why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

[I've got no money]

that's seems like a fair appraisal- wouldn't this site be boring if we all agreed about everything?

 

That's very true - the only thing of course is that some Caggers act on the opinions we express...perhaps we need to keep that in mind - sometimes what is at best supposition on our part becomes perceived on CAG as being absolute truth and that IMHO can be very dangerous and can jeopardise otherwise strong cases.

[I've got no money]

i think the problem can be that debtors are afraid to "say it as it is" in the fear that the admission that they owe a debt will down their case

 

I am a firm believer in taking the bull by the horns and taking the wind out of their sails (intended )

 

Personally because i see that some creditors seem to regard the question " did you have/use the money" as some sort of magic bullet I would ALWAYS make the point to the court myself ( rather than wait to be asked the question)

 

To the effect that it is not disputed that a debt exists (althought the amount or extent of the debt may be disputed) and that the purpose of the proceedings is not to make a moral decision but to establish if, the debt is legally enforeceable

 

IMO

 

DD I think that you're right

 

It is the unjust enrichment point which the House of Lords has said very clearly does not apply to Consumer Credit (see Wilson v First County Trust) - where they use the "you've had the money" argument I would take the Court to Wilson.

[diddydicky]

DD I think that you're right

 

It is the unjust enrichment point which the House of Lords has said very clearly does not apply to Consumer Credit (see Wilson v First County Trust) - where they use the "you've had the money" argument I would take the Court to Wilson.

 

thanks for that IGNM ill download what i need from that

[diddydicky]

That's very true - the only thing of course is that some Caggers act on the opinions we express...perhaps we need to keep that in mind - sometimes what is at best supposition on our part becomes perceived on CAG as being absolute truth and that IMHO can be very dangerous and can jeopardise otherwise strong cases.

 

its a good poiint IGNM

 

when i first joined i wanted to put a notation that would appear on every post as to my not being legally qualified and these are my personal opinons use them or not as you see fit etc but unless (which is possible) i have not been able to use the tools i cant seem to be able to do this and it is a ball acher having to type in on every post

[underdog13]

Yes, that loss does grate doesn't it? You just can't see how they can impart a moral judgement onto a black and white issue.

 

It does not matter a jot if the money was spent, the point is that the agreement is either not there or is faulty. I hope they appealed that decision.

 

They didn't have time to appeal, Lexis. The debtor had a terminal illness and died soon after this travesty of justice.

 

The one comfort in this, is that the debtor did not have assets, so MBNA got nothing from the estate: They won their case but got zero payments.

Edited July 16, 2009 by underdog13

[Stubie]

its a good poiint IGNM

 

when i first joined i wanted to put a notation that would appear on every post as to my not being legally qualified and these are my personal opinons use them or not as you see fit etc but unless (which is possible) i have not been able to use the tools i cant seem to be able to do this and it is a ball acher having to type in on every post

 

If you click on your own user name then click user CP.

 

Scroll down to edit signature then type away.

[diddydicky]

If you click on your own user name then click user CP.

 

Scroll down to edit signature then type away.

 

you are a gentleman, thank you

 

oops where is it? ill try again

[diddydicky]

you are a gentleman, thank you

 

oops where is it? ill try again

 

ahhhhhhh but that does not appear on the post, it seems

[Stubie]

ahhhhhhh but that does not appear on the post, it seems

 

Sometimes it does.

 

Don't ask me why

 

Mine appears and disappears at random.

 

All adds to the excitement of posting :grin:

[diddydicky]

Sometimes it does.

 

Don't ask me why

 

Mine appears and disappears at random.

 

All adds to the excitement of posting :grin:

 

whooooooooa there it is

 

 

whooooooooooa there it goes

[Stubie]

whooooooooa there it is

 

 

whooooooooooa there it goes

 

Technology is cussed stuff

[FlyboyAgain]

making payments to the account,

 

acknowledging the debt in writing as live

 

**( arguable) recorded telephone conversation in which you acknowledge the debt

 

** best not to just to be safe

 

See, that's where I believe they've tried to trick me. They wrote to me saying that I did not acknowledge the debt; I never said I had. This is another thing that's confusing me: surely the debt is acknowledged and that it is the agreement that is not enforceable. The debt still stands, as I see it, until you get it wiped, paid off, or left alone.

[I've got no money]

I think, that unless you're part of the site team, that it's supposed to appear once on every page that you post on...

[diddydicky]

I think' date=' that unless you're part of the site team, that it's supposed to appear once on every page that you post on...[/quote']

 

that makes sense

[diddydicky]

See, that's where I believe they've tried to trick me. They wrote to me saying that I did not acknowledge the debt; I never said I had. This is another thing that's confusing me: surely the debt is acknowledged and that it is the agreement that is not enforceable. The debt still stands, as I see it, until you get it wiped, paid off, or left alone.

 

you've lost me on that one flyboy? the last bit is right- but the first bit is confusing me

[I've got no money]

See, that's where I believe they've tried to trick me. They wrote to me saying that I did not acknowledge the debt; I never said I had. This is another thing that's confusing me: surely the debt is acknowledged and that it is the agreement that is not enforceable. The debt still stands, as I see it, until you get it wiped, paid off, or left alone.

 

It is true that by signing the original agreement that you acknowledged the debt as of the date of signature - if you made no payments at all the period for calculation of limitation would start at that date - if you made any payments or other acknowledgment the period for calculation for limitation purposes would start with the most recent payment/acknowledgment

[FlyboyAgain]

you've lost me on that one flyboy? the last bit is right- but the first bit is confusing me

 

They wrote to me, in the heady, early days back in MArch/April when I CCAd them. They wrote to me saying " We note that you acknoweldge no debt to us." I wrote back saying I had never said that and nothing more.

[FlyboyAgain]

It is true that by signing the original agreement that you acknowledged the debt as of the date of signature - if you made no payments at all the period for calculation of limitation would start at that date - if you made any payments or other acknowledgment the period for calculation for limitation purposes would start with the most recent payment/acknowledgment

 

All payments were halted over the loans a nd credit cards my wife and I had. The two loan agreements came back enforceable and payments recommenced and arrears paid. ALL credit cards are, as I see it, unenforceable, and no payments have been made since. So where does that leave me?

[diddydicky]

All payments were halted over the loans a nd credit cards my wife and I had. The two loan agreements came back enforceable and payments recommenced and arrears paid. ALL credit cards are, as I see it, unenforceable, and no payments have been made since. So where does that leave me?

 

have you had the ccas back and posted them up?

 

are you alleging that s78 is not complied with?

 

sorry if already supplied but thread too long to re read

[FlyboyAgain]

have you had the ccas back and posted them up?

 

are you alleging that s78 is not complied with?

 

sorry if already supplied but thread too long to re read

 

Yes, I posted one up on my own thread a while back and the general consensus was 'uneforceable'. They are all like that and I've come to recognise and understand how the agreements should be set out, pre 2007.

 

S78 is has been acknowledged by the bank but they failed to supply correctly set out and enforceable agreements.

Edited July 16, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
spelling

[diddydicky]

Yes, I posted one up on my own thread a while back and the general consensus was 'uneforceable'. They are all like that and I've come to recognise and understand how the agreements should be set out, pre 2007.

 

S78 is has been acknowledged by the bank but they failed to supply correctly set out and enforceable agreements.

 

well then they are not in default of s78 and IMO have complied

 

whether the agreements they have provided under this provision are or are not enforceable is not a concern of s78 so i dont think you can use s78 to withhold payment

 

you can go on the offensive and make a CPR request or just sit back and let them come at you

[underdog13]

Flyboy, did they supply the original T&Cs when they responded to your s78 request?

[FlyboyAgain]

well then they are not in default of s78 and IMO have complied

 

whether the agreements they have provided under this provision are or are not enforceable is not a concern of s78 so i dont think you can use s78 to withhold payment

 

you can go on the offensive and make a CPR request or just sit back and let them come at you

 

Can't do CPR up here; would have to use s142. And the outcome of that is not guaranteed, is it?

[FlyboyAgain]

Flyboy, did they supply the original T&Cs when they responded to your s78 request?

 

They could hardly be construed as orginal. They were on different sheets of paper and contained my current address, not the address where I was when accounts opened.

[cloggy]

Hi all you regulars on this thread,

Just a thought and NOT trying to hijack the thread - as most of you switched on caggers read this thread I wondered what you thought about whether the Data Protection Act is being breached or not?

If we give our names address and phone nos and other info to a company and provide them with security questions and codes to protect our security with them, is it then legal for them to pass this info onto all these third party bl**dy DCA's that call us up and ask us to go through security with them?

Naturally having first wound them up as much as possible, I always refuse saying that I will not give my info to anyone over the phone who just calls me up out of the blue.

Do they have the right to have this sensitive and private info passed on?

Am I being stupid or does anyone else think we have a case to take up with the various card & loan companies?

Perhaps PT or someone else suitably qualified to answer could have a think about this one.

If we do have rights that have been breached, it could be an interesting situation and a real pain in the rear for the companies concerned were we all to sue for breach of privacy via the Data Protection Act.

Site team - if we do have some rights then let’s start a separate thread to get some action going. If we do not have any rights under the DP Act, then I apologise to all Caggers for being so dumb!

Cloggy.