Brandon Case

[The Mould]

Mould, thank you for your tirade and I am sure it was not directed at me as I did not have the good fortune or misfortune of crossing your path.

If I wanted to direct anything at you, I would, such as I am now since you have now crossed my path, therefore, I am going to kill you.

 

I can't comment on your previous stance and your past dealings with "cowards" however our interpretation of statute and its SIs is irrelevant here which is why we have case law to help guide us.

Cowards were what they were and still are.

 

With access to law material like you have, it should be obvious that the law is an organic thing that changes every day thus a ruling one day which is a precedent may change the next day as not every case is identical. It is a best fit model when using precedents. It is not that anyone was wrong or right, it is the best decision at the time.

If there are any changes to statute then such are applied by way of amendments. It is not a question of what is the best decision to hand down in any event, it is a question of what is fair and just.

 

That is one of the ways legal professionals base their educated opinion on matters. They look at the case law and try to look for differentiators in the case if the precedent is not for them or look for similarities if it is. Case law is like a map drawn on a beach with the tide coming in, it can change at any moment or even get wiped off.

 

So at the moment we have Harrison and Brandon which state that they can re-serve the default notice despite your repudation of contract argument, thus unless another precedent changes that, that will be the de facto stance because unfortunately, our word is not the law despite how we want to interpret statute or the SIs.

I disagree with you, the circumstances to which a bad notice can be rectified with the service of a good notice has not been established and if such a principle is to be applied to contracts such as credit agreements, then the same principle must be applied to all contracts governed by English law and not even the Supreme Court will agree to such.

 

Further to the above, I was not making any reference to you, unless you have a guilty conscience dear fellow.

 

If you do want to continue to f me, then you had better be prepared to do it to the f death.

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Mould, thank you for your tirade and I am sure it was not directed at me as I did not have the good fortune or misfortune of crossing your path.

If I wanted to direct anything at you, I would, such as I am now since you have now crossed my path, therefore, I am going to kill you.

 

I can't comment on your previous stance and your past dealings however our interpretation of statute and its SIs is irrelevant here which is why we have case law to help guide us.

Cowards were what they were and still are.

 

With access to law material like you have, it should be obvious that the law is an organic thing that changes every day thus a ruling one day which is a precedent may change the next day as not every case is identical. It is a best fit model when using precedents. It is not that anyone was wrong or right, it is the best decision at the time.

If there are any changes to statute then such are applied by way of amendments. It is not a question of what is the best decision to hand down in any event, it is a question of what is fair and just.

 

That is one of the ways legal professionals base their educated opinion on matters. They look at the case law and try to look for differentiators in the case if the precedent is not for them or look for similarities if it is. Case law is like a map drawn on a beach with the tide coming in, it can change at any moment or even get wiped off.

 

So at the moment we have Harrison and Brandon which state that they can re-serve the default notice despite your repudation of contract argument, thus unless another precedent changes that, that will be the de facto stance because unfortunately, our word is not the law despite how we want to interpret statute or the SIs.

I disagree with you, the circumstances to which a bad notice can be rectified with the service of a good notice has not been established and if such a principle is to be applied to contracts such as credit agreements, then the same principle must be applied to all contracts governed by English law and not even the Supreme Court will agree to such.

 

Further to the above, I was not making any reference to you, unless you have a guilty conscience dear fellow.

 

EDIT

 

The Mould

Edited November 11, 2011 by caro
Removing unnecessary comments

[TweedleDee]

I disagree with you, the circumstances to which a bad notice can be rectified with the service of a good notice has not been established and if such a principle is to be applied to contracts such as credit agreements, then the same principle must be applied to all contracts governed by English law and not even the Supreme Court will agree to such.

 

You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the High Court and the Court of Appeal and you are entitled to your opinion, despite it not being binding on anyone except yourself and the people you convince that it has no relevance. I am just repeating what they are saying as their opinion, dear fellow, carries more weight than anyone here including mine.

 

EDIT

Edited November 11, 2011 by caro
Off topic comment

[ZENTRIX9]

Hi, I have a scenario if someone can answer me.

 

I can see that I will be struggling to keep up payments so I contact Paypal/Santander to see if they will reduce the payments, told point blank no!

Ok so I find the CAG online, Whoopee! I issue a CCA and seven days after I send them the request they issue a default notice. The default notice is invalid. The CCA in my opinion wasnt complied with so I put the account into dispute, arears around £80. Still adding interest and charges to the account. Still getting statements from Paypal. I accept their rescission of the contract and ask them for the amount of arrears to pay.

Transfered to Viking collections and try to bully me into paying, then Lewis debt recovery send letters on behalf of their client Santander Cards UK Ltd saying to pay up. I get a letter back stating that the agreement between Santander and myself was terminated and the Lewis Group became the legal owners of the debt, so the account was not terminated as I have suggested. Nor have they rescinded on the agreement. To date I have not recieved a letter telling me that the account has been assigned. The court summons has Santander as the claimant and Howard Cohen as their solicitors. Have Santander legaly sold the debt? Who actually owns the debt cos I am a little confused as I am getting letters from so many different people.

 

Do I let it go to court? I would like to send the allocation questionaire in today.

 

If I let it go to court, as I understand it, as the default is invalid they can only ask for the arrears? They can only ask for full payment if they have terminated the account? They say in the letter in answer to my questions that they have not terminated my account, so in court do I ask them what allowed them to end a non default credit card agreement?

 

Any views or help is very welcome.

[DonkeyB]

Quick question from the devil: how do you justify not paying anything just because you put the account into dispute? I think it’s a common mistake, and one you may have to answer.

[ZENTRIX9]

@ DonkeyB, I stopped paying because I read on this forum that to continue to pay was an admission to the debt. I have no problem with paying, the problem I had was the brick wall they built and hid behind. They wouldnt even talk to me about it, very unco-operative.

So after reading other peoples experiences I took this avenue. I dont like the way that they bully prople, I had a similar experience with the DVLA and took it to court and they dropped the case.

[DonkeyB]

But you don’t deny the debt, do you? This is the problem – I think you have started out from completely the wrong premise, and made an error by not paying even a nominal amount that you offered. Puts you on the back foot straight away.

 

I think the answer lies in the letters you write to them to try and resolve it. Identify what you want first as the outcome.

[DonkeyB]

Sorry, I’m not being awkward – just trying to demonstrate that this is a forum, and forums are not always right. I may, of course, be wrong myself – I just think you need to identify the resolution you want then work at it.

[ZENTRIX9]

The arrears was only £80 when they threw up the wall and issued a default notice. That to me is being un cooperative. I asked originally if they would freeze the interest as I couldnt afford to pay and wanted to reduce the debt. They left me the only other option to let it go to court. I am self employed, live off tax fredits and havent drawn a wage for nearly 2 years. i think the court would just tell them to freeze the inerest so I can pay them back, so I wont lose out either way. Hopefully :o)

Edited November 14, 2011 by ZENTRIX9

[DonkeyB]

Have you got a thread on this? Plenty of fronts you can defend on. Bear in mind that you are entitled to defend even on technicalities, when all you wanted was a resolution, and you made sensible offers. As long as you have kept records of your offers they will look foolish.

[citizenB]

Zentrix, could you please start a thread of your own and we can transfer these posts over for you.

[ZENTRIX9]

No problem

[cecilrhode]

someone said earlier that a company can break an agreement by its actions. Think it was mayfly. Thats a general aspect of contract law.

 

I had a account that had insurance packaged with it as a gift valid for 2 years as long as I held the account. I ran into money problems, told the bank, who quickly after that issued a bad DN and then 'terminated'.

 

Some time after, I tried to claim on the insurance. The insurers told me that the bank had told them the insurance was finished because I no longer had the account.The bank confirmed that they only provided the insurance as long as I was a customer.

 

Now, after Brandon, we are told that the bank didn't have the right to end the account, and that even when they said they had, they couldn't have done. Well, by not paying for my insurance according to the agreement, they broke the agreement. In other repudiation (or rescission as some wrongly call it)

 

So I suppose, rather than rely on a common sense interpretation of contract law, that the bank lost its rights to the balance when they refused to provide the facilities of the account - insurance, monthly statements, and a credit account (regardless of the available credit balance), I have to rely on the findings of the Brandon case, and sue the bank for my losses not covered by the insurance, as well as the cost of equivalent insurance, and in turn, allow them to add the relevant amount of interest to the balance as if the account was still live. And after that, they still won't provide monthly statements or the other account facilities.

 

My point is that at some point when a bank has acted on a bad DN, common sense must tell us that even though we know now that a bank did not have the right to end the agreement, in fact, it did by virtue that it stopped providing the account facilities.

 

Just as the judge said that Amex may have had the right to contractually end the agreement, it could not use that argument as justification or excusal of the fact that it chose to go down the CCA route and got it wrong; then if a bank acts on a bad DN, 'terminates' then sells the account, it should not be allowed to say "well, yes we said we were closing the account after issuing the DN, and we did so, and then sold the debt to some shark, but in fact we were just availing ourselves of the right to sell an asset".

 

Another point, relating to debt sales, is that you have an agreement where the bank agrees to provide an account and associated facilities. if they sell that account to a DCA who cannot provide those facilities, is THAT not breaking the agreement? Yes, they may have the right to sell the DEBT, but they still made an agreement to provide facilities -credit etc. By selling the debt. they close the account and avoid their responsbilities whilst denying the consumer the benefits of the account, whilst holding him to his responsibilities.

[Kayyak]

I have a debt that has re-surfaced where MBNA sold the debt before the expiry date of the DN. What is the correct term I should use as I gather by this thread, unlawful rescission should not be mentioned?

[Guest]

I have a debt that has re-surfaced where MBNA sold the debt before the expiry date of the DN. What is the correct term I should use as I gather by this thread, unlawful rescission should not be mentioned?

 

do you have a thread on it? if so, post up there, otherwise start a thread re your case?

[citizenB]

do you have a thread on it? if so, post up there, otherwise start a thread re your case?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?253176-MBNA-sold-debt-before-DN-expired

[DonkeyB]

Interesting – shame your thread wasn’t in this section! Will comment over there to revive it. Some interesting stuff on there.