Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No you're not doomed. It's a shame you covered up the dates and times on your PCN since they can possibly help your case when they don't comply with the requirements of the rules in private car parks. Could you please therefore include the arrival and departure times as well as the date of the offence and the date on which they alleged they sent you the PCN. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.since the wording should invite the keeper to pay the outstanding amount. Also I cannot see on the PCN that UKPO are the Creditor though I may have missed it since it is so unusual not to include it. The upshot is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge if the driver fails to pay within 28 days-0nly the driver is now liable. As Courts [assuming it gets that far ] do not accept that the driver and the keeper are not the same these rogues will have a hard job who was driving unless you appeal or have appealed and revealed who was driving. You did say that you weren't parked there long and had that been correct you have perhaps 15 minutes where you might have had a further. argument. As it judging by the confusing times mentioned in the wording or the PCN you were there for almost an hour? However as the light was not good and I presume the signs were not illuminated that is a reason that you could not see the sign. And did you have your blue badge showing ? Interestingly the post code quoted does not agree with the Post office one in West houghton= BL5 3JS Are there two different Tesco  car parks in Bolton. You obviously could not be in two places at the same time...............
    • Especially because you have bought the car on finance, there is probably quite a lot that you can do although it sounds as if you are maybe taking the appropriate steps anyway. However you need to give as much more information. We need to know – the name of the dealer details of the vehicle, make, model, mileage, age, price paid – 70 8K? The name of the finance company – and some dates. Date purchased, the date that you have logged this with the FOS and I'm sure there will be other questions. I suppose that you don't understand your consumer rights very well because issues like the sunroof et cetera should have been repaired by the dealership and there was no need for you to spend your own money on this. On the basis of what you have told us, I would suggest that eventually should be up to recover all of your money plus the expenses you have incurred in carrying out repairs. And in fact – you could also list out the faults which have manifested themselves so far and the money you have spent on correcting those. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality remains that way for a reasonable period of time. At £78,000 I wouldn't expect any serious issues to manifest themselves in this vehicle for quite a few years. Tell us also about the £2400 inspection that you have had carried out. Were you advised to do this? To do this of your own initiative? Who carried it out? That lot for a start
    • Hi Dx, I am hoping you have had an opportunity to skim through this thread. Please may I give it a humble bump for your consideration. My last date to present a WS is Wednesday the 17th. Many thanks and kind regards 🙏  
    • Hello I've got a parking ticket, see here... https://ibb.co/DfHqg9F https://ibb.co/QvqH52m https://ibb.co/pbPPdDg https://ibb.co/X2F1X25 I've been parking at a particular corner in a small Tesco car park for years. Recently they put two electric charging plugs, one where that spot is and one at the bay next door, so I stopped using them out of courtesy in case they need to be used (I use that Tesco every day and drive past every day but have yet to see anyone use them). Recently I went back to Tesco when it was reasonably dark. All the bays were full, including the three blue badge bays. I have one but none of the cars parked in the bays did, I noticed as I walked past them (nobody ever gets pulled for that because Tesco have never policed this small car park before). Since there was two free electric bay spaces, and since I wasn't going to be long (just one product), I parked into my former 'regular' spot. There was a notice on the wall but if I'm honest I didn't read it because (a) I'm thick, and (b) I honestly thought it was just telling people how to use the device (like I said, I'm thick) rather than this being a parking fine. I went back during daylight and the sign is very obvious (as you can see from the picture), although not so obvious at night, although probably still obvious enough for you to tell me "tough luck, pal". Now they want £100 or £60 if I pay quickly. Am I doomed?
    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Repudiation of Contract


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4918 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, just a quick question I hope. :-)

 

I would be grateful of some advice regarding an invalid default notice, reclaiming charges and a miss-sold PPI, all with the same credit card.

 

I have sent a CCA and SAR to the OC and am now in the process of producing a spreadsheet for my claim/claims.

 

My problem is in which order do you proceed. I would prefer not to be engaged in a court battle, although I appreciate that they may well back down at the last minute.

 

a) It is my understanding that if I claim the charges and PPI back first, with contractual interest, it will clear the principal and arrears, if refunded in full. So there might be no need to except the repudiation of contract.

 

b) If I except the repudiation of contract first, because of the invalid default notice, I then only have to pay the arrears. Can I then reclaim the charges and PPI to pay the arrears and have some left over.

 

c) Do I do it all at once and it gets sorted out in the wash.

 

Thank you in advance

 

Regards….Turnaround

 

Edited by Turnaround
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you breach the contract, by witholding payment, please explain how the company is either repudiating or giving intention to repudiate?

 

are you not the contract breaker? are you not showing an intention that you no longer intend to abide by the contract?

 

Seems to me that the default notice point is a difficult one to get over, also significant counsels opinion is that if the default notice is invalid at law, then there can be no termination as the statute doesnt allow it, unless s87(1) is satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your input pt2537. :-)

 

I think I need to explain the default issue first.

 

In March 10, an invalid default was issued.

a) It did not contain the OC’s name & address.

b) The prescribed statements are in lower case and one is reworded.

c)The principal amount shown includes charges and miss-sold PPI.

 

In Aug 10, a demand for the full amount was received.

 

It is my understanding that, by issuing an invalid default notice followed by a demand for the full amount, a repudiation of contract occurred. As the agreement was unlawfully rescinded, they forfeited any right to payments due after the date of unlawful rescission in accordance with Section 87 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

A reminder of the original question:

a) It is my understanding that if I claim the charges and PPI back first, with contractual interest, it will clear the principal and arrears, if refunded in full. So there might be no need to except the repudiation of contract.

 

b) If I except the repudiation of contract first, because of the invalid default notice, I then only have to pay the arrears. Can I then reclaim the charges and PPI to pay the arrears and have some left over.

 

c) Do I do it all at once and it gets sorted out in the wash.

 

Which is the best or more beneficial course to take?

 

Regards…Turnaround

Link to post
Share on other sites

the default isnt an issue, this is the problem,

 

you are implying a sanction for breach of the act which is not prescribed by the Act.

 

See s170 CCA http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=consumer+credit+act+1974&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=436428&ActiveTextDocId=436644&filesize=6047

 

Secondly, your point doesnt consider the (wrongly decided) case of brandon v Amex which is a High Court authority. It is clear that the points you raise, would leave the lender , assuming the court accepts the default notice is invalid, with a right to recover outstanding arrears on the account, see woodchester v Swain

 

In short, i do no see you have merit in your arguments, however, you may have merit in your case, these are two totally different things, and should not be confused,

 

I say again, did you stop paying? if you did then you are the contract breaker, and therefore you are in trouble with the recission / repudiation arguments, sorry if its not what you wanted to hear, but you can of course wait for someone to come along and agree with you, and that is of course your right, i am merely conveying my experience and the advice i have been given from the leading barristers in the world of CCA law, and of course my experience of advocacy with my clients

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again pt2537.

 

I was regularly paying a pro-rata payment that I could afford up until June 10. Even though this was not the minimum amount required, could it be construed that I had stopped paying?

 

Regards..Turnaround

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Turnaround,

 

Pt is well positioned to feel the pulse of the courts at this time. In the light of Pts comments, and the invariable risk of the judge lottery, I would like to add;

 

If you cannot do this -

 

It is my understanding that if I claim the charges and PPI back first, with contractual interest, it will clear the principal and arrears, if refunded in full.

 

And you have written this -

 

I would prefer not to be engaged in a court battle, although I appreciate that they may well back down at the last minute.

 

You may want to consider this option, if all else fails -

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=06_time_orders

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I have submitted a CCA and no agreement was forthcoming. Also done a SAR for my charges and miss- sold PPI and hopefully a copy of the agreement.

 

I haven’t approached the companies PPI complaints procedure yet as I have only just received my data back.

 

Regards….Turnaround

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

just some info re repudiation.

it has been said that 'the essence of repudiation is an intention to abandon the contract or refuse further performance', and where someone attempts to adhere to a contracts terms re termination, (and therefore the issue of a dn for eg?), it may not necessarily be regarded as a repudiation even if the 'attempt' is unjustified. it depends on the circumstances.'

 

any thoughts on this view? thanks.

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford,

 

Thanks for the input.

 

The news from pt2537 has thrown me a little, regarding having no merit in my argument but might have merit in my case.

 

I thought I understood the process, from hours of reading the boards, but gave little thought to any argument and assumed from the OC’s actions that they had indeed cancelled the contract. This scenario is well documented on the various boards, as you will be aware.

 

I have always respected pt2537’s views and I’m currently trying to research what he was getting at, but must admit it’s tending to confuse me more than helping at the moment.

 

I’m not sure I can air a view to your post, at this moment in time but I am intrigued and a little confused.

 

I understand your interpretation of the term "repudiation"

You write

 

 

and where someone attempts to adhere to a contracts terms re termination, (and therefore the issue of a dn for eg?), it may not necessarily be regarded as a repudiation even if the 'attempt' is unjustified. it depends on the circumstances.'

 

Is that someone me or the OC?

 

Please don’t think I’m making light of your post, I can see that you have helped many others, like me also in the past. It’s just that I don’t fully understand.

 

Regards.....Turnaround

Edited by Turnaround
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi turnaround

 

the view posted is just a 'general' view re repud'n and 'termination', but with the dn issue in mind. so, in that context, the 'someone' could be regarded as the creditor. but, in general, the 'someone' could be any party to an agreement.

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford,

 

Thank you so much for potentially creating a "eureka" moment.

 

As I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, the answer is basically about morals.

 

A debtor borrows money, signs an agreement to repay over a period of time. The debtor then becomes unable to repay in line with the agreement and therefore is the first party to break that agreement. The creditor then has to issue a default notice, inline with CCA 1974. The debtor has a prescribed amount of time to rectify the issue, after which the creditor is then able to claim the full amount owed.

 

Now the morality bit. Does a debtor use the fact that, a creditor makes an error or two during the process of enforcing CCA 1974, and then uses this to his/her advantage to evade repaying the debt.

 

Rightly or wrongly my personal view is that, it depends on the conduct of the creditor during and after the term of the agreement. Some are very helpful and constructive during times of hardship, whilst others are not. For those that are not, it ends up as a personal choice as to whether you exploit their failings to gain a form of compensation/redress for all the distress and heartache caused.

 

This particular creditor initially decided to exploit a position of trust, by miss-selling me an expensive product, fully aware that I couldn’t use it. Then decides to apply unlawful charges. When I fell on hard times they refused to accept pro-rata payments, preferring instead to harass, threaten and cause heartache.

 

The only compensation/redress that I would have to this unwarranted behaviour would be to exploit their errors, you can’t always turn the other cheek.

 

I hope that I have grasped this correctly and that you consider my views to be lawful, fair and balanced

 

Regards….Turnaround

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you have grasped it perfectly Turnaround .Laws are in place to protect the debtor also.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

I would say you have grasped it perfectly Turnaround .Laws are in place to protect the debtor also.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

ditto

 

Hi Ford,

 

Thank you so much for potentially creating a "eureka" moment.

 

As I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, the answer is basically about morals.

 

A debtor borrows money, signs an agreement to repay over a period of time. The debtor then becomes unable to repay in line with the agreement and therefore is the first party to break that agreement. The creditor then has to issue a default notice, inline with CCA 1974. The debtor has a prescribed amount of time to rectify the issue, after which the creditor is then able to claim the full amount owed.

 

Now the morality bit. Does a debtor use the fact that, a creditor makes an error or two during the process of enforcing CCA 1974, and then uses this to his/her advantage to evade repaying the debt. i would prefer to describe it as avoidance rather than evasion.

 

Rightly or wrongly my personal view is that, it depends on the conduct of the creditor during and after the term of the agreement. Some are very helpful and constructive during times of hardship, whilst others are not. For those that are not, it ends up as a personal choice as to whether you exploit their failings to gain a form of compensation/redress for all the distress and heartache caused...and any poss redress for any breaches by the cr themselves (a breach example being a failure to comply with the cca (and therefore the agreement that it regulates). such as s87/88 for eg, if in issue.)

 

This particular creditor initially decided to exploit a position of trust, by miss-selling me an expensive product, fully aware that I couldn’t use it. Then decides to apply unlawful charges. When I fell on hard times they refused to accept pro-rata payments, preferring instead to harass, threaten and cause heartache.

 

The only compensation/redress that I would have to this unwarranted behaviour would be to exploit their errors, you can’t always turn the other cheek.

 

I hope that I have grasped this correctly and that you consider my views to be lawful, fair and balanced

 

Regards….Turnaround

 

also consider the poss use of s140 cca (as amended) in your favour.

 

imo :-)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not be a matter of common justice to penalize the creditor for his failure to comply with legislation contained in the CCA (as amended) regarding the issuing/serving of Default Notices, simply because there is no civil or criminal sanctions available under the said act for such failure by the creditor, is it just to ignore the fact that creditors are well positioned and fully furnished with what they must do before Terminating the agreement and proceeding with enforcement action.

 

Yes, the debtor breaks the contract by not performing his obligations (for whatever reason), but it is a matter of law that the creditor is not entitled to something unless he first complies with legislation and accurately does so comply.

 

How can it prejudice a creditor if he is told you failed with your legal obligation (the prescribed format for issuing DN's and Termination), you have Terminated the agreement, therefore your failures have cost you because that mistake is your mistake and all mistakes cost, it is a matter for the two parties to the agreement to decide whether or not they agree to reinstatement because the Court has no right to force the hand of the debtor to sign an acceptance of reinstatement.

 

If the creditor Terminates the agreement, but it later turns out that he did so on the foundation of an invalid/defective Default Notice, that does not delete the fact that the agreement has been Terminated, it is irelevant that there are no civil or criminal sanctions imposed by the said act because that does not invalidate the Termination.

 

What do you think?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,

 

What I am saying in the above post is - A defective Default Notice merely prevents the creditor from his entitlement to the full balance, it does not extinguish the Termination.

 

So a simple letter to your creditor accepting his Termination of the agreement is all that is required from the debtor, in the case of a defective Default Notice being served upon him and Termination thereafter by the creditor.

 

The creditor's own actions (of his failure(s)) have taken the ground from beneath him, the Termination is good in law, there is no sanction being imposed upon the creditor, he has extinguished his own rights of entitlement.

 

The actual (correct) amount of arrears, the debtor is still liable for and no other amount (maybe Court costs).

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...