consolidation of different accounts, loans overdrafts and cards etc. However, by extension, if the CCA still applies post termination, then there is an argument that CCA documentation can be served post termination and that would affect MandM. It would also imply IMHO that a terminated agreement is never actually dead as it is still covered by the CCA....

 

Thats an area possibly worthy of debate, but I think MandMs case would be better served by a narrow argument about specific facts and timelines rather than a wide debate about the interpretations and requirements of one document being applied to others, and the subjectivity it brings.

Girls, girls. I think whether an SI modifies an Act or not is pretty much sophistry, as its impossible to separate the two. The role of an SI is to elaborate on the requirements of the original Act - for instance the Agreement Regs (SI 1983/1553) elaborate on and clarify the requirements of such things as s60 and s61. Indeed the Act - think its section 60, actually says that the Secy of State will issue Regs. This kind of process is widely known in UK law - the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 works on a similar basis of producing regulations which apply in specific circumstances. Do they modify the Act? Not directly, but they operate through the Act's authority and such as the Agreement regs operate in much the same way. So whether they modify the Act is, as I said, pretty much sophistry. Clearly they create specific, and often new, rights and obligations, btu they dont modify the Act in the way that, for instance, the Consumer Credit Act 2006 did, for instance by its repeal of 127(3)

Turning to that I would also agree with HH that Bennion's pov is interesting but not much more. I think its fair to say that the about the only thing - other than Acts of Parliament, SIs and precedent - that interests courts is Goode (and even then not always). I wouldnt want to bet on his argument carrying much weight. What is interesting about the quote though is the last bit - that the Commons agreed 127 (3) without discussion or debate. A duty of the courts is to put into practice the will of Parliament, and in this case its hard to argue that the will of Parliament could have been any clearer at this time - the clause was simply agreed to, it seems without dissent. I think that should be a more important point for any Court than Bennion's contention, however interesting it might be. Plainly the view changed between 1974 and 2006, but during that time, the will of the House was perfectly clear and should not be challenged.

One other interesting thing - and I am picking up here on the references to Morrit's quote in Wilson - is that in the recent Walker case, the Supreme Court made pretty clear their attachment to and support for the decision in Wilson (though that did rebound against the Walkers)

Anything happened regarding the 2nd default notice???

Apologies. Missed this.

Nothing further has happened yet.

M

Hi

Any update on this

Hi

Any update on this

Hi Peter,

No, nothing to report unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view).

Egg don't seem interested in pursuing this at the moment so i'm letting sleeping dogs lie. I'm certainly not kidding myself that that's the end of the matter as the £25k is still owed. Will post up if I hear any more.

Mike

Weird feeling isnt it M!

Kinda what happens next, ours has just started up again, urgh!

E!

Hi Peter,

 

No, nothing to report unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view).

 

Egg don't seem interested in pursuing this at the moment so i'm letting sleeping dogs lie. I'm certainly not kidding myself that that's the end of the matter as the £25k is still owed. Will post up if I hear any more.

 

Mike

Hi

Thanks for getting back, lets hope they continue to slumber.

Peter

Let’s hope you don’t get Eddie’s situation, where they reissue the DN to themselves and don’t tell anyone...

Let’s hope you don’t get Eddie’s situation, where they reissue the DN to themselves and don’t tell anyone...

Hi DB,

Good to see a familiar name.

Already have my 2nd DN. They sent it quite quickly (from the Sols)................then nothing!

Mike

As PB says, let’s hope they stay asleep.

is all still quiet ?

is all still quiet ?

Hi. Yep, all still very quiet. Just how I like it

Mike

Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

 

very pleased for you

Long time MandM, pleased to hear

Also good to see you back on gh sir

Past statute? Lowell or Link or some other leech would still chase that...!

Good news.

Excellent news

I read the quote at the top of the page and thought it sounded familiar! lol

Past statute? Lowell or Link or some other leech would still chase that...!

 

Good news.

Yes, good news, and the fact that it went no further indicates they weren't confident of their position, despite the size of the account. As for the leeches mentioned, and others of that ilk, I am sure they will be easily rebuffed, and will in some cases, no doubt pass the account onto another chancer leech.

Do you have plans on checking or have you already checked your credit files to make sure all traces of this account/debt are gone.

I read the quote at the top of the page and thought it sounded familiar! lol

 

 

 

Yes, good news, and the fact that it went no further indicates they weren't confident of their position, despite the size of the account. As for the leeches mentioned, and others of that ilk, I am sure they will be easily rebuffed, and will in some cases, no doubt pass the account onto another chancer leech.

 

Do you have plans on checking or have you already checked your credit files to make sure all traces of this account/debt are gone.

Yes, checked and vanished!! They weren't that bright it seems. The original loan was 7 years so in theory they could have waited for the full duration to pass (would have been April 15) and the DN would have been of no significance.

It was sold on some time ago but never pursued (well, not yet at least )

Mike

DB, GH and Eddie,

Nice to see you're all still about also.

Hope you're all in a better place nowadays.

Mike

Thank you MandM. Luckily – and thanks to CAG – I never got into a bad place, but I learned how bad it could get. It’s highly therapeutic kicking these b**tards.