Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[eagleforms]

Oh dear - seems that I am distinctly low life for being able to spell. He would have had to be able to spell correctly if he was submitting arguments to the courts/other solicitors' practices though, or perhaps it would have also shown a distinct lack of class for his employers to have pointed out his spelling mistakes!

Edited June 30, 2010 by eagleforms

[BeauBrummie]

 

That, basically, is why I am advocating for the Devil here - because, in this case, I think that whatever the morals of the point, the creditors will win in court.

 

I have to say the Circuit judge in my current appeal made very similar comments regarding my case in granting the appeal.

 

I was told to think very carefully before continuing - I still am thinking very carefully.

 

Sometimes the machine will just keep rolling whatever you do.

 

Beau

[Lord_Alcohol]

I am not, nor have I ever been, as you seem to imply, employed by a bank, debt collector or one of their solicitors. If I were, I would've had the courtesy to respect the forum rules and post in the section for bank employees.

 

My attitude to CCA comes from experience as a paralegal working for a solicitor's firm which joined the great CCA feeding frenzy. Thankfully the firm has turned to other work now. I saw plenty of behaviour on both sides which was pretty disgusting and I've seen plenty of arguements consigned to the dustbin, by District Judges or the Court of Appeal. That, basically, is why I am advocating for the Devil here - because, in this case, I think that whatever the morals of the point, the creditors will win in court.

 

Thanks ECPR. Your views will certainly help us form our own arguments, so hopefully you will keep posting. I also think it is extremely valuable having a devil's advocate here, even if unpopular with others!

 

One question - if an OC issues a defective DN followed by 'termination', how can this actually be remedied? I assume you believe that it can only be remedied by a court agreeing that (a) the DN is defective and (b) the agreement has not been terminated.

 

In this case, the debtor may have had goods removed or been forced to pay an amount significantly in excess of what should have been paid under the agreement as well as 'default' and other charges. He may have had to deal with DCAs, or even fight in court to avoid a CCJ. He may in fact have a CCJ against him. All without him being aware that he could have defended on the basis of a defective DN and that the OC was acting unlawfully by enforcing 'termination' and recovery of unpaid amounts.

 

Woodchester does not help here - there is no indication that the agreement was effectively terminated. The judgement was merely to get Swaine & Co to pay the arrears plus costs, rather than the full amount of the balance (as far as I can see). I don't know if the contract endured beyond that.

 

My view is still that 'terminating' the agreement with all the muscle that the OC can draw upon is far more serious than the original breach committed by the debtor. It is not an equitable situation. So if the OC enforces his own actions, what redress does the debtor actually have if it is not a more serious breach of contract and a claim that s87(1)(b) or © should apply?

 

LA

[Lord_Alcohol]

If it is unlawful for the creditor to register a default without having served a valid default notice, for example, if the default entry leads people reading it to think that the valid notice has been served, or that the agreement has been terminated, then the debtor might have an action for defamation. That is fair enough. I just don't think that invalid default notices have the effect contended for.

 

Another question for you ECPR...

 

I think that DNs include a statement saying that failure to remedy the breach in the time provided will cause the default to be registered with the CRAs. I don't know if this is universal or, in fact, a legal requirement, but all DNs I have seen have this statement.

 

If the DN is defective, and the debtor is effectively denied the right to remedy, do you consider that the OC retains the right to record the default? If not, what can the debtor do about it? You may have seen in other threads (also posts in this one) how difficult it can be to have a default removed.

 

This is a particular issue as credit scoring is not used just for assessing suitability for financial products.

 

LA

[paulwlton]

My understanding is that serving a compliant default notice would negate any defective notice previously served prior to any proceedings. However, once a claim is issued the default notice is irredeemably defective and arrears ONLY will be recoverable.

 

PW

[Lord_Alcohol]

My understanding is that serving a compliant default notice would negate any defective notice previously served prior to any proceedings. However, once a claim is issued the default notice is irredeemably defective and arrears ONLY will be recoverable.

 

PW

 

What's the position where a TN is served after a defective DN and before a compliant DN?

 

(This is seriously doing my head in!)

 

LA

[bustthematrix]

I have to say the Circuit judge in my current appeal made very similar comments regarding my case in granting the appeal.

 

I was told to think very carefully before continuing - I still am thinking very carefully.

 

Sometimes the machine will just keep rolling whatever you do.

 

Beau

BB, we should always think carefully before any legal action :-|. Do you have a thread for this case? Are you claimant or defendant and does it involve invalid or defective Default Notices/Termination?

[bustthematrix]

That, basically, is why I am advocating for the Devil here - because, in this case, I think that whatever the morals of the point, the creditors will win in court.

Please clarify what you mean by 'in this case'.

 

I am (and several others here on CAG are) aware of several cases where the creditors have either not won in court or failed to turn up at all and lost by default - never appealing.:)

 

This is not new to us so please clarify exactly where you think you are adding value to the debate. Are you seeking to address CCA issues as a whole or just the DN/TN scenario? Whatever you are seeking to do, posts ought to be appropriate to the forum topic.

 

Also, please remember the main topic of this thread. Your post #2846 mentions mortgages and states "better arguments than the Default Notice argument lost in Heath v"...??? What do these have to do with our discussion? The discussion is primarily about the CCA and debts under the CCA, not agreements not covered by the CCA. Also when you say 'better arguments', that's almost completely irrelevant because context is everything! Reference case(s) only become relevant to the degree they address the subject matter being presently debated - not the general prospect of winning or losing against a lender for any action. Why? Because every case is different, though similarities of course exist.

 

I now feel the detailed DN/TN debate is taking away from the main topic of this thread. I only raised invalid DN/TN as one of a series of possible criteria towards unenforceability of a debt under the CCA (and not common law etc) because of past knowledge of what some, such as Surfaceagentx20 have achieved in this area. What I was looking for was a possible yea or nay on it as a basis for unenforceability under the CCA. IMO, discussing unenforceability and the issues which come out of it is in line with dissecting Waksman which is what this thread is all about. Waksman did not rule on Default Notices or Termination in the Carey case as it relates to unenforceability.

 

ECPR, as you've said you are here on CAG to add value to the community, your experience and thoughts will be much more helpful if they also point out HOW consumers ( it's all in the name...Consumer Action Group ) can, possibly, get positive outcomes. Whilst it's very helpful to debate for the other side and point out weaknesses in arguments for consumers etc, such points should not confuse the main clear points which have been established. Also, if you wish to shoot down a clearly established line of argument, the best place to take it on is in the thread/s in which it was established and where the issue can be more focused and competently debated.

[Dotty50]

Strange ECPR, that you worked as a paralegal and ever learned how to spell argument?

 

 

Not that I like to nit pick, but didn't you mean Never?

 

If you are going to criticise others, then best get it right yourself Eagle!

[JonCris]

I have to say the Circuit judge in my current appeal made very similar comments regarding my case in granting the appeal.

 

I was told to think very carefully before continuing - I still am thinking very carefully.

 

Sometimes the machine will just keep rolling whatever you do.

 

Beau

 

'Morals' have nothing to do with it as recognized in HOL Wilson v County

 

The problem lies with the Judiciary making law whilst ignoring statute Most claimants defendants being LIP's mean that they get away with it because they realize, as do the creditors that the LIP has no means or the wherewithall to fund appeals

 

IMHO a POC needs to be drafted that forewarns Judges that any finding that deviates from the letter of the law & by doing so gives rights to the creditors which never existed in statute will be challenged

[JonCris]

Not that I like to nit pick, but didn't you mean Never?

 

If you are going to criticise others, then best get it right yourself Eagle!

 

 

Goose Gander;)

[Et Contra Pacem Regis]

Thanks ECPR. Your views will certainly help us form our own arguments, so hopefully you will keep posting. I also think it is extremely valuable having a devil's advocate here, even if unpopular with others!

 

One question - if an OC issues a defective DN followed by 'termination', how can this actually be remedied? I assume you believe that it can only be remedied by a court agreeing that (a) the DN is defective and (b) the agreement has not been terminated.

 

I would say that, unless something else happens to bring the agreement to an end, such as the debtor terminating the agreement, then the agreement continues. If the creditor issued a claim for the outstanding balance, based on the defective DN, then he should discontinue the claim, serve a valid DN and start all over again, however some creditors try to get round this by serving a new DN during proceedings and then applying to amend their particulars to plead the new DN. I can see some district judges agreeing to that (because the point about discontinuing or amending is Civil Procedure, they have quite a wide discretion).

 

So far as I have the time I intend to continue posting, though as you chaps have probably noticed it takes a while for me to get round to each post. As someone pointed out it may be best to take devil's advocacy into a separate thread, to avoid (further) threadjacking.

 

In this case, the debtor may have had goods removed or been forced to pay an amount significantly in excess of what should have been paid under the agreement as well as 'default' and other charges. He may have had to deal with DCAs, or even fight in court to avoid a CCJ. He may in fact have a CCJ against him. All without him being aware that he could have defended on the basis of a defective DN and that the OC was acting unlawfully by enforcing 'termination' and recovery of unpaid amounts.

 

All of this is quite true. As to defending an invalid claim, the Defendant would usually get his costs - that's all Defendants ever get when the Claimant fails, even if the claim was misconcieved from the start. As I said before, if the agreement is still in existance then the above could involve breaches of contract, and inaccurate credit reference entries might be actionable. If a CCJ were granted by default then the Defendant might get it set aside.

 

Unfortunately, as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There are plenty of people and companies who do actionable things and aren't sued because the injured party simply doesn't know that they have a claim, and don't find out until after the limitation period is up. The mechanisms for protecting consumers are far from perfect - but this is straying from the point.

 

Woodchester does not help here - there is no indication that the agreement was effectively terminated. The judgement was merely to get Swaine & Co to pay the arrears plus costs, rather than the full amount of the balance (as far as I can see). I don't know if the contract endured beyond that.

 

My view is still that 'terminating' the agreement with all the muscle that the OC can draw upon is far more serious than the original breach committed by the debtor. It is not an equitable situation. So if the OC enforces his own actions, what redress does the debtor actually have if it is not a more serious breach of contract and a claim that s87(1)(b) or © should apply?

 

LA

 

The purported termination of the agreement, and any breach the creditor commits in reliance upon termination, are, in my view, actionable, if you can show damage, precisely the same as if a car dealership sells you a lemon. That is where, in my view, the debtor gets his remedy, if purported termination harms him.

 

As for the others, congratulations, you've spotted that I like most other people do not spell check forum posts. If I were at work I wouldn't be using contractions or colloquialisms either. Sadly, I've seen plenty of bad spelling and grammar in the legal world, even from counsel.

[PriorityOne]

I would say that, unless something else happens to bring the agreement to an end, such as the debtor terminating the agreement, then the agreement continues. If the creditor issued a claim for the outstanding balance, based on the defective DN, then he should discontinue the claim, serve a valid DN and start all over again, however some creditors try to get round this by serving a new DN during proceedings and then applying to amend their particulars to plead the new DN. I can see some district judges agreeing to that (because the point about discontinuing or amending is Civil Procedure, they have quite a wide discretion).

 

 

Are you suggesting that the same account can be defaulted more than once?... because I pulled a creditor up for trying this one over two years ago now. They then tried to backtrack their actions with dubious terminology... before scurrying back under the stone they'd crawled from.

 

The account was then v. quickly sold to a DCA.... with absolutely no paperwork at all.

[Et Contra Pacem Regis]

Another question for you ECPR...

 

I think that DNs include a statement saying that failure to remedy the breach in the time provided will cause the default to be registered with the CRAs. I don't know if this is universal or, in fact, a legal requirement, but all DNs I have seen have this statement.

 

If the DN is defective, and the debtor is effectively denied the right to remedy, do you consider that the OC retains the right to record the default? If not, what can the debtor do about it? You may have seen in other threads (also posts in this one) how difficult it can be to have a default removed.

 

This is a particular issue as credit scoring is not used just for assessing suitability for financial products.

 

LA

 

Yes, this is a good point - I've seen DNs both with and without the threat of CRA, but I don't really know sufficient about the operation of the CRAs to know whether a default notice is a strict requirement of entering a default, or even what creditors generally understand a default entry to indicate.

 

On the DN/TN/DN point, assuming that no termination acutally occurs (i.e. termination is ineffective because it is prohibited by s87(1)), then the second DN can still work. If termination does occur, for whatever reason, the complicated question is what happens if the debtor remedies under the second DN.

[PriorityOne]

 

On the DN/TN/DN point, assuming that no termination acutally occurs (i.e. termination is ineffective because it is prohibited by s87(1)), then the second DN can still work. If termination does occur, for whatever reason, the complicated question is what happens if the debtor remedies under the second DN.

 

My emphasis in red...

 

Second DN ?

[Et Contra Pacem Regis]

Please clarify what you mean by 'in this case'.

That on the Defective Default point, the creditor will be successful in the majority of cases.

 

I am (and several others here on CAG are) aware of several cases where the creditors have either not won in court or failed to turn up at all and lost by default - never appealing.:)

 

"not won" on the strength of the Defective DN/TN arguement, where no other issues were in play?

 

If Creditors fail to turn up to argue the case, while it's promising, it does not prove that the debtor's arguement was right. If the creditor looses by not turning up, there is little it can do by way of an appeal. Judges aren't sympathetic to companies which waste their time.

 

This is not new to us so please clarify exactly where you think you are adding value to the debate. Are you seeking to address CCA issues as a whole or just the DN/TN scenario? Whatever you are seeking to do, posts ought to be appropriate to the forum topic.

I mentioned it because one or two people pointed out the unfairness of the DN/TN situation to the debtor, the creditor's stronger position etc. I do not think that those points add any strength to the technical argument.

 

Also, please remember the main topic of this thread. Your post #2846 mentions mortgages and states "better arguments than the Default Notice argument lost in Heath v"...??? What do these have to do with our discussion? The discussion is primarily about the CCA and debts under the CCA, not agreements not covered by the CCA. Also when you say 'better arguments', that's almost completely irrelevant because context is everything! Reference case(s) only become relevant to the degree they address the subject matter being presently debated - not the general prospect of winning or losing against a lender for any action. Why? Because every case is different, though similarities of course exist.

I raised this point because my motives for disagreeing with the consensus were questioned. While the cases have no direct relevance, they, and many others show which way the wind is blowing, therefore I mentioned them to point out that my position is based on cynicism rather than personal interest, as had been suggested.

 

I now feel the detailed DN/TN debate is taking away from the main topic of this thread. I only raised invalid DN/TN as one of a series of possible criteria towards unenforceability of a debt under the CCA (and not common law etc) because of past knowledge of what some, such as Surfaceagentx20 have achieved in this area. What I was looking for was a possible yea or nay on it as a basis for unenforceability under the CCA. IMO, discussing unenforceability and the issues which come out of it is in line with dissecting Waksman which is what this thread is all about. Waksman did not rule on Default Notices or Termination in the Carey case as it relates to unenforceability.

This thread seemed to have wandered far from the original subject when I arrived, however I do take your point about threadjacking. My original intention was to make it clear that antigone was not a lone voice and that the DN arguement should come with a health warning.

 

ECPR, as you've said you are here on CAG to add value to the community, your experience and thoughts will be much more helpful if they also point out HOW consumers ( it's all in the name...Consumer Action Group ) can, possibly, get positive outcomes. Whilst it's very helpful to debate for the other side and point out weaknesses in arguments for consumers etc, such points should not confuse the main clear points which have been established. Also, if you wish to shoot down a clearly established line of argument, the best place to take it on is in the thread/s in which it was established and where the issue can be more focused and competently debated.

 

I remain of the view that people reading this forum should be aware that disagreement exists; that the arguements set out are not universally accepted outside this forum - that can get lost when reading threads full of people agreeing on everything, however to avoid further threadjacking, and having left things in this thread as complete as I can, I'll start a separate thread for Devil's Advocacy (tomorrow though, dinner is calling...)

 

My view (returning to the point) is that there are very few CCA arguements which a high probability of success:

 

1. Wilson v FCT type cases (obviously) but these will be very rare. Other cases suggest that the point can arise where insurance or payment of other arrears are a conditions of the loan, but the Supreme Court may take the oppertunity to narrow the scope of Wilson when they give judgment in Walker.

 

2. Cases where no terms are provided at all at the time of signature (engaging section 61(1)(a)) i.e. you fill in a form full of details, but sign without ever being given the prescribed terms. This is probably relevant only to a few credit card cases. I've heard perhaps one or two people saying that they remember this happening with their credit card.

 

3. Cases where the debtor has been treated incredibly badly by the Creditor, sufficient that the court is willing to use section 140B to rewrite the agreement. There's very little authority on this, but Shaw v Nine Regions seems to suggest that the bar is very high. Before it's demise I believe Cartel/CCLS had some success with section 140B but it was an unreported case.

 

ECPR

[JonCris]

If a creditor issues a defective DN then that's the ball game they don't get a second bite at the cherry. Its also the same if they unlawfully terminate once done that its they can't reinstate the agreement without the debtors agreement & that's hardly going to happen is it. Any other outcome would mean they could continue until they got it right which makes a complete nonsense of having a regulation compliant CCA

 

Creditors have both the money & the expertise so should not make such mistakes

[JonCris]

My emphasis in red...

 

Second DN ?

 

I know I spotted that

[vint1954]

Re: defective default notice and Notice of assignment

 

The claimant issues proceedings after forwarding a defective default notice.

 

The Defendant wins on this issue and the court allows the Claimant the amount of arrears up to the date of claim ONLY as appears to be the case.

 

Now, the outstanding balance hasn't been ruled unenforceable it, continues to exist and the creditor continues to send out arrears notices post the court case.

 

Questions arise:

 

Has the creditor forfeited legal rights to issue further proceedings if the borrower refuses to maintain payments?

 

Would the creditor first need to seek relief from sanctions (application to the court to bring further action on same)

 

Paul

Paul,

 

i would say that the agreement was rescinded unlawfully, so no longer endures. Therefore no, the ballance no longer exists.

 

Vint

[vint1954]

spot on vint- and i totally fail to see how a judge could then rule against a defendant who has excercise his right to accept the creditors unlawful repudaition

 

the horse has to come before the cart

 

in football terms- once the referee has blown for a throw in- if the attacker is then fouled in the penalty area - he cannot give a penalty as he has already stopped play for the previous infringement

 

a judge who rules that as the debtor did nothing to remedy an invalid default notice - and therefore rules the DN as valid- is blatantly mis directing himself

 

 

unless if course he can show me any amendment which states

 

In the event that the debtor does not attempt to pay the amount demanded in an invalid DN - either at the time or months later- and instead only excercises his right to accept an unlawful repudiation- then the creditor shall be absolved of the need to provide a valid DN and may claim entitlement to the benefits of s87

A good analogy DD

[vint1954]

I must agree with Antigone on the defective Default Notice.

 

Section 87(1) prohibits termination of the agreement without the service of a valid Default Notice. The creditor cannot effectively terminate the agreement until one is served. Suppose a creditor serves a defective notice and then purports to terminate the agreement:

 

1. The agreement, clearly, does not end. It continues as before.

 

2. The creditor has indicated that it will not continue to honour its obligations under the agreement. This is a breach of contract. You might call it a repudiation, but that is merely a breach of contract.

 

3. The standard remedy for breach of contract is damages. The damages are "expectation" damages - the amount of money necessary to put you into the position you expected to be, but for the breach. It is therefore unlikely that the debtor will actually suffer any damage as a result of the breach of contract.

 

4. If the debtor "accepts" the repudiation, then the contract is terminated at that point. That cannot effect monies which have already fallen due (arrears) or the money already owing. Accepting a repudiation would merely put the debtor in the same position as if a valid default notice had been served and the agreement properly terminated by the creditor. The only difference between the two situations is who terminates: creditor or debtor. There is no reason why the effect of termination should differ depending on who terminated.

 

5. There is no reason why a valid default notice could not be served after termiantion. The wording does not require that the agreement must be subsisting.

 

You will need to refer to the amended si. This clearly relates to a live agreement. If the agreement is terminated, what contract do they issue a new DN against.

 

6. It would however, be largely pointless to serve a valid default notice after the debtor has accepted a repudiatory breach, because the creditor will no longer be interested in doing any of the things listed in section 87(1), save perhaps enforcing a security. Section 87 is not a bar on enforcement without a default notice, only a bar on specified courses of action. Termination by the debtor relieves the creditor of the need to take any of the actions listed in Section 87.

 

That, or something likely it, is a chain of reasoning which would allow a judge to find against someone who accepts a repudiatory breach. By "accepting" the breach, the debtor has himself termianted the agreement with the same effect as if the creditor had terminated it.

Vint

[vint1954]

Hello Folks!

 

The Debt Industry hates The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and wishes, with all of its rotten little cold heart, that the Act should be ignored. It would much prefer to have these issues dealt with under Common Law instead of the significantly harsher and pro-Consumer environment that the Act ultimately imposes.

 

At County Court/Circuit level, it is, sadly, comparatively easy for the banks and DCAs to buy what they want, using a combination of money, English language manipulation, money, inapplicable Common Law, money, smoke and mirrors, money, cunning exploitation of the ever present Judicial bias, money, ambush tactics, money and an invariably polished and expensive massaging of the widespread Judicial ignorance of the Act.

 

The only effective counter to the above, even with the best Defence in the world, is to either pay for your own Barrister, or keep your fingers crossed that you win the Judge Lottery on the big day.

 

Given the above, it is hardly surprising that, to a great extent, they have been quite successful at convincing pro-bank and/or easily persuaded lower Court Judges that the Act is actually there to protect dull greedy bankers (who can afford expensive lawyers-for-rent) as opposed to Consumers (who can't).

 

However, when it comes to pre-CCA 2006 Agreements, all of this boils down to just two main issues:

 

 

(1) Is there a properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement...or not.

 

(2) When they had their one chance to Terminate the Agreement, did the Creditor secure the necessary and key benefits of s87(1) before doing so...or not.

 

 

The High Court Carey and McGuffick cases do not help them on (1), much as they would like us to think so. In any event, these Judgments can and will be ignored, if needed, once this goes further up the Judicial food chain and their cunning but weak arguments are inspected with an electron microscope by people with more elaborate medieval outfits and longer wigs.

 

Amazingly perfect Agreements re-created with glue, scissors and bits of string that are wholly reliant upon Witless Statements made by employees who were aged 12 at the time the Agreement was actually made, won't cut the mustard, no matter how strong the carefully crafted Balance of Improbabilities are that they present in order to get the Turkey off the ground.

 

The bankers are currently trying to play Carey for all it is worth, in an effort to extend the four corners of the Agreement, until it covers the four corners of the desk upon which the original Application Form was signed.

 

Once the four corners have been retrospectively pushed out to encompass the whole desk, their next trick is to place other recently created documents onto that desk, that were simply not there at the time.

 

All they need to make this work is to employ Dr Who and his fecking Tardis, and this cunning ploy will hang together!

 

But, back to reality. Contracting out of the Act and into banking wonderland is specifically excluded because of s173(1), so there's no magic banking life-line there either. Thus, any attempt to ignore s87 and replace that with more favourable Common Law arguments is not going to be an option for them, for the same reasons.

 

Woodchester v Swain currently nails them on (2) and blows away their favourite cop out de minimis argument, i.e. once that Judgment is read carefully, then it's clear it most certainly does not condone any s87(1) Default Notice errors. The Act and Statute demand that the Notice must be sent in paper form, as prescribed with absolutely no room for error. The default sum must be stated with precision because there are no permitted tolerances as there are with, say, the APR. Furthermore, the Court has absolutely no Judicial leeway when it comes to s87 and s88 (unlike other Sections where the Court has a limited amount of room for manoeuvre).

 

Peering at cases through rose-tinted banker's goggles only goes so far, and their twisted interpretation only works with those who have the necessary banking faith.

 

They need (1) to get past Go, and they need (2) to collect anything beyond those sums already due prior to Termination. Sums payable in the future stay payable in the future unless they secure a right to demand early payment before jumping out of the Agreement in a buggers rush. If they Terminate without securing s87 benefits, then they can jolly well bend over, grab their ankles and kiss those future payments goodbye.

 

All of the recent talk suggesting an Agreement cannot be ended unlawfully because the Law does not tolerate law breakers is as absurd now, as it was when x20 first covered this so well. Likewise, weasel words that suggest a Debtor's acceptance of Termination via a repudiatory breach on the part of the Creditor will somehow cure an earlier invalid Default Notice is, again, just an attempt to confuse issues that are already clear.

 

Furthermore, talk that suggests Terminated Agreements somehow endure after Termination, and other comments that suggest there's nothing wrong with having multiple stabs at getting a Default Notice right after Termination based upon some fiction that the Agreement endures, just tells us they are getting pretty desperate.

 

It looks to me that they have despatched Trolls who can do joined-up writing, in an effort to stir things up a bit to try and shake out tactics that will be used against them when this issue inevitably filters up to the more senior Courts.

 

Once this gets into the Supreme Court (it will, because the banks will always Appeal if they can pay to have another final crack) then, all bets are off, and all the lame County Court Judgments they have bought to date thus far, won't actually help them one bit.

 

In any event, expect a significant rise in Troll activity on CAG from now on.

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

Priceless, as always:)

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

My original intention was to make it clear that antigone was not a lone voice and that the DN arguement should come with a health warning.

WTF?

 

This is just a pair of Trolls slapping each other on the back. The rest is just one of them whispering sweet nothings into your ears.

 

Do not be deceived people. Stop, and ask yourselves what a Troll actually wants when it comes here to make a point?

 

Rest assured, it's not going to drop its scaly pants and accidentally reveal a useful secret you can use against it and/or its employer and/or the Creditor paying its fees.

 

That is not going to happen.

 

No, it will slither in, come over all reasonable and plausible and, soon thereafter, it will start trotting out the party line in such a way that it will sound genuine and sincere, with your very best interests at heart. The Troll will play Devil's Advocate, of course, to balance the argument and give the impression that it is making positive contributions to a reasoned debate.

 

Excuse me while I reach for the in-flight paper bag! This debate is being steered around by the proverbial bugle by a pair of Trolls doing a double act!

 

The main Troll has no Threads. If you check what its been saying, the first few Posts popped onto CAG over a suitably convincing period to appear very pro-Consumer and on-side, although they do not actually say anything new.

 

So, that suggests it must be friendly then?

 

However, once it had its webbed feet under the CAG Kitchen Table, it soon stretched out its legs, made itself comfortable, and then got to work delivering the real package. That being, a smooth sounding put down of the main arguments you will need when facing the enemy in Court.

 

The above poison pill package is carefully seeded with some useful sounding padding, intended to mask the intentions of the real message...that being to try and convince people that a Terminated Agreement endures (after a Creditor has cocked it up). Once you accept that, then when they include a brand new post-Termination s87(1) Default Notice, you will be far more inclined to fall for that nonsense and, in so doing, you will be more likely to fail in your resolve to put up the vigorous Defence you would otherwise have put forward with absolute conviction.

 

Their true aim is to malevolently shake your confidence right here on CAG, where the average Consumer hopes and expects to find genuine help and support.

 

Look people, a f-f-f-feint heart never f-f-f-fecked a Bengal Tiger so, if you allow these weasel words to sink home and undermine your resolve, as they intend, then you will be half way to losing before you even step into Court.

 

Be in no doubt that the Trolls' combined intentions are to make people wibble, and make them squeak into Court on the defensive, primed to accept the handy Counter-Arguments the Trolls have packaged up purporting to be helpful advice for your support. That is the whole point, they desperately need you to believe their nonsense is genuine.

 

The fact that they are here, says a lot more than anything they are saying, if you get my drift?

 

They are attempting to lead you down the garden path and straight into the Common Law Compost Heap via the DCA Duck Pond...i.e. a smelly dead-end that's as far away from your main Regulated Agreement arguments as the Trolls can take you.

 

I loved this bit...

 

I remain of the view that people reading this forum should be aware that disagreement exists; that the arguements set out are not universally accepted outside this forum...

I think it means those hotbeds of Consumer debate and support, such as: LINK Financial, Barclays, Cabot, MBNA, Lowells, Lloyds, Amex, Moorcroft, RBS, Scotcall, Capital One, Wescot and their paid assassins Restons, Mishcon, Morgans and Brachers etc!

 

Tell me if I am getting warm?

 

I do hope I have contributed appropriately to this recent reasoned debate.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 30, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[Gallahad]

As succinct and eloquent as ever BRW;)

[Rhia]

A magnificent riposte BRW and I too have clocked the Chuckle Brothers in action. Just ask yourself why they need to do this?

 

The answer is blindingly obvious in that CAGers are being remarkably effective at taking these on and winning despite every dirty trick in the book being thrown at them.

 

This is purely conjecture on my part but such effectiveness has to be knocking on bottom lines that are already en route to disaster.

 

I think it means those hotbeds of Consumer debate and support, such as: LINK Financial, Barclays, Cabot, MBNA, Lowells, Lloyds, Amex, Moorcroft, RBS, Scotcall, Capital One, Wescot and their paid assassins Restons, Mishcon, Morgans and Brachers etc!

 

Getting warm? You're white hot and glowing in the dark. You'd think they'd be so ashamed of what they do, they would go and find a job that would benefit mankind - such as donating all their internal organs to medical science.