Jump to content

Dodgeball

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6,415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Dodgeball

  1. Hi As DX says ring the Authority and find out when the LIability orders were issued. They are barred from acquiring one after six years under the Council Tax Regs. Also, if the LO was issued over six years ago, they will be barred from enforcing until they obtain the permission of the court. If the EA has more than one Warrant to enforce at the same time he should only levy the one fee.
  2. Yes, and as said they are generally quite approachable, and being salaried has a lot to do with it. Sorry, I was referring to EAs. I can't think of any other situation where you get two for one.
  3. Yes and I think I pointed out that the enforceability of the CCA is dependant on more than the document you posted. On its own, the agreement sites all the correct terms and is compliant with section 77. However, it also has to comply with the agreement(copy) you signed, how can anyone who as not seen that document say one way or the other. I went on to explain how it would be impossible to calculate the terms on the second agreement from the first as the first did not exist. I seem to be constantly repeating myself, and I do not see you doing anything to move this case forward.
  4. This is probably in relation to the second charge that bailiffs make, It can only be rendered when the debtor has not satisfactorily responded to the first notice and the bailiff calls at the property. The Regulations state that this fee £235 should cover any other, simultaneous calls, for other debts that are on the bailiff's books. Your priority is to ensure the offer you made in relation to the first notice you received is accepted, thus the second stage fee will not be due at all.
  5. It may be as said that one or some of those charges were within the TCC, this would account for the error.
  6. In your defence you could say: The APR calculated to 99% rather than that indicated in your reconstruction. I remind you that the FCA defines an acceptable margin of error as .1% below the actual value or 1% above, this represents a breach of section 65-127(1) CCA1974. The increased APR also leads me to believe there was another item in the charge for credit, That or the repayment details were incorrect, which would render the agreement unredeemable, not having the original it is impossible to ascertain what was on it.. AS well as the other factors I submit that it would be extremely unlikely, and certainly beyond the realms of the evidential test for you to be able to reconstruct a Section 77 compliant copy feel free to alter/ammend substitute/ correct spellimg etc/.
  7. The cause of action date now corresponds with the DN date plus 14 days. This must be held in mind whenever our dealing with SB issues, So do you know exactly when the default was issued. The date would have to be before any assignment to a debt collector. Further, no one seems to have told you why the letter sent to you was incorrect, it seems pretty reasonable to me. They could not issue a default so they waited for the agreement to terminate itself, and the proceded, what's wrong with that?
  8. I feel you should be made aware of this ruling, I am unsure whyyou have not been already.
  9. Nope, nothing, section 42 was my post, i presumed you meant 41. No matter
  10. like to see this, is it on this thread?
  11. Not only mine but that of High Court Judge, Chambers Alexandra Slater vs egg 2010 August 09 will be on here or on Baily
  12. Soo there are cases on here where egg agreements have lost because they were unable to send a signed agreement. Not a copy request, of course, you mean present one in court. Do you have a link to one of them, please? I would be interested to see it, and particularly if it was after Carey.
  13. Sorry, you mean very few successes for the creditor or debtor?
  14. I remember the Egg agreement from that era very well, they were called the Total Limit agreement by many on here and elsewhere. Many thought it to be unenforceable because the Credit term was called total limit instead of total credit. Very big thread on here, several of the "team" were convinced. Again I said the idea was ludicrous, as the PT, were about contents, not form. A few of the debt buyers had set up, as part of their business, a system where they agreed to take over these agreements and fight them in court, for a fee of£800.( to be fair, this forum did not know about this) Obviously, I was incensed, and set about trying to stop people falling for it, in the end, I was banned. One of these DMCs decided to create a "Test Case" by appealing one of the earlier failed county court judgement in the High court. If successful this would create a precedent for their "ingenious" technical argument. The faithful day of the high court ruling came around, and the court dismissed it, out of hand, saying the argument had no merit, he went on to say exactly what I had said A year or so earlier, word for word. It was an embarrassment. Still waiting for the apology.
  15. There is no rebate figure on an open-ended(cc) agreement In 2008 Egg terminated 161000 accounts under a contractual clause without default, were you one of these? Long thread on here about it, many thought it was illegal, not me I hasten to add. I was correct, unfortunately.
  16. I did say the agreements were terminated, there is no requirement for interest to be charged. at all.
  17. Sorry DX not picking on you. But yes, of course, they can. As long as both agreements have been terminated. They are then just sums owed as such they can, of course, be combined with other sums owed.
  18. You also need to see notices of assignment under section 139 of theLOPa 1925, lso default notices under the CCA section 87 for all accounts sold to Lowell's. 136Legal assignments of things in action. (1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— Please supply a copy of the default notice issued under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You will be aware that under the Act, a default notice is required before an action can be brought or account terminated. In addition, a notice under the LOPA is required before an account can be assigned.
  19. Interesting to see that they have sold the account after termination, which is correct, but they say nothing about a section 87 default notice. You still have this you say. If any goods purchased are still within there payment term the DN should not ask for the full amount, just arrears, payment of this would remedy the breach. Worth a look. They cannot terminate if the DN is defective. A signature is not required in a copy, v unlikely to win an action based on the absence of one of these in any case..
  20. Yes, I agree, all money paid plus 8% on the premiums paid and any contractual interest due to the account being overdrawn (nominal account in credit)because of unpaid premiums,.
  21. Not sure what you mean by bundling together CCJs, could you clarify. Apparently, you can claim if your hubby brings home less than £545. a month. Don't count your allowance and mention your disabled son on the form, any problems, ring the court you are applying to.
  22. If she had no money wouldn't she be a candidate for fee remission under ex 160? I agree about the sums available to her, the variation can also be used to report that she cannot afford to pay anything of course. The point is to get the bailiff off her back if supported by evidence and a sworn statement the court may suspend execution completely.
  23. The problem earlier was in the restructure for the second loan, with the method they used and information they had. it would have been impossible to create an accurate copy. For instance, they matched the APR with the old one. This is not possible using only the details they had available. You can calculate the interest, but the APR contains all other costs of credit, fees. insurance etc. there is no way they can know what was in the missing agreement.
  24. I would also say that under common law the obligation is still with the original creditor, as it is unaffected by the sale.
×
×
  • Create New...