Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Egg credit card agreement terminated


toymaker1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4792 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

Recommended Posts

Good grief, here we go again.

 

 

 

No - I don't accept that. Also, neither does the OFT. For the benefit of others reading this thread I will post the whole of the very first paragraph:-

 

This guidance note provides a brief introduction and overview of the

post-contract information requirements under the Consumer Credit Act

1974 (the 1974 Act) as amended. It does not spell out all the

requirements, nor does it provide explanatory interpretations of the

legislation. As such, creditors and owners are advised to read this

guidance note in conjunction with the legislation and not in place of it.

 

You seem to have overlooked a couple of very important words - NOT and NOR. Lets have a look at that first paragraph again:-

 

It does NOT spell out all the requirements, NOR does it provide explanatory interpretations of the

legislation.

 

then lets have a look at the next sentence:-

 

are advised to read this guidance note in conjunction with the legislation and NOT in place of it.

 

ok, so let's move on to your next point:-

 

As can be seen from the whole sentence, you have just lifted a small part of the sentence from the guidance and left out the critical bit, the guidance note is NOT to be read in place of the Act. In other words you need to read the act itself. You tend to just quote this guidance note - which, as the OFT itself says, does NOT provide explanatory interpretations of the legislation.

 

 

Yes, you have quoted the guidance note correctly. However, it is the act itself that specifies in detail which types of agreement require what sort of termination notice. The guidance note just gives general guidance, it is not the law and it is not an exhaustive explanation of the act.

 

So, in 1.5, yes, in general, notice of termination must be given however this doesn't apply to all agreements and the detail is given in the act of what sort of agreements require notice.

 

With 6.6, yes you have quoted that correctly, but then you go and ignore para 6.9, presumably because you don't seem to like it, and then when peterbard quite rightly points this out to you above you claim that you don't understand his point.

 

Again, para 6.9 says:-

 

Enforcement and termination notices are not needed where an

agreement is for an indefinite duration or where notice is served at the

end of the period specified in the agreement for its duration.

 

So, reading from 6.6 to 6.9 altogether it is clear that, in general, a termination notice is required but that they are NOT needed where an agreement is for an indefinite duration.

 

But again, you choose to only selectively quote from the guidance note and not read all of it.

 

 

 

 

All these arguments have already been gone over and I won't bother repeating them here.

 

For people who are interested, have a read here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?288036-DCA-Goldfish-amp-Egg-combined-the-2-debts-into-one-alleged-sum-of-money.

 

A creditor is quite at liberty to terminate a credit card agreement in a non-default situation at anytime they want and they do not have to send any specific type of notice. Despite what your opinion is.

 

Talking about your opinion, have you got a date for your court case yet? I will be interested to hear how you get on with your opinion.

 

I have been quite happy to share my experiences of my times in court with this forum over the years. From claiming back charges to defending credit card claims through to making a contested statutory demand set aside application. You just need to search my posts to find them.

 

I would be interested to hear how you get along with your court case where you have said that you will be relying on this argument for your defence.

 

 

 

HI

 

Thank goodness. I am happy to discuss the matter of the Egg termination of agrements if there is someone who seems to want to undrstand the reall issues involved.

The facet that Egg can terminate at any time is of cours a reality any creditor can if it says they can in their T and Cs.As previously said because there is nothing in statute that says they cannot. Please take that as read and move on.

 

The only point ot this thread(If there is one) is should they have terminated.

 

It has been said on here that Egg has not taken anyone to court yet that they have terminated in this way.Given that they can, any one think why.

 

The first reason of course is that no one likes taking debtors to court, it costs money tthat is rarely recoverd even wnen the case is won, why do you think they use DCAs.

The second and more importantly in this case is publicity, Egg spend a fortune in convincing us that they are a soft and lovely company who will help us out us out in time of need , the last thing they need is a high profile string of litigation high lighting their dubious although legal activities.

 

This is the only strtength of any argument on here, YOu should think about what the continuance of raising awareness of this will do, sooner or later egg will say sod it and litigate just to shut you lot up.

 

Maybe on mass or maybe just one high profile case.

NOw i suppose you will say i am trying to be "on there side", i know you will not understand this but i am not.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

HI

It has been said on here that Egg has not taken anyone to court yet that they have terminated in this way.Given that they can, any one think why.

 

Egg spend a fortune in convincing us that they are a soft and lovely company who will help us out us out in time of need , the last thing they need is a high profile string of litigation high lighting their dubious although legal activities.

Peter

Peter, if Egg are-as you believe- in the right on the issue of termination, then surely they can only benefit from having the matter decided in court. That would clearly show that Egg were in the right all along.

The reason they have not taken anyone to court is because they believe they are wrong, and that they made a stupid mistake when they terminated 166,000 card holders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, if Egg are-as you believe- in the right on the issue of termination, then surely they can only benefit from having the matter decided in court. That would clearly show that Egg were in the right all along.

The reason they have not taken anyone to court is because they believe they are wrong, and that they made a stupid mistake when they terminated 166,000 card holders.

 

No Toymaker because it is not an issue only in your head.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I'll tell the judge that then.

 

I think you will find he will be the one telling you

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

In response to the orrignal point about there not being any mention of the termination of anopen ended agreement in the act i am proud to mention that now their is, it is now compulsary to give 2 months notice of termination of this kind of account and some explaination as to why, previously as said niether was required but our more sensibly minded(in this case) european cousins thought that may be unfair. So since Feb 1 the new provision has been aded to the act, i have copied the relevant legslation on here before but it is available on bali.

 

I wont be responding to this threaed untill i see some more senbsible debate going on on here.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that all things done in relation to a regulated agreement must be done within the provisions of the regulating Act. I do not believe there is scope for any action outside of the regulations.

 

Given that the Act is silent on terminating non default running credit accounts. I think it correct to interpret that as being that a creditor cannot terminate such an account. That is why the Act specifically allows a creditor to defer or restrict the account. This is the action Egg or any other creditors should take if they wish to stop the debtor borrowing more money.

 

There is absolutely no need for any creditor to terminate except in a breach situation. The provisions under a breach are so a creditor can take action to recover the whole debt. In a non breach situation there is no need for the creditor to pursue the whole debt as he is guaranteed its eventual return under the agreed repayment schedule.

 

Given the above it is my contention that the termination by Egg is ineffective, but the debtor was not to know this. I maintain this situation could be therefore argued as unfair under s140A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

In response to the orrignal point about there not being any mention of the termination of anopen ended agreement in the act i am proud to mention that now their is, it is now compulsary to give 2 months notice of termination of this kind of account and some explaination as to why, previously as said niether was required but our more sensibly minded(in this case) european cousins thought that may be unfair. So since Feb 1 the new provision has been aded to the act, i have copied the relevant legslation on here before but it is available on bali

Peter

 

Thanks for that Peter. It would be very useful if you could give a reference so we can look it up. - I'm afraid I dont know what bali is.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Peter. It would be very useful if you could give a reference so we can look it up. - I'm afraid I dont know what bali is.

 

Regards

 

I think Peter is referring to a new European directive or some such legislation, not an actual court case.

 

PS: I think Peter is referring to BAILLI, the case law and legislation information website. But without a title of the new paper it will be all but impossible to find.

Edited by basa48
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that all things done in relation to a regulated agreement must be done within the provisions of the regulating Act. I do not believe there is scope for any action outside of the regulations.

 

Given that the Act is silent on terminating non default running credit accounts. I think it correct to interpret that as being that a creditor cannot terminate such an account.

 

Ok, just a quick question for you.

 

The act also does not specifically have a provision allowing for foreign transaction fees or cash wirthdrawal fees to be made or for a credit limit to be changed.

 

Since the act is silent on these issues do you claim that they are unlawful?

 

If not, would you please explain why terminating an account in the situation you describe is unlawful but increasing a credit limit or making a foreign transaction fee is not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Peter is referring to a new European directive or some such legislation, not an actual court case.

 

PS: I think Peter is referring to BAILLI, the case law and legislation information website. But without a title of the new paper it will be all but impossible to find.

 

No, it is very simple to find. It is called the Consumer Credit Directive and a list of the statutory instuments affected is here:-

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation/ec-consumer-credit-directive

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is very simple to find. It is called the Consumer Credit Directive and a list of the statutory instuments affected is here:-

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation/ec-consumer-credit-directive

 

Thanks Nick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Just a flying visit.

From skimming this thread I see my name is still being taken in vain on here not to worry.

I don’t have the time or frankly to go through all the postings on here so I will again give you the facts

1) Either party can terminate an open ended agreement at any time. This does not mean that the creditor can demand accelerated repayments at any time for that he has to issue a default note and default termination.

The termination by the creditor is not mentioned in the act because it is contractual it does not have to be.

In passing the European directive which amends the CCA and comes into force next year adds sections after 98 to make the creditor give reasons for these terminations you may wish to see them.

38. After section 98 (duty to give notice of termination), insert–

"Termination etc of open-end consumer credit agreements

98A.–(1) The debtor under a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, may by notice terminate the agreement, free of charge, at any time, subject to any period of notice not exceeding one month provided for by the agreement.

(2) Notice under subsection (1) need not be in writing unless the creditor so requires.

(3) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination of the agreement by the creditor–

(a) the termination must be by notice served on the debtor, and

(b) the termination may not take effect until after the end of the period of two months, or such longer period as the agreement may provide, beginning with the day after the day on which notice is served.

(4) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination or suspension by the creditor of the debtor’s right to draw on credit–

(a) to terminate or suspend the right to draw on credit the creditor must serve a notice on the debtor before the termination or suspension or, if that is not practicable, immediately afterwards,

(b) the notice must give reasons for the termination or suspension, and

© the reasons must be objectively justified

The full directive is available on bali http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_reg/2010/uksi_20101010_en_1.html

It should clear up a few matters for those of you able to understand it

As for default terminations yes they can be issued on a previously terminated account because

A The termination may just have been for the permission to draw credit or

B. The termination would not have been due to a default.

Regarding terminations after defaults.

If a default notice is incorrectly drafted it invalidates any action taken on it this means that any default termination would be invalid ,so the creditor would be within his rights merely just to issue a corrected default notice and after the required period terminate again this time correctly.

Not that it matters but my intentions on here are always to help stop people following incorrect advice. Nothing more

Peter

 

Here it is from some tme ago dont you read the postings that dissagree with your ludicrous arguments

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don’t know why I let myself get draged into this but any way again this is the judgement from Amex v Brandon

40. I note that in the decision of His Honour Judge Griggs in American Express v

Harrison, I observe in passing that Mr Harrison has appeared here today with Mr

Brandon to assist him in his appeal, I note that His Honour Judge Griggs, dealing in

Many ways with a number of arguments not dissimilar to those which have been

advanced before me today, specifically deals with clause10 of the agreement.

At paragraph 19 he says this:

"They assert they were entitled to terminate the agreement without any

default on the part of the debtor by virtue of clause 10(2). Mr Harrison

has asserted that because that did not comply with the provisions of their

own default notice it was an invalid default notice. Section 98 of the

Act provides that the creditor is not entitled to terminate a regulated

agreement except by or after giving the debtor not less than seven days

notice of terrnination.

98(2) provides that subsection I only applies

where a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the

agreement and that period is not ended where the creditor does an act

mentioned in subsection (1). So far all this case is concerned subsection (1 )"

and he is there dealing with section 98:"does not apply because this was not an agreement where the duration was specified in the agreement."

And that, I observe in passing, must apply in this case."It was a running credit agreement which either party could terminate at any time. It follows that the claimants were entitled to terminate the agreement, even though they had not served seven days’ notice of termination. Mr Harrison has made the strong point that they have purported to serve a default notice. The default notice, because it was served on a Sunday, did not give the adequate seven days, therefore it was not valid."

I am quite satisfied there is nothing in that point for the reason that is apparent from the references I have already made. "Section 10(2) provides that the claimants were entitled to terminate at any time and that the Act does not prevent them from so doing. They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

Mind you this is just a high court judge

What does he know

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just a quick question for you.

 

The act also does not specifically have a provision allowing for foreign transaction fees or cash wirthdrawal fees to be made or for a credit limit to be changed.

 

Since the act is silent on these issues do you claim that they are unlawful?

 

If not, would you please explain why terminating an account in the situation you describe is unlawful but increasing a credit limit or making a foreign transaction fee is not?

 

HI

You are wasting your time

I have tried all the reasoning many many times. There are people on here who just do not understand the way statute and legislation works.

 

If you go right back to the begining of this thread you find some people see the light and drop of to be replaced by otheres who follow toymaker for a while untill they to are edducted. Really this thread should be closed it serves no useful purpose

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

You are wasting your time

I have tried all the reasoning many many times. There are people on here who just do not understand the way statute and legislation works.

 

If you go right back to the begining of this thread you find some people see the light and drop of to be replaced by otheres who follow toymaker for a while untill they to are edducted. Really this thread should be closed it serves no useful purpose

 

Peter

 

On the contrary Peter. This I find this thread extremely useful. One learns much more from engaging with those who post opinions which are different from one's own opinions. - It forces one to reconsider one own views, and check and re-check relevant statutes and regulations.

I think it would not be so useful if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary Peter. This I find this thread extremely useful. One learns much more from engaging with those who post opinions which are different from one's own opinions. - It forces one to reconsider one own views, and check and re-check relevant statutes and regulations.

I think it would not be so useful if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time.

 

Hi yes of course.

But what we have here is your refusal to accept proven fact, not opinion.

The damage caused by this is shown on here by the number of people who have followed your mistaken idieas, the template letter for instance that says "WHERE IN THE ACT"for instance.

 

Apart from being totally innacurate it damages the efforts of the many knowledgeable members on here, the credit

ability of anyone who uses this forum is effected.

 

It relly is not difficult ,just take a step back,try and forget you have a vested interest and look at thi objectively. No one minds you being wrong, i was wrong myself once, cant just bring to mind when but i am sure i must have been.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball
told you wrong spelling as usual

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

Peter,

The case you have quoted does not relate to termination of a non-default regulated agreement.

It relates to termination of a defaulted regulated agreement where a default notice was served under S87 of CCA 1974.

Brandon's defence was that he considered the default notice to be defective. The judge said it was'nt

The judge said

" They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

From my reading of it, that judgement is perfectly correct. - In my opinion the defendant in that case seemed to be trying to avoid paying the money he owed, by using spurious technical arguments about the validity of the Default notice, which the court , unsurprisingly, saw through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

The case you have quoted does not relate to termination of a non-default regulated agreement.

It relates to termination of a defaulted regulated agreement where a default notice was served under S87 of CCA 1974.

Brandon's defence was that he considered the default notice to be defective. The judge said it was'nt

The judge said

" They did purport to terminate this agreement. There had in fact been breaches. It is asserted on the part of the defendant because of his non payment but whatever their position they were entitled to terminate it as they did. I am satisfied therefore there is nothing in the point advanced by Mr Harrison that they were required to serve a default notice and that the default notice was defective."

 

From my reading of it, that judgement is perfectly correct. - In my opinion the defendant in that case seemed to be trying to avoid paying the money he owed, by using spurious technical arguments about the validity of the Default notice, which the court , unsurprisingly, saw through.

 

I give up

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up

 

You may well give up Peter, but the fact remains that the case you have quoted relates to an agreement which was terminated under S87 of the Act, and the defendant did not win his argument that the default notice was invalid.

That case did not relate to termination of a non-defaulted agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I still don't think challenging their right to terminate will hold any credence in court, even though I can see Toymaker's point.

The way in which the termination was worded, however, makes it quite clear that there was to be no further contractual agreement, therefore end of the business relationship, at a given time.

 

They did it the wrong way, have subsequently changed their process as they realised so.

They will not take to court for the reasons that Peter has mentioned, and also that if defended in a robust and akileed way could very well be left at, the contract was legally terminated on given date, with the balance not demanded within that given timescale, the matter has come to and end (in layman's terms of course).

 

In answer to your earlier question Toymaker, we have all not paid for well over a year, all had defaults served, all heard nothing for several months thereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I still don't think challenging their right to terminate will hold any credence in court, even though I can see Toymaker's point.

The way in which the termination was worded, however, makes it quite clear that there was to be no further contractual agreement, therefore end of the business relationship, at a given time.

 

They did it the wrong way, have subsequently changed their process as they realised so.

They will not take to court for the reasons that Peter has mentioned, and also that if defended in a robust and akileed way could very well be left at, the contract was legally terminated on given date, with the balance not demanded within that given timescale, the matter has come to and end (in layman's terms of course).

 

In answer to your earlier question Toymaker, we have all not paid for well over a year, all had defaults served, all heard nothing for several months thereafter.

 

Hi

 

Unfortunately termination is termination, it always means the end of the contract. Even so the common law entitlement for the ballance to be re3paid in the manner precribed by the defunct contract remains(thismeans that no court would enforce if you continued to pay).

 

However when you stop paying you create a repudiatory brach of the argeement,it really is no use sayig that no agreement exists because it does,small a for as long as liabilities remain unpaid under the contract.

 

The creditor then has a perfect right to issue a default notice under section 87. The section just says ""an areement" not only an active agrement,if this was not the case no assignnee could ever issue a default and we know they can and do.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Egg credit card agreement terminated
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4792 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...