Jump to content


What is Unlawful Rescission/Repudiation and What's the Next Step?


DontPushMe
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4030 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

Hi

Sorry didnt answer your question

Hi

Sorry didn’t answer your question about unlawful rescission.

If by this you mean,is the termination after a fauly DN is unlawful rescission no I do not believe it is, it is not even unlawful termination it is just void.

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

couldn't edit this post, but it should read '...but note the forthcoming s98A(3)........' :-)

 

Hi

Yes indeed I usually say currently when I answer questions on section 98 because of course the new European directive that comes into force in February next year will require creditors to give notice before terminating on section 98 and also give reasons for why they are doing it, it also distinguishes between the different types of termination. It is available on Ballii

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Brussels manage to stick its nasty nose into our CCA?

 

Seems to me, despite Cameron, that the EC is interfering more and more in our affairs.

 

One wonders if this means they are going to stitch us up good'n proper. I suggest that someone somewhere in this country has

prompted this - banks - lawyers - who knows.

 

I seem to recall reporting herein early this year that Lord - wassisname - top of the judges - sent out the word to the judiciary to do their best to not allow our claims to succeed, wherever it was feasable..... as history shows, the banks can get away with bribery and threats - even murder to protect their interests - and their goals to achieve one global currency, one bank, one government controlled by them.

 

Time will tell, in the meantime should we be scared off by this peterbard chap? - he sure seems to be hellbent on frightening some members... his words worry me too.

 

Perhaps peterbard would explain what he means by 'void'

 

charlie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'er, I do know what the word void means, what I don't know is what does Peterbard mean - as with a judge, all down to interpretation :|

 

 

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball
Preferd second responce

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

'er, I do know what the word void means, what I don't know is what does Peterbard mean - as with a judge, all down to interpretation :|

 

Hi Dont mind expalinin try to keep it simple

 

Default termination inafective=termination inafective( clue is in the previous phrase).Inafactive termination (ie termiantion void)=account still active. Account still active no reason corrected DN cannot be issued.

 

There 1 plus 1

 

Best regards

PB

Edited by Dodgeball
much better

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does Brussels manage to stick its nasty nose into our CCA?

 

Seems to me, despite Cameron, that the EC is interfering more and more in our affairs.

 

One wonders if this means they are going to stitch us up good'n proper. I suggest that someone somewhere in this country has

prompted this - banks - lawyers - who knows.

 

I seem to recall reporting herein early this year that Lord - wassisname - top of the judges - sent out the word to the judiciary to do their best to not allow our claims to succeed, wherever it was feasable..... as history shows, the banks can get away with bribery and threats - even murder to protect their interests - and their goals to achieve one global currency, one bank, one government controlled by them.

 

Time will tell, in the meantime should we be scared off by this peterbard chap? - he sure seems to be hellbent on frightening some members... his words worry me too.

 

Perhaps peterbard would explain what he means by 'void'

 

charlie.

 

Sorry missed this, void to me means empty of content, not of any physical or intellectual value see above

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

I do not follow you on this, if in the case of Woodchester v Swayne & Co, Swayne won because Woodchester issued a duff DN and then terminated, it went to appeal in the supreme court of judicature in the court of appeal.

 

How can a local court over rule that decision.

 

Woodchester mucked up on amount of arrears so the dn was duff

 

Regards

AWA

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, and that a failure of a Default Notice or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd V Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 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 (Kpophraror V Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

 

In the final paragraphs of the costs order in BOS v Robert Mitchell June 2009 judge langan said;

 

 

"11. Finally, I have to consider whether the costs of the defendant should be assessed on the standard or on the indemnity basis. In my judgment the assessment should be on the indemnity basis. The only realistic view of what has happened is that the bank has surrendered on a straightforward point of law, to which it has on several occasions been alerted by the defendant or his solicitors. A large commercial enterprise which proceeds with litigation in the face of warning signs of the kind which were erected here, adopts a high risk strategy. The point in question was a simple one. There was no relevant controversy as to the evidence. To choose to abandon the claim on the very day of the hearing is doing a serious disservice to the efficient administration of justice, and comes very close to constituting an abuse of process. At the very least, the bank's conduct of the litigation falls comfortably within the range of cases in which, on the modern authorities, an assessment of costs on the indemnity basis is appropriate"

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2166205.html

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, and that a failure of a Default Notice or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd V Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 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 (Kpophraror V Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

 

In the final paragraphs of the costs order in BOS v Robert Mitchell June 2009 judge langan said;

 

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2166205.html

 

 

Hi

with respect

 

There is nothing here about rescission lawful or otherwise.

 

Nothing as far as i can se about the prevention of further action by the creditor.

 

Meerly recompence for a faulty notice.

 

Wilson was about incorrect prescribrd terms, sorry struggling to see the connection. You saying the agreement was void?

 

or terminated.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Snippet from Woodchester v Swayne

If a sum of money has to be paid it needs to be "specified". And if the figure given is more than the sum which the giver of the notice is entitled to demand, the notice, in my judgment, must be invalid.

 

Mr Hodgkinson sought to persuade us that because the plaintiffs did not concede their error until the start of the trial and because a lot of the hearing time was devoted to the issue of the default notice we should make a different order in relation to costs.

 

Although the terms where mentioned at 1st, most of the appeal revolved around the dn.

 

I have read the transcript about 5 times and in my view, the appeal was successful because of the duff dn, get the amount wrong and you have no comebacks.

 

I may be wrong, if i am i put my hands up, but that is how i read it.

 

AWA

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...