Fiddlesticks, I didn't know that.....did you?.loan

[Bill Shidding]

Hi I appreciate what you're getting at. The POC didn't say "arrears" but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

[goonerhenry]

just out of interest did they disclose the default notice in their disclosure list, if they did then surely they are contradicting themselves by one minute saying that its eveidence then the next saying we dont need it now, also what lessons can people learn from this, there must be a way of defending this if the claimant does adopt this method in court

[Von Greenbach]

but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

 

In your 1st post bill

Slowly but surely getting plastered.xx.

 

Good luck bill maybe chat with you another time.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi, I understand the statute you refer too, please understand that the statute does not apply to "arrears" it only applies to sums payable in the future.

There is no protection in section 87 CCA because it refers to "earlier payment". Therefore, the claimant does not need to send a default notice in the case of "arrears".

If your loan has ended, the claimant cannot send a TN either.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi, yes they did disclose the DN, but are no longer relying on it. Mainly because I had the original, which differs substantially from their reconstructed effort.

 

Bill

[popeye1]

What ,,arrears,,does this not mean the account is still live

[Bill Shidding]

Yes, if you successfully argue that the DN is ineffective, the Termination notice is/was ruled ineffective as well. That didn't make any difference because the creditor does not need to issue a DN for the recovery of arrears if your loan has ended.

By coincidence, my loans' "end date" was a few weeks ago, therefore, the total amount of "arrears" totalled the same as the "amount outstanding"

The claimant knew that I had successfully argued that the DN they were relying upon was ineffective (and a fake). Nevertheless, the claimant changed their claim (in court) to recover the arrears, and not the amount in dispute, claimed on the claim form.

This is all pretty new to me too (this pm).

[Bill Shidding]

If you are receiving "statements" every six months. your creditor could claim against you, and any DN or TN you have already received will not be admissable in court because your creditor is claiming "arrears" and not attempting to claim "earlier payments" from the future.

 

You must fail to remedy the breach to get a DN.

A DN is required before your creditor can send you a TN.

If these docs are effective your creditor can then take the next step (enforcement). To recover earlier payments due in the future.

However, to recover sums due from the past (and your creditor has an enforceable agreement) your creditor needs to send you the statement twice a year, and that is all.

By my experience today, the court had been expecting it.

 

This is a new one on me too.

 

Bill

[popeye1]

How were they allowed to change the basis of the claim,POC, in court?

[Bill Shidding]

They asked to, the Judge agreed.

I was all fired up ready to challenge/argue the points, and they stole my thunder!

Its down to the CCA2006, which came into force on the 1st October 2008.

 

Gutted

 

Bill

[Bill Shidding]

Incidentally, is it common knowledge that Section 127 (3 to 5) of the CCA1974 has been repealed?

[popeye1]

They terminated before the end of the life of the loan,I think you said so the account never run its full term.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Popeye1, yes they unlawfully terminated the loan (IMHO).

There is 2 DNs.

1st one (relied upon) and an ineffective reconstruction.

2nd one is the true original, that I got in the post. They differ substatially.

The Judge didn't acknowledge my DN, said it is now irrevelant because the claimant is claiming for the arrears.

 

Quote

They terminated before the end of the life of the loan,I think you said so the account never run its full term.

 

The Judge said the account was not terminated, because the DN (relied upon) was ineffective. He didn't look at my DN, perhaps he didn't want to admit the claimant had been economical with the truth!

[popeye1]

HHe said DN was irrevelant ? But it was enough not to change the status of the account [ termination of the account ]

[popeye1]

So a DN WAS relied upon

[Bill Shidding]

HHe said DN was irrevelant ? But it was enough not to change the status of the account [ termination of the account ]

 

The claimants DN was ineffective. Therefore, the account was in effect, not terminated.

The account has how run its full term, and all sums due under the agreement are now "arrears".

A claimant does not need a DN or TN to claim for arrears.

A claimant needs a DN and TN to claim for sums payable in the future.

 

Bill

[Von Greenbach]

A claimant does not need a DN or TN to claim for arrears.

I believe you're wrong bill

 

A claimant DOES need a DN in order to claim the arrears, it's the arrears that generate a DN.

[popeye1]

I put that wrong.

He said DN was irrevelant but it changed the account which originaly was terminated to not being terminated

[Bill Shidding]

I believe you're wrong bill

 

A claimant DOES need a DN in order to claim the arrears, it's the arrears that generate a DN

 

Hi VG, yes thats what I thought. However, once your loan agreement has run its course and all sums due are arrears, the claimant can claim for the arrears "bypassing" the need for a DN.

A (valid) DN is normally a warning shot, asking you to make up (remedy) the arrears due, whilst the account is running.

When the account is no longer running, the claimant does not need to comply with section 87, because there is no remedy.

At least that is my conclusion from todays events.

 

Regards Bill

[Bill Shidding]

I put that wrong.

The DN was irrevelant but it changed the account which originaly was terminated to not being terminated

 

He said that both DNs and the TN are now irrelevant because the loan term has ended, and all sums due are arrears and not due in the future.

 

Regards Bill

[Von Greenbach]

When the account is no longer running, the claimant does not need to comply with section 87, because there is no remedy.

At least that is my conclusion from todays events.

 

OK Bill, I'm going to ask the site team for clairifaction.

[Bill Shidding]

Thanks VG

[popeye1]

Had the term of the loan ended before any claim was issued against you

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Popeye, no, the claim began roughly (because there are 2 "guests" see my first post, I think Im getting paranoid! ) in the middle of last year.

 

Bill

[JonCris]

If there were arrears on what authority were they collecting them if the agreement had ended

 

Also the change in the CCA is NOT retospective

 

& last but not least the Judge under CPR1 should not have permitted them to ambush you. I suggest this alone is strong grounds to appeal the Judgment, that you didn't have an opportunity to consider YOUR alternatives