Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx
    • Potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

MandM vs Egg Loan ***Won with Strike Out***


MandM
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2917 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Is this DN worth arguing???  

2 Caggers have voted

  1. 1. Is this DN worth arguing???

    • Yes, argue all the way!!!
      2
    • No, they've got you beat.
      0


Recommended Posts

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)

Edited by seriously fed up
ref to Walker
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Replies 619
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Anything happened regarding the 2nd default notice???

 

Apologies. Missed this.

 

Nothing further has happened yet.

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
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

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
is all still quiet ?

 

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

 

Mike

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

 

:whoo:

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

 

:whoo:

 

very pleased for you :-D

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest HeftyHippo

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DB, GH and Eddie,

 

 

Nice to see you're all still about also.

 

 

Hope you're all in a better place nowadays.

 

 

Mike

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...