Invalid Default Notices

[middenmess]

that is why you hit them with a defective default notice only after a court claim has begun, not before as by issuing a court claim, the account has been terminated

 

Isn't it that the account endures? It's the agreement that has been terminated.

 

Many of us have letters sent shortly after a faulty default notice informing us of the termination.8-)

[postggj]

again correct but

 

NEVER TIP THEM OFF UNTIL AN N1 CLAIM HAS BEEN ISSUED

[BarclaysSAR]

Hi postggj

 

So in my case they issued a defective default notice, then terminated the agreement and then fighting off 5 DCA's over 2 years who where working for bank, then bank now sold the account to another DCA.

 

DCA must know about defective DN as they wrote to me asking why i thought the DN was defective, i have never told them about DN

So i think i'm in a interesting position on how to reply, any thoughts would be helpfull.

 

Thanks

[Bigdebtor]

no

 

Zoned out on the first sentance when you said forget about section 87,

realised then what the value of the rest would be

 

Peter

 

I am now convinced you have a (not so) hidden agenda!

 

I was simply attempting to portray a situation in layman's language to illustrate how the CCA is not relevant in the situation I was describing - law of contract takes over - but you clearly prefer a confusing rambling part-true style.

 

I no longer respect your views (and now doubt your motives). You clearly don't respect my views.

 

Contrary to your perception I do not think you have been proven right, and apart from one dodgy verdict, all the evidence suggests you are WRONG.

 

Let's just agree not to respond to each others posts any more?

 

BD

[Peterbard]

Not sure why you think you have been proven correct, Peter? This is an ongoing debate, and you would get your points across a lot better by being less aggressive.

 

Section 170. Look it up yourself, sir.

The whole section (as I've already pointed out to you elsewhere) Part XI Enforcement of Act (s 161 to s 173) refers to enforcement action which may be taken AGAINST CREDITORS by the OFT, not to action which creditors can take against debtors.

My own research shows that other areas of law CAN be used with the CCA if the CCA des not stipulate the required action. In the Woodchester version I have, for instance, it states:

 

The decision would apply equally where the default notice states too small a sum as required to cure the breach. Here, the

position is that the owner is not bound by that statement by virtue of s 172, but arguably might be estopped at common law

from demanding more;

 

Hi

 

Firstly i would list the occaisions where i have been proven correct with the passage of time but i am sure you have better things to do than read it and i am sure ihave.

 

Re your remarks about section 170.

Yes I was aware of your reply to my mention of section 170 I did not remark I hoped you would do further research hence my lookit up remark it was a little abrupt for which I apologise.

However section 170 is relevant I this debate as it preclude any sanction on a breach of the act if it is not mentioned in the CCA. A sanction can be any act that causes prejudice to either party.

I am sure you appreciate that the inability to recover debts by a creditor on his breach of section 87 would be a sanction.

Professor Goode writes extensively in his book about this feature of the section, I understand that at over £900 a pop you may not have access to it but the section is used in context in the Rankine case as I stated here

In the Tesco case, where they are seeking enforcement, section 78(6) of the Act does

not have the effect contended for by the Rankines. First, the prohibition is against a

creditor “under an agreement”. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no

reason why there cannot be enforcement. Secondly, the word “enforce” is not

descriptive of the commencement of proceedings. Bringing proceedings during a time

when the agreement has been brought to an end is only a step taken with a view to

enforcement. It is not actually enforcement. Sufficient information has been provided

during the proceedings to comply in any event, Thirdly, the proceedings cannot be

said to be a nullity or otherwise affected. The appropriate step to be taken by the

Rankines would have been to seek a stay of the proceedings pending provision of the

information. A cause of action had arisen when the proceedings were commenced.

An analogy can be drawn between section 78 and section 69( 1) of the Solicitors Act.

The latter section provides that: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, no action shaH

be brought to recover any costs due to a solicitor before the expiration of one month

from the date on which a bill of those costs is delivered in accordance with the

requirements mentioned in subsection 2)”. It can thus be said that had Parliament

intended that section 78 have the consequence of preventing the commencement of

proceedings the section would have so provided in the same wa as section 69 of the

Solicitors Act does. Fourthiy, and most significantly, the provisions of section 170(1j

of the Act support the contention that a failure to comply with section 78 does not of

itself give rise to the consequence that pending compliance ith a request made under

section 78 any steps taken are in some way invalid. It provides so far as relevant as

follows:

“(1) 4 breach of any requirement made (otherwise than by ans court) by or

under this Act shall incur no civil or criminal sanction as being such a breach.

except to the extent (if any) express1 provided by or under this Act.

(3) Subsection (])does not prevent the grant of an injunction..

It follos that where a breach of the Act occurs, such as one of section 78, where no

remedy is specified, the appropliate step is to seek an injunction. A view to this effect

is set out in the notes to section 170 by the editors of Goode Consumer Credit: Law

and Practice. In any event it is to be kept in mind, as the editors of Goode observe,

that any such breaches may lead to questions relating to the licence of the lending

body in question.

And also in Carey I am sure a search of the Ballii site will also reveal other defences.

Hope this clarifies thing for you

Just a point about this hidden agenda rubbish, my agenda on here is clear i hope should be by now.

 

To try and stop people from folowing half baked pie in the sky methods of trying to get out of paying their bills tht will end up in them loosing out in the end, ther has just been a perfect example of what i am talking about and ther are others on here also, i would hope that if i am wrong in my asses ment time would prove me wrong to date it hasnt.

 

I am not saying tht there are not ways of contending the enforceability of agreement when the debtor has been prejudiced i am just saying that this is not one of them

[Peterbard]

from PB in answer to

 

In fact the creditor needs only to ENVINCE the intention not to perform- for the other party to be able to elect.

 

Quote "Garbage" Unquote

 

 

so, chitty is garbage- man you are in a world of your own

 

NO you are, in this context it is garbage i may as well quote Enid Blighton

 

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

i did not have ANY comments regarding the Egg matter- as you falsely state

 

my sole contribution with regard to the Egg matter was the way in which you slagged off PT and called him a liar when he said the appeal was pending- and at which time due to confidentiality he was not able to provide the further proof you demanded a matter for which you never apologised despite your erroneous allegations

 

nor have you ever aplogised to this forum for your comments on the trade forums in which you heavily criticised this forum and its posters- and yet you return to it to try to create more unrest and confusion

 

Hi

As usual you have a very convenient memory.

NO Matter. As to the apology, you think I owe, what for being correct? I stand by every thing I said in the “Trade press” so nothing to apologise for there either. The speed in which the case was dispatched by the court more than makes my point about the arguments raised.

My main issue there, in case you didn’t gather, was the inability to argue against the propositions raised. I feel if we were able to argue then the whole thing could have been avoided, the constant avoidance by most people on there and the,” lets wait” scenario resulted in no debate, not good on a discussion forum. The client confidentiality and case pending stuff was just a wheeze to avoid answering questions the questions where mostly involving technical aspects of the act anyway.

As a post script to this, I hope. I have received up to date 27 e-mails and Pms from various forums thanking me for querying the Egg case as I did' many of them said they did not follow the advice given because of me, and with the result being what it was are glad they didn’t. So all in all I feel pretty good about it.

As for this thread I have no complains, the arguments are missguided in my view but at least there are arguments and that is good enough for me.

Peter

Edited September 21, 2010 by Dodgeball

[Undercover-Elsa]

Looooooong story BD!!!

 

Returning to the *discussion / fray* (delete where appopriate )

For my own part I am never averse to apologising if I realise I was wrong, and

after further research I was wrong in some respects about sections 161 to 173, which are

mainly about the OFT's powers to enforce compliance in Creditors. However, it seems it was

invoked in Rankine to prevent the issue of a Section 77 Enforcement Order, if I understand it

correctly, which is surely a different kettle of fish? Sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

No, I can't afford my own copy of Goode, but a quick check produces this quote from his Consumer Protection Law:

"A general weakness of the enforcement powers of the CCA 1974 is evident in the rule contained in s. 170(1) that a breach of any requirement made by or under the Act shall incur no civil or criminal sanction, except to the extent (if any) expressly provided for under the Act. Thus save for exceptional cases, such as protected goods under hire-purchase contracts, if a contract is enforced without a court order, there is no effective sanction save for reporting the matter to the Licensing Authorities.

This is unless some breach of the debtors or hirers legal rights can be established."

 

I can, however afford the poor woman's Woodroffe and Lowe's Consumer Law and Practice,

who similarly state:

 

"Again on contractual principles a debtor or hirer may have a right to rescind an agreement for misrepresentation or treat it as repudiated by a breach by the creditor or owner.The principle difference between rescission and repudiation is that the former is retrospective and the innocent party is treated as if the agreement had never been made. In the latter case obligations arising before the acceptance remain enforceable, although they can usually be reduced or extinguished by a claim for damages"

 

We're not all Rankines, Peter, cynically looking for loopholes. Most on here are so because we have

been treated apallingly by the banks for various reasons. Our research is therefore a desperate attempt

to protect ourselves and keep our homes.

 

I do not see any difference in seeking to do so by calling the creditor to account on accuracy of Default Notices and in doing infinite calculations to demonstrate that they have misquoted the APR.

 

More power to your spreadsheet, me, I thank you for your inadvertant Devil's Advocacy which has focused my research.

 

Elsa x

Edited September 21, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa
format

[sacs]

Just a newbie looking in and realising CAG is pretty explosive. Daunting and exciting all at once, I think I'll be having some late nights reading up on all of this so many thanks to all those who give their time and help to detail the intracacies involved

[Undercover-Elsa]

LOL, hello SACS, a warm welcome to CAG!

 

Elsa x

[postggj]

just remember people

 

desent is good

 

we all dont sing from the same hym sheet

 

its the only way we learn

[sacs]

Thank you!

[dadofholly]

We're not all Rankines, Peter, cynically looking for loopholes. Most on here are so because we have

been treated apallingly by the banks for various reasons. Our research is therefore a desperate attempt

to protect ourselves and keep our homes.

 

I do not see any difference in seeking to do so by calling the creditor to account on accuracy of Default Notices

and in doing infinite calculations to demonstrate that they have misquoted the APR.

 

 

Well said Elsa

 

If it was not for disreputable creditors - hiding the fact that i had PPI on my agreements without telling me, or insisting i had it as "it was part of the agreement", or denying me early settlement figures so i could pay accounts off and reduce the costs, not to mention creditors lying about receiving letters, mis-representing themslves in phone calls, quoting rights they do not have - do i have to go on?

 

Then i would never have been here in the first place. So rather than look for "loopholes to avoid paying my debts" i am here to assert my legal rights,

legitimately.

Healthy debates are fine - facts are fine - but personal attacks should be left to private messages.

The point of this forum should be to HELP those that need it with practical advice - to support each other - and to fight back against greedy bankers, and other legal loan sharks.

Many people come on here because they can't sleep at night, are worried sick, unable to operate on a daily basis through depression, sometimes almost suicidal.

So put egos aside - and help those that need it.

[IdaInFife]

I have unapproved posts.

 

This forum is here is to help us.

 

Just because you disagree with any cagger doesn't mean that you are right.

 

Also re above post - personal attacks on the forum or via PM will not be tolerated.

 

This thread here is for invalid DN's and a dicussion there of.

 

Please keep this on topic as it is a valid thread and would hate to see it closed due to the inability of anyone to act and reply as adults .

[dadofholly]

Also re above post - personal attacks on the forum or via PM will not be tolerated.

 

I agree - i actually made the above statement in an attempt to keep some of the more personaly insulting language out of the public domain.

 

It's actually a great thread between the bickering - have learnt a lot.

[means2anend]

I have just received a letter from a friend whom I was helping....CABOT have closed his FILE after so many attempts at trying to bluff...

 

Nice to have you on board sacs!!!

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

I'd love to post it up minus personal details but really dont know what the policy is now that the website has changed...AND what how can we edit our posts...Hmmmph!!!

[Guest HeftyHippo]

I have unapproved posts.

 

This forum is here is to help us.

 

Just because you disagree with any cagger doesn't mean that you are right.

 

Also re above post - personal attacks on the forum or via PM will not be tolerated.

 

This thread here is for invalid DN's and a dicussion there of.

 

Please keep this on topic as it is a valid thread and would hate to see it closed due to the inability of anyone to act and reply as adults .

 

 

on that topic, how come some can be rude to people, saying they are talking garbage and the like without sanction? How come some can express their opinion in what seems a deliberately rude manner? If there is ill feeling in this thread, it is because of the rude and condescending remarks made by certain people, which appear to be made _in my opinion_ simply to make himself feel superior, or to provoke a response. Why is that tolerated? Why not simply prevent the person from behaving like that? remove the cause and the symptoms go away on their own.

 

Or its the case that some of us are not allowed to express our opinions (about someone else's behaviour) but others can freely express their opinion (in a deliberately rude and obnoxious manner)?

 

Deleting responses is the easy way out, but it doesn't solve the problem.

[pumpytums]

Well I for one would use the DN route if a they haven't complied correctly. If it's small claims what do you have to lose? an extra £300 possible.

 

If it's fast track that's a different matter I would make a offer ask to freeze charges/interest, you may get a Tomlin order but it's not a CCJ. At least you won't end up with an extra £5k.

 

At the end of the day we are in this mess because things change and we can't make minimum payments. I don't see many people defaulting on purpose just to avoid bills. We don't all earn £40 an hour.

 

 

Pumpytums

Edited September 22, 2010 by pumpytums

[IdaInFife]

on that topic, how come some can be rude to people, saying they are talking garbage and the like without sanction? How come some can express their opinion in what seems a deliberately rude manner? If there is ill feeling in this thread, it is because of the rude and condescending remarks made by certain people, which appear to be made _in my opinion_ simply to make himself feel superior, or to provoke a response. Why is that tolerated? Why not simply prevent the person from behaving like that? remove the cause and the symptoms go away on their own.

 

Or its the case that some of us are not allowed to express our opinions (about someone else's behaviour) but others can freely express their opinion (in a deliberately rude and obnoxious manner)?

 

Deleting responses is the easy way out, but it doesn't solve the problem.

 

deleting is not the easy way out, i unapproved posts that had nothing to do with this thread,

 

You seem to feel that this is all one sided from 1 member when it is clearly from more than 1.

 

Not only 1 person has been rude, and also others are trying to inflame the situation.

 

 

Anyone can express their opinions but we prefer not to express their opinions on a personal manner directed other others in which more than 1 person has.

 

 

If CAG were to make a decision regarding moderation based on this thread then the certainly would be alot more than 1 member to be considered for this.

 

As above - please try and keep this on topic

[diddydicky]

but not all of us have friends in "high places"

[24233513afw]

Subbing for future reference....just what I have been looking for.

AFW

[basa48]

but not all of us have friends in "high places"

 

Deep breaths and stay calm DD.

 

We don't need to lose more valuable members.

 

I know many have found another forum as well as this, but IMO it is very slow and less focused.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Deep breaths and stay calm DD.

 

We don't need to lose more valuable members.

 

I agree, the members we lost recently are much missed. I remember reading that was because of dissatisfaction with decisions made by the administration.

 

Personally, I find it offensive that anyone can make remarks such as "garbage" in response to another's posts, and find it even more offensive that the management, even though they are aware of it, do nothing to remove such comments, or to chastise the offender. Its particularly offensive when other posts were removed.

 

DD's suggestions would explain the removal of some, but not all of the inappropriate posts (although when someone is rude, IMHO and in general, I think it is sometimes appropriate to respond in kind).

 

Good members, good conduct, good rules and good moderation are all required to make a good forum. The more posts one has made, the less excuse there is for bad conduct, I feel everyone should remember that, without exception.

 

Personally, I feel more than enough time has been wasted on a certain ill-mannered, ill informed and disruptive individual who appears to have negative intentions. I'd like to see such people and their posts simply ignored. Let them start their own thread where they can rant and ramble about how fractional reserve banking was the cause of the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks, and how only they know the truth and can save the world, or some other psychotic delusions.

[bustthematrix]

Personally, I feel more than enough time has been wasted on a certain ill-mannered, ill informed and disruptive individual who appears to have negative intentions. I'd like to see such people and their posts simply ignored. Let them start their own thread where they can rant and ramble about how fractional reserve banking was the cause of the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks, and how only they know the truth and can save the world, or some other psychotic delusions.

Long live CAG, Long live freedom of opinion!!! lol