Jump to content


Pumpkinhead

RBS Mint Loan - Court Action Started & Dodgy DN issues

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3110 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

Recommended Posts

Indeed – the creditor tried to terminate but couldn’t as the DN was faulty, and the debtor tried to terminate but couldn’t as there was no rescission.

 

Where’s the flaw? Was the judge right to accept termination by PH? Had PH in fact terminated?

 

There may well be a flaw – let’s find it!

 

No flaw in that part.

They attempted termination - the CCA prevented termination without a valid DN

PH allowed them to terminate via S173(3)

 

Now, had PH not allowed them to, they could have served a valid DN and then taken her to Court for the FULL BALANCE

So, in effect, having the early payment rebate applied due to termination PH has benefited (albeit slightly at this point)

 

However S140 is still there (as is a claim for damages from teh creditor's breach) and a claim issued would not carry the massive risk of appeal costs


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
It pains me to have to do it again, but again I will further the creditor's argument :(

 

 

 

This is the section of the CCA, which allows termination.

 

It was hinted at by PT amid the noise so credit obviously goes to him

 

So basically that section of the CCA allows the Creditor to do anything providing the debtor agrees to it? is that right?

 

Pumpytums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically that section of the CCA allows the Creditor to do anything providing the debtor agrees to it? is that right?

 

Pumpytums

 

That is certainly what it seems to say ......

 

Shame the Claimant didn't use the argument properly in their POC or Skelly though .....


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

This is a bit chicken and egg though isn't it. The Claimant terminated and PH accepted this termination on the grounds that it was unlawful and that only the arrears were owing.

 

So by the Claimant using PH termination as acceptance of their termination doesn't that mean the PH grounds are now valid? They can't have their cake and eat it can they?

 

It like me writing to a creditor saying I accept your termination providing you pay me £1000,000 for the next 5 years. And they say well pumpytums accepted our termination have I not now added a term to the agreement.

 

Could this be a good angle for an appeal?

 

Pumpytums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No flaw in that part.

They attempted termination - the CCA prevented termination without a valid DN

PH allowed them to terminate via S173(3) But did she? She accepted an unlawful recsission – there was none! So it could not have been accepted, surely, and therefore not terminated? This is what I’m trying to clarify.

 

Now, had PH not allowed them to, they could have served a valid DN and then taken her to Court for the FULL BALANCE

So, in effect, having the early payment rebate applied due to termination PH has benefited (albeit slightly at this point)

 

However S140 is still there (as is a claim for damages from teh creditor's breach) and a claim issued would not carry the massive risk of appeal costs

 

I think what we’re asking is was the judge’s interpretation and acceptance of that letter as termination correct.

  • Haha 1

“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

It's a good point, the acceptance was almost 'on condition that ...'

 

Anyone know of a pro-bono DA Counsel who'd be willing to take it on??

PH hasn't found one yet, and it's NOT for lack of trying

 

Appeals are risky, the costs implication could turn a £5k Judgment debt into one several times that amount

 

An appeal would have to show exactly where the DJ misdirected themselves or erred in Law.

We will have to wait for the transcript to see exactly what the DJ did rule and how

 

IMHO, the arguments put forward on this thread are far more thorough than the claimant's own ones. (check their POC skelly and WS)


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
I think what we’re asking is was the judge’s interpretation and acceptance of that letter as termination correct.

 

I think the judge should have only accepted PH letter if he had accepted that she would only pay the arrears. Which to be honest in some cases wouldn't be that bad for the creditor.

 

It's worth noting that PH letter doesn't try to avoid the debt it simply accepts the Creditors wrong doings and gives them a slice of cake rather than the whole thing.

 

The error the judge made was to take PH letter at face value that she accepted the termination on the Claimants terms which obviously was never her intention.

 

Pumpytums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what we’re asking is was the judge’s interpretation and acceptance of that letter as termination correct.

 

I do accept that point, and have argued now both for and against.

 

The alternative would be what? set aside the Judgment, throw the claim out and and rule that the agreement was never terminated. - That is a possible

 

The PH would be in the position of waiting for a new compliant DN to drop through her letterbox

 

(although she would still have an S140 claim imo )

 

The problem with a compliant DN, as I said earlier, is that failure to rectify teh breach would mean new claim for teh full amount WITHOUT early repayment refund


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
I do accept that point, and have argued now both for and against.

 

The alternative would be what? set aside the Judgment, throw the claim out and and rule that the agreement was never terminated. - That is a possible

 

The PH would be in the position of waiting for a new compliant DN to drop through her letterbox

 

(although she would still have an S140 claim imo )

 

The problem with a compliant DN, as I said earlier, is that failure to rectify teh breach would mean new claim for teh full amount WITHOUT early repayment refund

 

Which would take the status back to that as if a claim had not been made, because if a set aside were granted, the amended PoC would now be meaningless as the letter would be of no effect.

 

But at least then PH would have the benefit of seeing if they issued a valid DN, and would have the protection offered by being able to respond to it or at least enter into negotiations.

 

The claimant would also have the issue of whether they were being vexations, whether CPR 38.7 applied (which I’ve asked about several times and not got an answer), or whether there was an unfair relationship scenario. I would aver that this is a better situation than she is now in.


“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

GH

 

You raise a very valid point. With Credit Card (rolling credit) agreements then any interest owed is interest actually only accumulated month by month on the balance to date - whereas with a Term Loan the interest is typically bundled in upfront and equal monthly repayments repay it along with the amount lent over the full term.

 

What if someone defualted on a 7 year loan after only 3 months and the creditor (unusually) jumped through all the right DN and TN hoops and legally claimed the full liabilities due right now? If this is allowed then they would therefore have been paid interest meant to be paid for a loan borrowed over 7 years in only 3 months - i.e. making the actual apr 28 times as much.

 

I was about to ask - surely a creditor cannot gain so much at the expense of a debtor in trouble - then I rememebered the £39 charges for bouncing cheques or Direct Debits!

 

However I still ask - does the CCA actually allow the 28 times hike in the apr my scenario illustrates?

 

The relevance of this to PH is that surely even if the agreement was somehow resurrected and the Creditor issued a new valid DN which she couldn't satisfy, surely there should still be (in interest of fairness if nothing else) some rebate allowed if the debt is repaid in full any earlier than originally envisiaged?

 

BD


£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which would take the status back to that as if a claim had not been made, because if a set aside were granted, the amended PoC would now be meaningless as the letter would be of no effect.

That claim would fail and PH would get her costs in that claim

 

But at least then PH would have the benefit of seeing if they issued a valid DN, and would have the protection offered by being able to respond to it or at least enter into negotiations.

 

I would hate to think of the arrears at this point (no payments received since 09)

A compliant DN is not difficult quite how the creditors mess it up as they do astounds me ...

I doubt PH would be in a position to rectify a DN of 2+ years arrears

 

The claimant would also have the issue of whether they were being vexations, whether CPR 38.7 applied (which I’ve asked about several times and not got an answer), or whether there was an unfair relationship scenario. I would aver that this is a better situation than she is now in.

There has never been any hint of discontinuing in this case.

 

They did offer a stay in which to issue a new compliant DN if PH was to agree that the agreement was 'alive' (letter on thread)


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
GH

 

You raise a very valid point. With Credit Card (rolling credit) agreements then any interest owed is interest actually only accumulated month by month on the balance to date - whereas with a Term Loan the interest is typically bundled in upfront and equal monthly repayments repay it along with the amount lent over the full term.

 

What if someone defualted on a 7 year loan after only 3 months and the creditor (unusually) jumped through all the right DN and TN hoops and legally claimed the full liabilities due right now? If this is allowed then they would therefore have been paid interest meant to be paid for a loan borrowed over 7 years in only 3 months - i.e. making the actual apr 28 times as much.

 

I was about to ask - surely a creditor cannot gain so much at the expense of a debtor in trouble - then I rememebered the £39 charges for bouncing cheques or Direct Debits!

 

However I still ask - does the CCA actually allow the 28 times hike in the apr my scenario illustrates?

 

The relevance of this to PH is that surely even if the agreement was somehow resurrected and the Creditor issued a new valid DN which she couldn't satisfy, surely there should still be (in interest of fairness if nothing else) some rebate allowed if the debt is repaid in full any earlier than originally envisiaged?

 

BD

 

I would guess this would be to recompense teh creditor for the (following non rectification of a valid DN) fundamental breach of contract by the debtor

 

The CCA does not disallow the creditor to claim damages over and above arrears following missed payments.

 

The DN gives details of S129 which is in place to help a debtor out in difficulties

 

BTW, I really don't like having to argue from 'this side of the fence'

Edited by gh2008
to add 'by the debtor' to clear any confusion

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

Nothing wrong with both sides of the fence, as long as the rules are fair and the game is fair!


“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
Nothing wrong with both sides of the fence, as long as the rules are fair and the game is fair!

 

DB - I agree. If you can't see both sides of the fence then how would you know what was the "right" side?

 

GH - I'm sorry to have to agree with you when you're "over there" - but thanks anyway for proving it IS possible to argue from the other side in a civilised manner!

 

BD


£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing wrong with both sides of the fence, as long as the rules are fair and the game is fair!

 

Just feel a bit rubbish that now the arguments have been properly explained I can see the issues. (if only the POC or even the amended had contained the arguments!!)

 

Still, I have a feeling that this is far from over :D

I also DO see a way forward for the accepting termination argument -

 

assuming Harrisons is interpreted as we believe it may i.e. DN can be reissued at any time prior to termination even after a claim is issued as that, in itself. is not enforcement.

 

So, by accepting termination a debtor can bring an agreement to an end, get an early settlement refund to the date of termination and only pay 8% stat from that point onwards rather than contractual.

 

(This is assuming an enforceable agreement and no other issues making the agreement irredeemably unenforceable)

 

Would certainly reduce the amount owed.

 

Possible claim for damages due to teh claimant's breach of contract - possibly shaky as the breach was accepted??

BUT, imho, there is a very clear unfair relationship, the initial termination notice and any demand are unfair as not permitted, nor would be any other demands DCAs or anything like that prior to termination be permitted.


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

Thread closed at the request of the OP


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3110 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...