RBS Mint Loan - Court Action Started & Dodgy DN issues

[volvodriver]

 

if it is unlawful then the acceptance of it by the debtor is equally unlawful- since two unlawful acts do not make a lawful one.

 

 

DD I totally accept the thrust of this post.

 

I do wonder about the above though - how can a debtor act unlawfully when they have responded in good faith, and after good advice?

 

Surely the unlawfulness must rest solely with the prime transgressor, since after serving the invalid DN, any response by the debtor is meaningless under law.

 

Not well put, I hope you understand the point.

[diddydicky]

HI

i will double that if you can show one case of estoppell being used with a defective dn in the last 30 years that the act has been in force.

 

Perhaps no one else has thought of it Ya think

 

Peter

 

i don't doubt you- proof positive then that the law works.............after all wouldnt creditors be champing at the bit to get their second cherry bites in if it did not!!

 

why not put £20 quid in anyway..............deduct it from what you owe a creditor- they wont mind:-)

[Undercover-Elsa]

Sorry Peter, but your earlier comments show otherwise.

[diddydicky]

DD I totally accept the thrust of this post.

 

I do wonder about the above though - how can a debtor act unlawfully when they have responded in good faith, and after good advice?

 

 

 

Not well put, I hope you understand the point.[/

 

 

 

Surely the unlawfulness must rest solely with the prime transgressor, since after serving the invalid DN, any response by the debtor is meaningless under law.

 

Not well put, I hope you understand the point.

 

a person could "handle" stolen goods "unwittingly"- he would lose the goods to the original owner but not be charged with any offence if he bought or received them in "good faith"

 

i think the debtors unlawfulness could be described as "unwitting" since he expects the creditor to be truthful and as the DN is a prescribed document in which parliament has decreed the creditor must complete and serve "with precision" (and it has been ruled "with no room for error") then the debtor was truly misled

 

even a 12 year old schoolboy could understand that concept- are county court judges that removed from society- that they cant?

[Peterbard]

i notice PB that you are silent on the challenge to your contention that invalid DN's cannot be admitted as evidence

 

do i take it that you concede the point, or are you still thinking about a response

 

it IS important- for the sake of other caggers that this hitherto unknown but vital point of law you have raised ...is clarified as it could have enormous significance on the conduct of many cagger defences

 

 

Invalid DNs cannot be used to enforce an agreement.

 

Now the facts are that DNs are represented all the time they really are just search on here you will find plenty.

On top of that you have the statement from a high court judge as if you neede any more proof.

NOw you are saying that they have all overlooked estoppel, well i am sorry b****t.

Personally id donot think that an invalid default notice can be considered as evidence in an enforcement hearing because the action of enforcement is not itself valid.

NOw i am quite prepared to be proved wrong on this just show me where it has happened.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Sorry Peter, but your earlier comments show otherwise.

 

Sorry E but your earlier threads show otherwise.

 

Peter

[volvodriver]

Invalid DNs cannot be used to enforce an agreement.

 

No one said they could, the question was admitted as evidence.

 

Yet again Peter you are just trying to confuse.

 

I dont know what I bother to reply, you are wasting my time as usual with your errant nonsense.

 

And mods, dont moderate that, its true!

Edited March 7, 2011 by volvodriver
misqoted another poster, sorry

[Peterbard]

No one said they could, the question was admitted as evidence.

 

Yet again Peter you are just trying to confuse.

 

I dont know what I bother to reply, you are wasting my time as usual with your errant nonsense.

 

And mods, dont moderate that, its true!

Naughty naughty

 

HOw can something be used to enforce if it is not admitted in evidence?

 

Peter

[Bigdebtor]

We continue to "second guess" exactly what PH said and "agreed to".

 

Does anyone have the definitive copy of her actual statements so we can see exactly what was "agreed" or otherwise in Court? Until then I submit we are just engaging in divisive speculation and supposition.

 

BD

 

If anyone knows exactly what PH did say can they please point us to the post which contains it?

 

It looks as if all us kids are getting bored and just kicking out at thin air until PH throws her ball back on to the pitch.

 

BD

[volvodriver]

Naughty naughty

 

HOw can something be used to enforce if it is not admitted in evidence?

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

You introduce enforcement, not me, or the original poster.

 

If we are going to have an intelligent discussion, please dont try and confuse the issue,

[NewToTheFight]

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Letteraccepttermination.jpg

 

link was posted in the first post of this thread....

[diddydicky]

Invalid DNs cannot be used to enforce an agreement.

 

Now the facts are that DNs are represented all the time they really are just search on here you will find plenty.

On top of that you have the statement from a high court judge as if you neede any more proof.

NOw you are saying that they have all overlooked estoppel, well i am sorry b****t.

Personally id donot think that an invalid default notice can be considered as evidence in an enforcement hearing because the action of enforcement is not itself valid.

NOw i am quite prepared to be proved wrong on this just show me where it has happened.

Peter

 

now now peter- you have hoisted yourself by your own petard by making statements that you have a photographich memory of written documents

 

so let me remind you of the one you rit yourself

 

Is an inafective DN evidence? Thought the fact that it was ineffective prohibited it from being evidence , or from being part of any enforceent. Something about not being able to take the next step?

 

now you are turning the question from whether an invalid DN is admissable as evidence to one which is whether it is able to enforce an agreement

 

we all know that an invalid DN cannot enforce an agreement (elementary my dear watson)- only a valid one can!

 

now can you please answer the question without ducking and diving around it

 

or the donation will have to go up

[volvodriver]

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Letteraccepttermination.jpg

 

link was posted in the first post of this thread....

 

TO ACCEPT YOUR UNLAWFUL RECISSION OF THE AGREEMENT is what was written

[Peterbard]

Peter

 

You introduce enforcement, not me, or the original poster.

 

If we are going to have an intelligent discussion, please dont try and confuse the issue,

 

 

Sorry i thought we were talking about enforcement of PHs agreement, and the fact that a defective DN cannot be used as evidence in that enforcement.

Peter

[diddydicky]

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Letteraccepttermination.jpg

 

link was posted in the first post of this thread....

 

apart from the wrongful use of the word rescission instead of repudiation- it is as clear as a pikestaff what the thrust and intent of your letter was

 

your letter did (contrary to what the judge said) tell the creditor that his termination was nonsence

 

you should read my footer but i would say you have very good grounds for appeal- the judge has IMO misdirected himself and has mixed and matched legislation and common law to your disadvantage

[diddydicky]

HOw can something be used to enforce if it is not admitted in evidence?

 

this question makes no sense! please elaborate

[emandcole]

The creditor is alway right which creidtor is wrong the butcher the baker the banker.

We could not exist without creditors.

 

Politely and with respect 'the creditor is always right'? We can dispense with the CCA and CAG all together then can we not?

 

As for 'we could not exist without creditors' -

 

A) The country very nearly didn't without the taxpayer and

 

B) They could not exist without us either and let's face it, if they didn't exist we still would. They are therefore more reliant on us than we are on them. They merely facilitate access to 'stuff' that in most cases is only 'needed' as the side effect of the latest marketing campaign. Technically then the consumer should have greater rights than the creditor but this is not the case at all, deprived on may occasion of even the basics.

[HSBCrusher]

oh so reasonable moderators.

 

why, thank you.

 

its nice to see everyone being so polite.

[gh2008]

removed whilst I read teh pages I missed in case it has been answered.......

 

Put it back now as after 4 pages it STILL hasn't been answered yet this is teh single question that the OP needs answered!!!

Ok,

 

The reason was that there was acceptance of termination

 

You can step outside of the CCA by consent of the parties,

 

This is clear from Lloyd & guest.

 

So it seems to me the acceptance of the termination was the killer blow

 

... and the creditors rights remain as do the debtor's liabilities AT THE POINT OF TERMINATION

 

How does teh creditor become entitled to sums not due at the point of termination

 

PLEASE can someone answer that bit.

 

PT I agree 100% with what you have stated, so does UE and the OP AND the creditor

 

the argument is what was the creditor's entitlement at termination

Edited March 7, 2011 by gh2008
might have missed an answer in teh noise - re reading again

[diddydicky]

it is a very interesting question GH

 

one could argue that if the debtor was the first to suggest termination- then he would have to immediately repay all borrowing

 

whereas if the creditor was the first to suggest it- then the debtor should be allowed to continue repaying monthly payments as per the original agreement

 

if they BOTh suggested it at the same time (agreed by mutual consent) then they have (IMO) agreed to "vary" or "amend" the agreement and the CCA requires a new agreement- signed by both parties to reflect the varied or amended agreement

[gh2008]

ALL the paperwork is on the thread and I would ask the main protagonists to read the creditor's POC and WS as I think they may be surprised at the arguments put forth by the creditor. (Who was desperately trying to persuade the Court that they still had a right to the repayment of teh CAPITAL only forget about interest etc.... interesting thought ...)

 

The OP's letters and defence and WS & skelly are all on here.

 

The terms repudiation and rescission were used somewhat interchangeably throughout

 

Still would LOVE my question answered with a proper reference as well to either CCA or contract Law

 

Remember the OP is the injured party by the creditor repudiating (could be anticipatory repudiation not sure)

 

The OP's would have ONLY repudiated (or made a serious breach had she NOT complied with a VALID DN) the OP's breach was only material at the time.

[Pumpkinhead]

Hi all

I'm just trying to catch up on all the new posts today and over the weekend and would like to thank you all for your continued interest, research and comments.

 

I've had the Order arrive today. "Judgement for the Claimant of £4766.84 plus interest of £350 plus costs on the claim form, allocation and hearing fee of £825 payable in 28 days. The Defendant's costs of the hearing on 26 Oct are assessed at £188 and are to be paid by way of offset against the sums due to the Claimant."

 

The Defendant's "costs of hearing" referred to are my N244 application which was dismissed without being heard when the Claimant asked to amend their POC.

 

Can you tell me this: if I choose to appeal what happens about making the payment to the Claimant which is supposed to happen within 28 days? Does this payment get put on hold pending an appeal (assuming my request to appeal was granted)?

 

If I decide not to appeal then I will have to apply for time to pay.

[volvodriver]

There is always noise when no-one knows the answer ....... saves having to put hands uip and say I don't know ..... I've been asking the same question since about page 4 or 5 of this thread !!! (maybe even earlier )

 

I'll raise my head up.

 

There is a health warning, I'm not a lawyer, not legally trained, so dont know much.

 

But I've been around a bit, and am fairly bright.

 

I think most reasonable people know the answer.

 

There have been judgements made which most folk on here knew were wrong. If we discount some of the more outrageous ones, then we go back to the CCA.

 

The creditor issued a bad DN, they had not availed themselves of the right to take action, they illegally terminated.

 

The OP was right, maybe used the wrong R - should have been repudiated, and the creditor was therefore not entitled to bring proceedings.

 

The judge should have found against them.

 

They cannot reapply as they cant bring the same case again.

 

The OP owed the areas at the court date.

 

See - its simple, everything else is legal guff and obfuscation which has no place in consumer legislation.

 

I think the OP needs to try and find cousel to take it on at appeal, which could right a lot of the wrongs committed by DCA, solicitors, barristers and the judiciary in the name of keeping the masses down

 

Vdr

[gh2008]

Apply for N245 redetermination and stay of execution either way.

Either for redetermination of payment (from 28 days to whatever) & stay of execution pending the redetermination hearing

OR stay pending appeal (I think you have already been given permission haven't you??)

[Bigdebtor]

ALL the paperwork is on the thread and I would ask the main protagonists to read the creditor's POC and WS as I think they may be surprised at the arguments put forth by the creditor. (Who was desperately trying to persuade the Court that they still had a right to the repayment of teh CAPITAL only forget about interest etc.... interesting thought ...)

 

The OP's letters and defence and WS & skelly are all on here.

 

The terms repudiation and rescission were used somewhat interchangeably throughout

 

Still would LOVE my question answered with a proper reference as well to either CCA or contract Law

 

Remember the OP is the injured party by the creditor repudiating (could be anticipatory repudiation not sure)

 

The OP's would have ONLY repudiated (or made a serious breach had she NOT complied with a VALID DN) the OP's breach was only material at the time.

 

GH

 

Can you give us some post nos to look at for these? There are a LOT of posts to trawl through otherwise.

 

BD