Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

unlawfull repudiation/recission. aknowledge termination? im confused


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5406 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

Ive been reading the tale of a dodgy DN futher discussion thread with great interest,

 

However its left me more confused than when i first started:confused: (doesnt take much;-) )

Im concerned as my biggest debt has a fully compliant cca, but a DN that was invalid due to only giving 9 days to rectify the breach,and then a termination letter.ive been paying a token £1 a month on this one account just to keep tham at bay as i didnt relish the prospect of taking on some fancy barister in court with a dodgy dn ,especially as it has a fully compliant cca,I did call them when they issued the termination letter and fortunately record all my calls to creditors and they clearly told me it was terminated.would this count as me aknowledging the termination?

 

I was under the impression a dodgy dn was a full defense in law, and then only arrears on the DN could be legally chased,but from reading the other thread it would seem that its not as clear cut as that and creditors may be able to issue a new dn, tn after all if you dont formally accept the termination in writing/phone call or deed etc?

 

So is the general concensus that its best to let the creditor know you accept the termination but then run the risk of alerting them to their mistake ,or is it best to just sit it out and wait for them to start enforcement action and hope to get a decent judge who wont allow them to re issue a valid DN, TN, ?

Do the pros outweigh he cons in formally accepting the termination ,

what advantage does each senario have?

 

Which would suit my predicament the best,any help much appreciated

Edited by mak71
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that:

 

when a default is recorded that the agreement is cancelled and is then subject to the enforcement process as laid out in the terms and conditions of the original credit provision.

 

However, if the Default is recorded incorrectly (as laid ou in statute) the the agreement is cancelled, but only the amount in arrears can be subsequently claimed against.

 

Given that the implication of this could be quite costly to them, I wouldn't expect them to give it up without a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spamheed. thanks that was my understanding too,

 

However on the very hotly debated thread "tale of a dodgy DN futher discussions" other caggers are now saying termination on the back of a invalid dn can be overturned and re issued unless the debtor specifically aknwoledges and accepts the termination notice formally ie in writing/phone/deed etc,

in which case it would appear we are then closing this little creditor loophole off allowing them to re issue, but at the same time risking alerting them to their mistake as well.guess its catch 22

 

Im really unsure how to play this one now, just when i thought i was getting to grips with it all something else pops up in the creditors armoury.

 

Im not sure if this was just a one off bad judgement by 1 judge or case law, i know others here have beat creditors on faulty DN"s,but if this is new crditor/dca tactics its rather worrying.

Edited by mak71
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a termination letter then that is it - it has been unlawfully rescinded. They cannot therefore issue a new DN on an agreement that no longer exists. The issue of a new DN only comes into play if there is no confirmation the agreement has been terminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if they threw their toys out of the pram and cancelled card unilaterally, after stuffing them for PPI and forcing them to credit account leaving balance at £0 with an unchanged credit limit of £1700?

 

No termination, no DN. Just a note on credit report stating:

 

 

Settled xx/xx/09

 

account ended xx/xx/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a termination letter then that is it - it has been unlawfully rescinded. They cannot therefore issue a new DN on an agreement that no longer exists. The issue of a new DN only comes into play if there is no confirmation the agreement has been terminated.

 

 

That would be my viewpoint also, thay cannot fudge the law if it is laid out in black and white.

 

Of course you do get the odd judge who doesn'tg know the entire legislation, but if the defence is correct you should walk away from this onebe able to

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if they threw their toys out of the pram and cancelled card unilaterally, after stuffing them for PPI and forcing them to credit account leaving balance at £0 with an unchanged credit limit of £1700?

 

No termination, no DN. Just a note on credit report stating:

 

 

Settled xx/xx/09

 

account ended xx/xx/09

 

unless i'm missing something it sounds like you've already won this one, keep a copy of the report for any chancers and contact them for a letter of clarification of the zero balance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your balance should have been zero because of a PPI payout / refund - Have they put any other comments on your cedit file before then? If so, I suspect that they should be removing them, as if the PPI payment occureed much earlier

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did indeed win that one.

 

As stated above, they unlawfully ended the contract in that my card is no longer operational. They admit I have a credit limit of £1700, that I have a balance of zero but clearly dont want to do business with me.

 

I have no problem with their right to choose not to do business with me, but they must realise that there is a price to pay for breach of contract.

 

They simply cant say "bye!" just because they got found out over unlawful PPI .

 

The account offers 1% cash back on all spending, so (aside from removing all the other benefits, convienience and protections afforded by the card) I am losing out on 1% on every purchase I would have made using the card and will continue to do so, unless damages caused by their breach of contract are paid.

 

You dig what I'm saying.....?:D

 

Assuming spending of say, £3500 per year and that I live another 40 years, that adds up to a not inconsiderable sum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but gives rise to a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been reading the tale of a dodgy DN futher discussion thread with great interest,

 

However its left me more confused than when i first started:confused: (doesnt take much;-) )

 

I think the right answers will be on that thread in the end. It's just heavy going getting there with lot's of diverse opinions as everyone debates the point. You just have to decide which ones help and which ones hinder.

 

Pedross

Edited by pedross
Time changes everything!
Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing - mak71 I'm in the same boat, do you acknowledge don't you:confused::confused: I agree the tale of dodge DN & discussion is great but it makes my head spin. I thought I'd learnt a lot - but when it comes to this I'm at a loss. I've had a few comments on my threads: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/197540-bos-halifax.html and http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/211323-will-wont-i-your.html if you want to take a peak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mak71, am at this point also! I have decided to send the letter accepting the termination, see how it pans out and just log what happens. May hopefully help the next cagger and we will eventually get somewhere - an action plan!

 

This is the letter suggested to me, in my case they have no CCA but remove that and it still does the job, telling them it was unlawful but doesn't spell out why - best of luck to you:

 

Re account XXXXXXXXXX Unlawful termination

 

I refer to your unlawful termination of the above agreement occasioned by your demand for me to pay the full outstanding balance of the account thereby unlawfully terminating the agreement.

 

You were not allowed under the CCA to demand any of the benefits of s87 without first having issued an effective default notice giving me an opportunity to remedy the alleged breach and pay any arrears claimed

 

Furthermore and notwithstanding the foregoing you were in any event prevented from enforcing the agreement by virtue of being in default of your obligations under s78 of the act

 

Even if an agreement existed, which you have stated that you have been unable to locate due to mis- filing, there was no lawful basis upon which the agreement could be terminated therefore I consider your termination of the agreement as being a repudiatory breach of contract and I formally accept the repudiation and, for the avoidance of doubt, confirm that as I have elected to accept the rescission of the contract I am therefore discharged from any ongoing liability under the former agreement. Your breach of contract gives rise to a claim for damages and Ilook forward to receiving your proposals

 

Yours faithfyully

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dipply75

 

Do you have a thread if so can you post the link. When did you send the letter. It will be interesting to see what response you get and may give me courage to take the same course of action (I hope)

Good luck:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thread is:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/207374-rbs-defaulting-me-no.html

 

ordinary letter stating this sent to 2 depts and recorded one sent today to the dept I THINK is now delaing with me...jsu to be sure!

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi, think it is good that you started this new thread. I have found the other thread 'tale of a dodgy DN further discussion' confusing as well as it is full of contradictions. I think also that some of the comments are based on a couple of very poor judgements by a DJ, which although it is good to be alerted to this is not necessarily the norm. When the thread was initially started by X20 it was extremely informative with some very good advice for anyone wishing to defend on the basis on a 'dodgy' DN, but I feel it it sometimes now very off track. I am not saying for one minute that people are not entitled to their opinions, as of course they are. Just that I don't think it is always very helpful for anyone facing court proceedings to be confused in this way. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread mentioned has got 2 opposite views arguing the same thing over and over:( The original thread as Magda states is, I think the one to follow.

 

i too am in a similar position with a very poor illegible copy of a CCa but a defective DN and termination letter, the case law is there for defective DN's as stated.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i am of the veiw that regardless of weather they send you a true original copy of your CCA or not, that once they have issued you a invalid/ineffective DN followed by a letter of termination, which you duely write back accecpting the termination of agreement. then the debt can not be enforced, neither can the Creditor issue you with a revised DN. as in order to do so they would need to be an credit agreement in place. meaning that they would have to reinstate the agreement, but in order to do so the debtor has to agree to the CCA being reinstated.

 

So in the case of if you recieve a letter stating the agreement is being reinstated (which is highly unlikley) simply write back saying you do/did not agree to the reinstatement of the original CCA. and same for if they issue you with a revised DN after they have already terminanted the cca agreement in which you accepted such termination in writing. basically after you have accepted the termintaion of the agreement based on an ineffective/invalid DN then any actions they take to try and enforce the debt is unlawful.

 

I am also of the veiw that if they terminate the agreement of the back of an ineffective/invalid DN upon which you repsone with written acceptecne to the termniation then it is infact the creditor that is in breach of contract and you are then eligibly for compensation.

 

the following statement was found by another cagger on this site and passed onto myself upon my request. thanks to cleo4patra

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 199 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

lease be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing.

 

SO there you have it.

Edited by teaboy2

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

duplicate post

Edited by teaboy2

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 *plus the sum alleged in the void Default Notice*"

 

;)

 

yes it would but weather your likely to get all that remains to be seen

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...