Are these facts based on anything other than your opinion as always Peter?? 1. disagree, the creditor could refuse to release the funds after executing the agreement. Creditor could refuse to accept repayment of the debt. There are many many ways in which a creditor can commit a serious breach (i.e. a repudiatory breach) 2. Agree, they can do it without entitlement 'of the CCA' but that does not make it unlawful - not sure who is arguing this - although you were arguing for years against it yourself!! 3. Very sad to hear that ..... I think the Courts would also fundamentally disagree 4. Disagree, Woodchester amongst many many others (including some of my own) and once they are outside of the limitation act I cannot see how that is 'putting off the point' Please Peter argue with reasoning rather than just regurgitating your opinion and labelling it as fact and expecting everyone to swallow. Not expecting you to follow that through BUT would be nice to have more evidence based rather than conjecture as conjecture doesn't help the OP or others If we can pin down the answer to my original question then we will all actually learn something amid teh noise

PH is going to repost the POC (amended) and the Claimant's trial WS. I will try and collate the other relevant posts together tonight.

Apply for N245 redetermination and stay of execution either way. Either for redetermination of payment (from 28 days to whatever) & stay of execution pending the redetermination hearing OR stay pending appeal (I think you have already been given permission haven't you??)

ALL the paperwork is on the thread and I would ask the main protagonists to read the creditor's POC and WS as I think they may be surprised at the arguments put forth by the creditor. (Who was desperately trying to persuade the Court that they still had a right to the repayment of teh CAPITAL only forget about interest etc.... interesting thought ...) The OP's letters and defence and WS & skelly are all on here. The terms repudiation and rescission were used somewhat interchangeably throughout Still would LOVE my question answered with a proper reference as well to either CCA or contract Law Remember the OP is the injured party by the creditor repudiating (could be anticipatory repudiation not sure) The OP's would have ONLY repudiated (or made a serious breach had she NOT complied with a VALID DN) the OP's breach was only material at the time.

removed whilst I read teh pages I missed in case it has been answered....... Put it back now as after 4 pages it STILL hasn't been answered yet this is teh single question that the OP needs answered!!! ... and the creditors rights remain as do the debtor's liabilities AT THE POINT OF TERMINATION How does teh creditor become entitled to sums not due at the point of termination PLEASE can someone answer that bit. PT I agree 100% with what you have stated, so does UE and the OP AND the creditor the argument is what was the creditor's entitlement at termination

I feel an important point to remember in this is that in terms of Contract Law Pumpkinhead is the 'innocent party' WHY? The creditor unlawfully removed PH's right to the contractual right of the repayment of the debt by payments spread over the agreed period. The creditor did not have the right to do this - therefore it was a serious breach of the contract (missed payments are NOT a serious breach of contract as the S87 allows this breach to be rectified and treated as though it had never happened) interesting link - http://www.lawofcontract.co.uk/discharge/1002.php and the cases referred to in that

I do agree, this is AFAIK the first time this argument has been used (in this way) at trial. IMHO the outcome is wrong in that it seems to use part of the CCA (early settlement) and part common law (rescission) to come up with an outcome where the debtor loses out big time when the creditor made such huge blunders in attempting to comply with the CCA The outcome is, in fact, identical to that, had the DN been compliant - they have become entitled to sums not due - HOW!!!

Ok, I accept your change of tack "liabilities already due on the contract" now at the point of rescission acceptance the creditor is NOT entitled to sums not yet due. If you insist they are then please explain how they become entitled. (Remember this is NOT the debtor terminating/cancelling the agreement, it is the creditor)

Yes No, don't worry Yes

I looked for one as well !!!

I think over the weekend, you need to re-read the thread, and then work out the figures for the 2 scenarios (I can do the refund one I think with DualCalc) They have had interest up to the original final repayment date - they added up front to the balance grrr again!!!

For info

Excellent I would change "I am quite prepared to apply to the Court" to "I am quite prepared to apply to the Court for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis due to your conduct both up to and following your discontinuance of your ill-conceived claim" But there again that would be really sticking the boot in

I am rubbish at letter writing or even post writing come to that - I tend to state/argue facts rather than constructing a proper flowing argument Post it up at least they will have prior warning to what's dropping on their doormat 8-)

S69 interest - another reason to say that the debt is a common debt rather than a CCA one as no S69 payable on debts where a rate of interest already applies SO you cannot have a debt with early repayment clause (i.e. one which has a rate of interest already) AND S69 !!! Grrrrr Rather than appeal - you would need to challenge the figures once they are known - not sure of protocol (set aside as amount was/is clearly wrong or redetermination??) Or would it need to go to appeal as there was an error in Law .... ---- EDIT I broke my own rule of saying something without backing up by Law The S69 interest bit came up earlier in your thread I think County Court Act - I will dig it out if necessary http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?257032-RBS-Mint-Loan-Court-Action-Started-amp-Dodgy-DN-issues&p=3156492&viewfull=1#post3156492

IMHO the Judgment is wrong. The Judgment has used the CCA to determine the amount payable at the date of repayment RATHER than the agreement being rescinded and everyone 'put back' to their positions prior to execution EITHER they use the CCA (In which case I would still argue they are not entitled to sums not due) OR they use Common Law in which case it is as above (i.e. capital less payment - which is actually what they argued in their WS they did NOT argue for balance but capital)

IF the case had been allocated to SCT then no they would not have had to pay costs (although you would have asked to Court to Order them for their behaviour) HOWEVER you made your app before AQ stage and you may remember from my posts that one of the reasons for that timing is that it remains trackless and therefore full costs have to be paid when they discontinue. Stick to your guns, and don't be afraid of taking it back to Court, they will be afraid as the Court will hammer them (and they know it - they will NOT want it back in Court)

nope and, of course they knew about it - why do you think they discontinued? because they couldn't comply with the Order from your application!! where do they think the Order came from

They are liable for full costs. Write back to them (and you could cc the Court Manager) explaining that you find their offer of £100 derisory and insulting and clearly trying to take advantage of you as a LiP. Reiterate that your costs were reasonable and fall well short of what they would have had to pay had you been represented. I would PM Undercover Elsa, for the letter writing she does some brilliant ones

That was certainly PH's argument throughout the thread, however not hearing the argument against this in Court I don't know how the DJ was persuaded otherwise. (Or did the DJ not get the 'no automatic entitlement to full balance' bit of the CCA)

I have always disagreed with the ineffective termination argument. I agree they cannot terminate if they are relying on the Default Notice, but if they are 'just terminating' then I cannot see how they can be forced not to. It is a simple breach of contract. I know I keep banging on about this point but I really do think this is the 'golden nugget' in all of this. i.e. what was PH's liability at the point of termination. Full balance or arrears This case is pushing new ground wrt to CCA and without case law a LiP is going to struggle to get the point across, I am struggling on here and pretty much everyone on here are on the same side !!! Again I think this strikes to the heart of the matter. What the Court is saying is that, without a DN, the creditor can terminate and, as long as it is accepted by the debtor they are then suddenly entitled to full repayment. (Acceptance can be via deed as well as statement i.e. not paying instalments etc) I am sure this is not as intended.... Another point to ponder is that this, being a loan SHOULD have an early repayment calculation built in. Now this can only happen if the account is still 'live' and it is therefore a CCA debt (or a debt covered by the CCA) I would submit that as soon as the account is terminated the debt becomes 'an ordinary debt' and the liability is what was due at termination under the CCA discuss ........

oh, and you DID say the DN was nonsense, and then accepted their termination. You do have to accept (as I am sure you do) that you were using un tried methods in this case. Should you go to appeal, this case would become the 'classic' either the shining light for debtors or finally shutting the door on the repudiation/rescission argument for ever. AFAIK this was the first time the argument went to Court being properly argued. I wasn't the 'inventor of the idea' in fact I have argued against it, but I tried to put my best argument for it forward. As I said I still haven't heard the argument as to how they become entitled ....... other than persuading a DJ that 'it's not fair to the creditor' as in this case (which I see as an error in Law)

I STILL think the crux of the matter is what were your liabilities at termination. No-one has yet put forward an argument that the liabilities are for the full amount. Unfortunately you have to remember that unless you pay for representation/advice then they will only take on cases where they are pretty certain of winning - that's fair enough, they have their reputation/business to protect. If someone can show me how the Claimant becomes entitled to full repayment after terminating at will (not on teh back of a DN or any other notice) then I will shut up !! BTW the day of posting=service case is Costa's - permission to appeal hearing v. soon

because teh debtor did not agree to it (PH did) It was an axcellent win for PT and the team here is the Judgment http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html Being pedantic here - the creditor is NEVER entitled to repayment other than by the terms of the contract. They have to BECOME ENTITLED by jumping through CCA 'hoops' The judge could have (in the style of a default notice issue post termination and during litigation) told the bank to hand the defendant a set of T&C's so that magically everything is alright, but he didn't. Clearly he recognised there is a procedure in place that must be followed in order with no skipping about to correct previous mistakes as we see in default and termination disputes. Here we actually see an order in how the creditor must have behaved and the judge deemed that order must have been followed. Although I say I'm being pedantic that point goes to teh core of the legislation - the creditor does not gain automatic entitlement to repayment, there is not an automatic liability for repayment. These facts are the crux of the matter IMHO

Peter, I fully understand your view on termination. HOWEVER, n-one (including you) has answered my question as to how and when the creditor becomes entitled to the earlier repayment of the debt when they terminate (under contractual law) I still do not see how they gain that entitlement. The CCA is quite clear they are NOT entitled to it, unless they accurately go through a few hoops. The contract does NOT state that from Day 1 the debtor is liable to reapy the debt any faster than the contract states (unless by debtors agreement, or on proper notice governed by the CCA etc) So, this contract does NOT allow a demand for earlier payment at all. Under the terms of the contract how does the debtor suddenly become liable for the capital/balance ??? (IMHO this argument is the main argument of both PH's case AND all the others regarding terminating under Common Law) BTW I accept teh debt becomes an 'ordinary debt' - it is how much that 'ordinary debt (or liability) is'