Jump to content


MandM

MandM vs Egg Loan ***Won with Strike Out***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1263 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Is this DN worth arguing???  

2 Caggers have voted

  1. 1. Is this DN worth arguing???

    • Yes, argue all the way!!!
      2
    • No, they've got you beat.
      0


Recommended Posts

Lord alcohol.

I use the term statute to cover all applicable legislation, Acts, Regulations etc, ie, in a broad sense

 

The SIs I mentioned do not modify the 1974 CCA. The CCA itself carried provision for other 'statutes' to govern, regulate or control particular aspects of it. Hence they are a Statutory Instrument, a document gaining its authority from the CCA itself. To say that they modify the Act is stupid. They are allowed for by the Act and address particular issues only. They are an extension to the Act, intended to be there and intended to cover particular, specific parts of governance and regulation.

 

Regardless of all that, we are not considering a single 'statute'. We may be considering a single Act, the 1974 Act as amended, but are also considering various other documents such as SIs which impact on particular aspects of the Act. The Act cannot be considered in isolation. If the Act covered everything there wouldn't be any other regulations!!

 

Bennions comments, unless attributed in an official, interpretative (of the Act) capacity, are interesting, but nothing more. I haven't even seen the original source of that quote, and I don't suppose many people have, so it may be taken completely out of context. In any case, his opinions are just that. His intentions are just that. It doesn't matter what he thought or intended. He simply drafted the document. It was approved by Parliament, and its Parliament's intentions and opinions that matter. His thoughts carry no official weight. A court should enforce the law, not heresay opinions. I would hazard a guess that Bennion was in overall control of the drafting of the document, and didn't draft every word of the act. In such a case he may very well simply be claiming credit for the work of another. He may very well not have realised the impact of the clause concerned at the time (who could have?) but is simply capitalising on it. Who knows?

 

It is the court's job to interpret the law, ask any judge, and it their opinion as to the merits of any particular part of any statute.

 

Notwithstanding any of the above, any argument that the CCA and associated SIs etc should be interpreted as a whole is interesting, but I fear not of much help to MandM.

 

The last thing I think he needs is to widen the scope and bring in arguments of interpretation of many documents. His situation is quite clear - his agreement is ended and as such, the creditor cannot impose or take advantage of any requirements or provisions of the agreement that applied when it was live. That includes serving CCA required documents such as DNs.

 

There is however, another argument on this site that even after termination, an agreement is still subject to the CCA. In that case, it refers to the consolidation of different accounts, loans overdrafts and cards etc. However, by extension, if the CCA still applies post termination, then there is an argument that CCA documentation can be served post termination and that would affect MandM. It would also imply IMHO that a terminated agreement is never actually dead as it is still covered by the CCA....

 

Thats an area possibly worthy of debate, but I think MandMs case would be better served by a narrow argument about specific facts and timelines rather than a wide debate about the interpretations and requirements of one document being applied to others, and the subjectivity it brings.

 

Girls, girls. I think whether an SI modifies an Act or not is pretty much sophistry, as its impossible to separate the two. The role of an SI is to elaborate on the requirements of the original Act - for instance the Agreement Regs (SI 1983/1553) elaborate on and clarify the requirements of such things as s60 and s61. Indeed the Act - think its section 60, actually says that the Secy of State will issue Regs. This kind of process is widely known in UK law - the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 works on a similar basis of producing regulations which apply in specific circumstances. Do they modify the Act? Not directly, but they operate through the Act's authority and such as the Agreement regs operate in much the same way. So whether they modify the Act is, as I said, pretty much sophistry. Clearly they create specific, and often new, rights and obligations, btu they dont modify the Act in the way that, for instance, the Consumer Credit Act 2006 did, for instance by its repeal of 127(3)

Turning to that I would also agree with HH that Bennion's pov is interesting but not much more. I think its fair to say that the about the only thing - other than Acts of Parliament, SIs and precedent - that interests courts is Goode (and even then not always). I wouldnt want to bet on his argument carrying much weight. What is interesting about the quote though is the last bit - that the Commons agreed 127 (3) without discussion or debate. A duty of the courts is to put into practice the will of Parliament, and in this case its hard to argue that the will of Parliament could have been any clearer at this time - the clause was simply agreed to, it seems without dissent. I think that should be a more important point for any Court than Bennion's contention, however interesting it might be. Plainly the view changed between 1974 and 2006, but during that time, the will of the House was perfectly clear and should not be challenged.

One other interesting thing - and I am picking up here on the references to Morrit's quote in Wilson - is that in the recent Walker case, the Supreme Court made pretty clear their attachment to and support for the decision in Wilson (though that did rebound against the Walkers)

Edited by seriously fed up
ref to Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything happened regarding the 2nd default notice???

 

Apologies. Missed this.

 

Nothing further has happened yet.

 

M


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Any update on this


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

Any update on this

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

No, nothing to report unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view).

 

Egg don't seem interested in pursuing this at the moment so i'm letting sleeping dogs lie. I'm certainly not kidding myself that that's the end of the matter as the £25k is still owed. Will post up if I hear any more.

 

Mike


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird feeling isnt it M!

 

Kinda what happens next, ours has just started up again, urgh!

 

E!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Peter,

 

No, nothing to report unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view).

 

Egg don't seem interested in pursuing this at the moment so i'm letting sleeping dogs lie. I'm certainly not kidding myself that that's the end of the matter as the £25k is still owed. Will post up if I hear any more.

 

Mike

 

Hi

Thanks for getting back, lets hope they continue to slumber.

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s hope you don’t get Eddie’s situation, where they reissue the DN to themselves and don’t tell anyone...


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s hope you don’t get Eddie’s situation, where they reissue the DN to themselves and don’t tell anyone...

 

Hi DB,

 

Good to see a familiar name.

 

Already have my 2nd DN. They sent it quite quickly (from the Sols)................then nothing!

 

Mike


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As PB says, let’s hope they stay asleep.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is all still quiet ?

 

Hi. Yep, all still very quiet. Just how I like it :-)

 

Mike


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

 

:whoo:


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it is now past the STATUTE 6 YEARS .

 

:whoo:

 

very pleased for you :-D


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time MandM, pleased to hear :)

 

Also good to see you back on gh sir :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Past statute? Lowell or Link or some other leech would still chase that...!

 

Good news.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the quote at the top of the page and thought it sounded familiar! lol

 

Past statute? Lowell or Link or some other leech would still chase that...!

 

Good news.

 

Yes, good news, and the fact that it went no further indicates they weren't confident of their position, despite the size of the account. As for the leeches mentioned, and others of that ilk, I am sure they will be easily rebuffed, and will in some cases, no doubt pass the account onto another chancer leech.

 

Do you have plans on checking or have you already checked your credit files to make sure all traces of this account/debt are gone.


To those who give me reputation points, thanks. I don't usually pay attention to how much rep I receive, so I don't acknowledge it but I appreciate the favourable comments I receive when I sometimes talk sense.

"The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while"Albert Einstein

 

"One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others".

Moliere (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the quote at the top of the page and thought it sounded familiar! lol

 

 

 

Yes, good news, and the fact that it went no further indicates they weren't confident of their position, despite the size of the account. As for the leeches mentioned, and others of that ilk, I am sure they will be easily rebuffed, and will in some cases, no doubt pass the account onto another chancer leech.

 

Do you have plans on checking or have you already checked your credit files to make sure all traces of this account/debt are gone.

 

 

Yes, checked and vanished!! They weren't that bright it seems. The original loan was 7 years so in theory they could have waited for the full duration to pass (would have been April 15) and the DN would have been of no significance.

 

 

It was sold on some time ago but never pursued (well, not yet at least )

 

 

Mike


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DB, GH and Eddie,

 

 

Nice to see you're all still about also.

 

 

Hope you're all in a better place nowadays.

 

 

Mike


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you MandM. Luckily – and thanks to CAG – I never got into a bad place, but I learned how bad it could get. It’s highly therapeutic kicking these b**tards.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...