DCA / Goldfish & Egg / combined the 2 debts into one alleged sum of money.

[toymaker1]

Did the OC sell the a/c before any notice period expired?

No.

 

Did the OC actually terminate the account?

Yes.

 

What reasons if any have they given?

 

One reason given by Egg was:-

"Within the 1974 Consumer Credit Act between points 64 - 71 it's provides information around the legal entitlement that we've had to abide to around the closure of customer's accounts"

 

Another reason given was:-

"Our decision to do this fully complies with our obligations under the Consumer Credit Act"

 

-that answer suggests that there are obligations under a section of CCA with which Egg's decision to terminate my agreement fully complies. I simply asked to them indicate to me which section that was. I do not consider that to be an unreasonable request, and I consider that I am entitled to expect a substantive response to my enquiry.

 

Who really owns this account now?

Good question. I dont have the answer to that. Only the judge can decide that.

 

When did they buy it?

The Claimant bought it from Egg in October 2009. The account was terminated in March 2008.

 

Did you receive NOA's for the assignments?

Yes.

[toymaker1]

Hello Toymaker1

 

The Notice of Assignment is not an issue/argument that is available to you in your defence to this action, as you say, both original creditors served the NOA upon you.

 

I have not read the entirety of your thread/case, can you please sum up for me in a nut shell, precisely what is your defence to this action?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

 

Further to my post 90, here is an outline of the issues, and how they arose.

 

 

 

In November 2006 I got into arrears with my Goldfish (then Morgan Stanley) credit card account. In January 2007 I reached an agreement with Goldfish that I would repay £150 per month with interest suspended, until the outstanding indebtedness was cleared. The debt repayment plan was to be reviewed after 6 months.

 

In August 2007 Goldfish wrote to confirm continuation of the debt repayment programme. The letter contained a sentence, saying “Providing you make payment to us for the agreed amount, by the agreed date, we will reduce the interest rate charged to 5.88%”.

I wrote to Goldfish saying;

“Regarding your statement that it has been agreed between Goldfish and myself that 5.88% will be added to the balance of my overindebtedness with effect from 01/09/2007, I would be grateful if you would provide evidence of such an agreement.

Regarding the existing agreement, whereby I was currently paying no interest, as it was suspended, I wrote;

“In light of the fact that Goldfish appears to have arbitrarily altered the terms of that agreement, I am suspending my agreed monthly payments of £150 until the terms of the agreement have been re-clarified and re-confirmed. I would be grateful if you would confirm if,

Goldfish wishes to continue with the existing agreed arrangement for the repayment of my overindebtedness , or

Goldfish wishes to make a new agreed arrangement for the repayment of my overindebtedness.

I look forward to your response as a matter of urgency.”

 

I had expected Goldfish to investigate the query raised in my letter, as required by paragraph 2.8 i. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003, but Goldfish did not investigate my query.

I also expected Goldfish to cease collection activity whilst investigating my query, as required by paragraph 8.2 k. of the guidelines, but Goldfish did not cease collection activity in respect of my outstanding indebtedness.

 

In November 2007 Goldfish gave me a default notice.

 

In April 2008 Goldfish sent me a Notice of Assignment informing me that Goldfish had sold and assigned my agreement to a DCA. In April 2008 I requested a copy of the executed agreement from the DCA under S78(1) of CCA. In December the DCA sent me a copy of my application for a Goldfish credit card which was too small to be readable.

 

In December 2008 I wrote to the DCA saying “Unfortunately I am not able to make any comment upon the matters set out in your letter, as you have not yet provided me with the information requested by me, as provided for by S78 of CCA 1974. For example, the document you have sent to me, which apparently purports to be a copy of the executed agreement does not comply with the requirements, stipulated in S61© of CCA, that the document is to be in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. Nor does the document you have sent to me comply with the requirement, stipulated in S21(1) of CCA (Cancellation Notice and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, that the lettering in every copy of an executed agreement shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible. You will be aware that the document sent to me is not readily legible even with the aid of a magnifying glass”

 

 

 

In reply, the DCA wrote

“with regards to the requirements of the agreements regulations 1983.1553 concerning the form and content of the agreement, these regulations do not deal with this matter, as it is the CCA that deals with this matter as primary legislation.

I replied

”you have, correctly observed that it is the CCA that deals with this matter as primary legislation. In light of that, I draw your attention to the provisions of S180(2)(a) of the CCA, which clearly indicates that a duty to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied conforms to the prescribed requirements, as I have referred to in my previous letter”

 

In May 2009 the solictors acting for the DCA wrote to me informing that the DCA had transferred the account to them. I wrote the following letter to the solictors:

 

1.

In the course of accepting transfer of my account to yourself from xxxxxxxx you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client, xxxxxxxx, is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client will be aware, are set out in my letters xxxxxxx to xxxxxxxx inclusive. As you know, paragraph 2.8k. of the Office of Fair Trade Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003 updated December 2006 makes it clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. I look forward to the results of your investigation.

3.

In the event that the dispute between Morgan Stanley/Goldfish, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx Solicitors and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

3a.

Both you and your client xxxxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of paragraph 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3c.

I consider that the manner in which you and your client have exercised their rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 amount to an unfair relationship within the terms of S140 of the Act, and I will request the court to make an appropriate Order under S140.

3d

I will also draw the court’s attention to the manner in which xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx solicitors have dealt with the dispute between Morgan Stanley/Goldfish, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx solicitors and myself, particularly in relation to,

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The Data Protection Act 1998,

The Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and Unfair Business Practices (Updated December 2006),

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,

The pre-action protocols which have been approved by the Head of Civil Justice,

The Credit Services Association Code Of Practice.

4.

I am confident that xxxxxxxx solicitors will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters

xxxxx to xxxxx inclusive.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

My outstanding indebtedness to Goldfish at that time was £10,036.07

 

In August 2010 the DCA issued a Claim against me.

 

The POC was:

“The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. Despite demand for

Payment, 24342.64 remains due. The

Claimant claims 24752.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs.”

 

Notice that the POC states that 24342.64 remains due, yet the Claimant claims 24752.64.

 

 

 

Regarding the inclusion of Egg in the POC,

In 2001 I entered into a regulated credit card agreement with Egg, which was never in default. On January 31 2008 I received a letter from Egg;

“under condition 20.2 of your Egg Card agreement, we are giving you formal notice that your agreement will end 35 days after the date of this letter.”

and

“any regular payments such as monthly subscriptions will not be paid from the Egg Card account, so you will need to cancel them with the service provider and arrange alternative means of payment”

and

“You must continue to pay at least the agreed monthly repayment each month until any debit balance on the account is repaid in full. The Egg Card agreement continues to apply until the balance is repaid in full”.

and

“If you have any additional questions about the termination of your Egg Card Agreement, please visit http://www.egg.com”.

 

I wrote to Egg in February 2008 proposing a debt repayment plan similar to that which I had agreed with Goldfish in January 2007. My letter ended with “I would be grateful if Egg would act with urgency in this matter in order that I can continue to make regular repayments to Egg without interruption”.

 

Egg did not provide any response to my proposal for a debt repayment arrangement.

 

being aware that my Egg agreement was regulated by CCA 1974, I examined the Act to find out which part of the Act had provided Egg with legal entitlement to terminated my Egg agreement. As I could not readily find that part of the Act which provided legal entitlement to Egg to terminate my Egg credit card agreement I emailed Egg on 10 March 2008 saying;

 

“I would be grateful if Egg would indicate to me the relevant section of the Consumer credit Act 1974 which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my credit card agreement”

 

Egg replied

”the terms and conditions of the Egg Card state that we reserve the right to terminate your agreement. These terms and conditions comply fully with the Consumer Credit Act”.

On 11 March Egg emailed;

“The Consumer Credit Act is different for each bank depending on which parts they use in their terms and conditions”.

 

On 12 March Egg emailed;

“Egg has the right to close your card at anytime after 30 days notice. This is covered in section 20.2 of your terms and conditions”.

 

 

I replied;

“You have indicated that the termination of my Egg agreement by Egg is covered in section 20.2. Could you inform me which part of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act section 20.2 is compliant with ?”

 

On 14 March 2008 Egg sent an email saying;

“Within the 1974 Consumer credit Act between points 64-71 provides information around the legal entitlement that we’ve had to abide to around the closure of customer’s accounts”.

 

On 18 March 2008 I sent a letter to Vikram Pandit, Egg’s Chief Executive Officer, and also to Bert Pijls, Egg’s Chief Executive Officer in the UK; the letter included the following;

 

“I am writing to you in order that should matters in dispute between Egg and myself be put to the Court for adjudication you, as the person with executive responsibility for Egg, will have full knowledge of the matter, and, if necessary, will be able to explain to the Court how your company has dealt with it.

 

I would prefer a resolution of this dispute between Egg and myself without the need for it to be brought to court. Therefore I am prepared to discuss with Egg any aspect of this matter which could avoid the dispute being brought to court and which could enable a settlement of this dispute between Egg and myself”

 

On 31 March 2008 I emailed Egg saying;

I have received a document described as a ‘Default Notice’ from Egg dated 27 March 2008 Ref. 002149.

The document states that if I do not take the action required by that document before 24 April 2008 Egg will terminate my Egg Credit card agreement.

In it’s letter to me dated 31 January 2008 Egg stated that my Egg Credit Card agreement has been terminated. I would be grateful if Egg would clarify this apparent contradiction”.

 

On 01 April Egg emailed me saying;

“Due to the current status of your account, we are unable to answer your query through secure messaging”

I replied;

“I would be grateful if Egg would inform me what is the current status of my account. That is to say, is my account terminated or not terminated”

 

On 02 April Egg emailed me saying;

“I can confirm your account is terminated as of 6th March 2008” “the agreement continues until you have paid the balance you owe us”.

 

I replied;

“I acknowledge your confirmation that Egg terminated my account as from 6th march 2008. “both Egg and myself now clearly understand that Egg terminated my account on 6th March 2008, and that it is clear that as my account has been terminated it cannot be terminated again”

 

On 04 April Egg emailed me saying;

“I have reviewed your account and can confirm that your agreement has been terminated” and

“we issued a Default Notice on your account on the 27th March. It then allows 28 days to bring your account up to date, either by making a payment or going into an arrangement with us. If you fail to to do either of these things, your account will be terminated”.

 

On 04 April I emailed Egg saying;

“ I ask Egg to note that, as my Egg agreement has been terminated, it would constitute an offence under the Data protection Act and the consumer Credit Act for Egg to pass on to a third party any data concerning me held by Egg without my consent”.

 

On 13 January 2009 I received a letter before action from xxxxxxxxxx solicitors acting for xxxxxxxx on behalf of Egg.

 

On 15 January 2009 I sent the following letter to xxxxxxxxx solicitors;

 

“1.

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, xxxxxx, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client are fully aware, are set out in my letters xxxx to xxxxx inclusive. As you know, paragraph 2.8 k. of the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003, updated in December 2006, makes it clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. I look forward to the results of your investigation.

3.

In the event that the dispute between Egg Banking plc and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

3a

Both you and your client. xxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of paragraph 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3b.

Both you and your client have ignored and disregarded the fact, of which both you and your client are fully aware, that the debt claimed by Egg Banking plc is disputed by me, and both you and your client have continued to make unjustified demands for payment, in breach of paragraphs 2.6h. and 2.8i. of the OFT Debt collection Guidance.

 

I also consider your client’s actions amount to psychological harassment within the terms of section 2.6h. of the OFT Guidelines, in that your client has ignored and disregarded the fact that I have reasonably queried and disputed the debt.

3e

I also consider that the way in which your client has exercised his rights under the agreement amount to an unfair relationship in terms of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

4.

As the solicitors acting for ARC (Europe) Ltd you will be aware that the credit card agreement between Egg and myself is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, therefore I would be grateful if you would indicate to me the relevant section of the Act which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement with effect from 6th March 2008.

 

5.

In the event that this matter is put before a court I will draw the court’s attention to the manner in which xxxxxx Solicitors have dealt with the dispute between Egg Banking plc and myself, particularly in relation to,

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The Data Protection Act 1998,

The Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and Unfair Business Practices (Updated December 2006),

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,

The Credit Services Association Code Of Practice.

I am confident that Egg, or the parties acting on behalf of Egg will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters xxxx to xxxx.

 

Yours faithfully”

 

On 12 October 2009 I received a letter from Egg giving notice of the transfer and sale of the debt due to Egg from me, to the Claimant.

 

On 27th November I received a letter before action from the Claimant’s in-house solicitor.

 

On 01 December 2009 I sent the following letter to the Claimant’s solicitor;

 

“1.

In the course of preparing a County Court Claim on behalf of your client, xxxxxxxxx, you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client will be aware, are set out in my letters xxxx to xxxxx inclusive. As you know, paragraph 2.8 k. of the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance of July 2003, updated in December 2006, makes it clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. I look forward to the results of your investigation.

3.

In the event that the dispute between Egg Banking plc and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

3a

Both you and your client, xxxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of Section 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3b.

Both you and your client, xxxxxxxxx, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have accepted assignment of the disputed account. You will be aware that this is in breach of Sections 2.6c and 2.8f of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, and also in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

4.

I also consider your client’s actions amount to psychological harassment within the terms of section 2.6h. of the OFT Guidelines, in that your client has ignored and disregarded the fact that I have reasonably queried and disputed the debt.

5.

I will also draw the attention of the court to the manner in which both you and your client have acted in respect of the dispute between Egg Banking and myself, which I consider amounts to an unfair relationship in terms of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, and I will request the court to make an appropriate Order under S140 of the Act.

6.

I am confident that Egg Banking and xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx Solicitors will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters xxxx xxxxx.

Yours faithfully

 

My outstanding indebtedness to Egg at that time was £14,195.73.

 

 

In August 2010 the DCA issued a Claim against me.

 

 

The POC was:

“The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. Despite demand for

Payment, 24342.64 remains due. The

Claimant claims 24752.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs.”

[Tingy]

Before anyone attempts to post in this thread further. May I suggest you put your efforts into helping someone willing to accept help. Look at posts #60&61 and 63&64 - the questions and answers are VERY clear yet nothing has changed and Toymaker has not answered the questions posted later (twice) to start a sensible defence.

 

This has been going on I'm told since 2008 and so I think anyone trying to help is sadly banging their head against a brick wall.

 

Toymaker is clearly an intelligent person with a good knowledge (but not in my mind understanding) of the law. I suggest respectfully we leave it to him to fight his own way, monitor the thread and if he asks direct questions try to answer them, but not dissuade him from his defence as this is not seemingly going to happen!

 

[spamheed]

Banging my head hurts

Edited January 1, 2011 by spamheed

[toymaker1]

So to clarify they give you notice that they are going to terminate your account (without a default) but in line with the terms and conditions which you agreed to? You now feel that this is unlawful

 

They then terminated the account in line with the same T&C You now feel that this is unlawful

 

Indeed I do.

I ask you to consider the fact that whatever T&C's are in the agreement, those T&C's themselves must be consistent with the provisions of CCA.

Therefore, it is not the T&C's in the agreement which are the ultimate authority as to what the creditor is entitled to do, but it is CCA which is the ultimate authority as to what the creditor can do.

- particularly as, in my case, the creditor said that the termination of my agreement was in full compliance with the Consumer Credit Act.

I understand that to mean that there is something specifically mentioned in the CCA with which the creditor has complied with when he terminated my agreement.

Regarding my "agreement" to the creditor's T&C's,

Credit card T&C's are not terms which have been personally agreed between the parties, they are T&C's which derive their authority totally from CCA.

The first words you read when entering into a card agreement are -"this is a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act".

My understanding of that sentence is that every single action taken by the creditor in relation to his administration of the agreement is regulated by the Act.

i.e. it does not mean, for example, that the credit agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act only for as long as the creditor wishes to be regulated by the Act,

and when he no longer wishes to be regulated by it, he can just tell you that he is terminating the agreement. - you suggest that he can just terminate it, as it is not specifically mentioned in the Act, and there is therefore no prescribed form, so I guess the creditor could tell the debtor if he passes him in the street, or perhaps he could pass the message on via a mutual friend, or he might find it more convenient to leave a text message.

And of course, the fact that the agreement is regulated by the CCA does not mean that the creditor must investigate your reasonable complaints -No, no, he can just ignore your complaints because, after all the rules about complaints are not contained in statute, they are merely guidelines, which are not intended to have any real effect in protecting the debtor.

[toymaker1]

Rather than demanding the full amount, which they would be entitled to under the same T&C they allow you to continue to make payment by the lesser agreed amount You now feel that this is unfair

 

Indeed I do.

I not only consider it to be unfair, within the meaning of S140A of CCA, but I also consider it to be unlawful - unless you can indicate under which law or regulation the creditor is entitled to terminate an undefaulted credit card agreement and demand that the debtor must continue to carry out his obligations which had existed under the now terminated agreement.

[spamheed]

Banging my head hurts

Edited January 1, 2011 by spamheed

[spamheed]

Banging my head hurts

Edited January 1, 2011 by spamheed

[toymaker1]

In earlier posts you maintain that the OFT guidelines and CPUTR override the T&C of this agreement which is governed by the CCA.

 

so which are actually binding on you?

the contract that you signed? Obviously not because you now reckon the agreement to be unfair

The terms and conditions of the contract? Obviously not because they are only allowed to use the ones that you agree to

The CCA? Obviously not because the OFT Guidelines carry more weight

CPUTR?

OFT Guidelines?

 

It's quite simple.

The Terms and conditions which are actually binding on me are the same T&C's which are binding on the creditor- namely those T&C's which are consistent with the provisions of CCA 1974 and it's associated regulations.

[spamheed]

Banging my head hurts

Edited January 1, 2011 by spamheed

[nicklea]

It's quite simple.

The Terms and conditions which are actually binding on me are the same T&C's which are binding on the creditor- namely those T&C's which are consistent with the provisions of CCA 1974 and it's associated regulations.

 

Once again, you are wrong.

 

The terms of the contract are binding on you unless they are INconsistent with the CCA or any other law.

 

You really mustr park this whole idea that unless something is explicitly allowed then it is prohibited

[toymaker1]

Is it not clearly stated in the Terms and Conditions (that you signed and agreed to be bound by) that they can terminate at any time and at such point the full amount would be repayable? this would be regarded as "reasonable" by the courts because the Terms and Conditions (that you signed and agreed to be bound by) say that they can do this.

 

By offering you the option to carry on repaying a lower amount instead of the full amount, the creditor can and would not only be seen as being "reasonable" but also as being "fair" by not persuing the full amount as laid out in the Terms and Conditions (that you signed and agreed to be bound by)

 

As I said in a previous post, can you indicate under which law or regulation or legal precedent a creditor is entitled to demand that the debtor continue to carry out the obligations which had existed in the undefaulted agreement which the creditor has now terminated. - I note that you do not say that the creditor must continue to carry out his obligations which had existed under the undefaulted agreement which the creditor has now terminated - namely the obligation to provide credit to the debtor within the provisions of CCA.

Sounds pretty one sided to me.

[toymaker1]

Once again, you are wrong.

 

The terms of the contract are binding on you unless they are INconsistent with the CCA or any other law.

 

You really mustr park this whole idea that unless something is explicitly allowed then it is prohibited

I'm not sure what point you are making.

I totally agree with you that the terms of the contract are binding on me unless they are inconsistent with the CCA or any other law.

[spamheed]

Banging my head hurts

Edited January 1, 2011 by spamheed

[nicklea]

I'm not sure what point you are making.

I totally agree with you that the terms of the contract are binding on me unless they are inconsistent with the CCA or any other law.

 

 

Ok, I will try to make it simpler. You are saying that the terms must be consistent. I am saying that they must not be inconsistent. There is a difference between the two.

 

Have a think about it

[toymaker1]

and within these Terms and Conditions which you signed and agreed to be bound by it clearly states that they can terminate your account at any time, they have taken the opportunity to utilise this term, so where exactly is your problem

 

My problem is the Egg term which clearly states that they can terminate my account at any time. - I consider that term is inconsistent with the provisions of CCA.

Such a term, if it was lawful, would be able to override any provision relating to termination contained in CCA.

For example, if a creditor can literally terminate a credit card agreement on a whim at any time, for whatever personal or internal business reason he had - how would the consumer be protected by the provisions of CCA insofar as they concern termination of agreements? - those provisions would be rendered meaningless and pointless.

[toymaker1]

Ok, I will try to make it simpler. You are saying that the terms must be consistent. I am saying that they must not be inconsistent. There is a difference between the two.

 

Have a think about it

OK, explain the difference. I admit I dont know the difference.

 

Thanks.

[nicklea]

Spamheed,

 

Banging my head hurts

:lol: :lol:

Edited January 1, 2011 by nicklea

[nicklea]

OK, explain the difference. I admit I dont know the difference.

 

Thanks.

 

Ok, time to go back to school,

 

One statement is consistent with another statement if it agrees with it.

 

One statement is not inconsistent with another statement if it does not disagree with it.

 

Lets take an example:-

 

Assume that today is Monday

 

Statement 1 - Today is Monday

Statement 2 - Today is a weekday

 

Statement 1 is consistent with statement 2 as it agrees with it

 

Secondly, again assume that today is Monday

 

Statement 1 - Today is Monday

Statement 2 - The time is 3pm

 

Statement 2 is not inconsistent with statement 1 as it does not disagree with it. In fact statement 2 mentions nothing about what day it is.

 

Now, I've noticed from some of your posts on other threads that sometimes you appear to have some difficulties in understanding analogies.

 

I would have thought that the above analogy would be self evident and not need further explanation - but even so I will try and point it out to you.

 

There is no statement in the CCA covering the non-default termination of a running credit agreement.

 

As long as the terms of the agreement relating to termination do not disagree with the CCA - or any other law - then they are not inconsistent and so, I would suggest, are enforceable.

 

Your contention has been that they must agree with the CCA and so, if the CCA is silent on a topic then any terms on this topic cannot agree with the CCA and so are prohibited.

 

Your contention is not correct.

[Tingy]

I am formally nominating Nicklea to be made a saint for her services to Toymaker and her endless patience with someone who seems to be on here just to antagonise, thus drawing some sort of perverse pleasure from their endlessly repeated, extremely boring assertions over and over and over and over again when nobody else agrees with the OP.

 

SAINT Nicklea - I salute you!:whoo::hail::lol:

[spamheed]

I am formally nominating Nicklea to be made a saint for her services to Toymaker and her endless patience with someone who seems to be on here just to antagonise, thus drawing some sort of perverse pleasure from their endlessly repeated, extremely boring assertions over and over and over and over again when nobody else agrees with the OP.

 

SAINT Nicklea - I salute you!:whoo::hail::lol:

 

In fairness, I think the OP's arguments surrounding the termination and default hold some merit, just not as much as he believes, or in the manner. IMHO the OP's focussing on what seems to be an untenable defence is a mistake

 

The fact that they sent him a default after termination is worth mentioning, as is the threat to terminate after the account had already been terminated would indicate that the paperwork may have been c@cked up and should be examined asap. The initial termination appears to have been concluded correctly, but the the assignments, the agreements and the amount claimed, plus if any, charges and PPI should be examined, very closely but by someone other than I

[Tingy]

In fairness, I think the OP's arguments surrounding the termination and default hold some merit, just not as much as he believes, or in the manner. IMHO the OP's focussing on what seems to be an untenable defence is a mistake

 

The fact that they sent him a default after termination is worth mentioning, as is the threat to terminate after the account had already been terminated would indicate that the paperwork may have been c@cked up and should be examined asap. The initial termination appears to have been concluded correctly, but the the assignments, the agreements and the amount claimed, plus if any, charges and PPI should be examined, very closely but by someone other than I

 

I have never doubted his intelligence or knowledge. I do question his reasoning and I particularly question why he said quite clearly, "Yes I'm willing to abandon this defence and start a new one" when his actions or inactions since then have proved otherwise. I've asked twice for him to look into and to respond to points of a new line of defence and there has been no reply, despite his saying he was willing to do this. I even said we'd probably use bits of his old defence, so agree with you that there is some merit. However, you cannot escape the fact that his words are not backed up by actions, otherwise I wouldn't be making this post now, I'd be helping construct a more substantial defence.

[toymaker1]

There is no statement in the CCA covering the non-default termination of a running credit agreement.

 

As long as the terms of the agreement relating to termination do not disagree with the CCA - or any other law - then they are not inconsistent and so, I would suggest, are enforceable.

 

Your contention has been that they must agree with the CCA and so, if the CCA is silent on a topic then any terms on this topic cannot agree with the CCA and so are prohibited.

Your contention is not correct.

 

As a litigant in person, my allegation that the relationship between the claimant who is the creditor, and myself who is the debtor, has been unfair to me, will be expressed to the court in the manner of a legally untrained ordinary person. That is to say, I will not have the knowledge or the experience or the skill to present my case in terms of the finer points of law or rules or legal precedent.

 

However, the unfairness which I have experienced in my contractual relationship with the claimant has been so gross, that I am confident that my presentation in ordinary non-legal language, based upon my personal experience supported by documentary evidence of the creditor’s unfairness towards me will enable the court to make a proper judgement of the issues.

 

Much of what I will say during the proceedings will be my own opinion. It will be for the judge to decide how much weight to give to my opinions.

 

For example, In my opinion, the statement made on every application for a credit card agreement that it is a credit agreement regulated by CCA 1974 clearly indicates that every action taken by a creditor in the administration of the credit agreement is regulated by CCA 1974, including the act of terminating the agreement.

 

In my opinion, the CCA 1974 requires service of a notice in a specified form if the creditor wishes to terminate a regulated agreement.

 

In my opinion the specified form of notice required to be served by the creditor if he wishes to terminate a regulated agreement is prescribed in The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, and there is no other form of termination available to the creditor.

 

In my opinion it is unfair within the meaning of S140A of CCA that the creditor terminated my regulated agreement without serving me a notice in the specified form required by CCA 1974 and as precribed in the Regulations.

 

In my opinion the creditor acted unfairly within the meaning of S140A of CCA by not investigating my reasonable queries relating to my credit card agreement.

 

In my opinion the creditor acted unfairly within the meaning of S140A of CCA by not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating my reasonable queries relating to my credit card agreement.

 

In my opinion the creditor acted unfairly within the meaning of S140A of CCA by assigning and selling my credit card agreement when the creditor was fully aware that the agreement was disputed by me.

 

It will be for the creditor to prove to the court that he has not acted unfairly.

[toymaker1]

 

 

As long as the terms of the agreement relating to termination do not disagree with the CCA - or any other law - then they are not inconsistent and so, I would suggest, are enforceable.

 

Your contention has been that they must agree with the CCA and so, if the CCA is silent on a topic then any terms on this topic cannot agree with the CCA and so are prohibited.

 

Your contention is not correct.

 

I sent an email to Egg saying:

 

“You have indicated that the termination of my Egg agreement by Egg is covered in section 20.2. Could you inform me which part of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act section 20.2 is compliant with ?”

 

On 14 March 2008 Egg sent an email saying:

 

“Within the 1974 Consumer credit Act between points 64-71 provides information around the legal entitlement that we’ve had to abide to around the closure of customer’s accounts”.

 

So, you think Egg's explanation of their termination of my agreement, as set out above, is coherent, legally correct, and would stand up in court, and I wouldn't stand a chance against such a clear argument made by Egg to to show their termination of my agreement was all in order?

[Tingy]

All absolutely fine, so WHY Oh WHY waste our time by agreeing to abandon all the above and work on a new defence? Good job those two questions didn't form a contract as you'd definitely have breached it!

 

Why did you agree to something that you did not mean?

 

Why did you not respond to the questions regarding a new line of defence that you'd agreed to consider?

 

Why didn't you respond to the reminder over this point?

 

You clearly have a very good brain as demonstrated clearly in your postings. What a shame you choose to use it in such a perverse manner.

 

I honestly think it is sad that you are so reluctant to accept any help, so can only conclude that you are indeed getting some strange satisfaction from endlessly defending your points against well intentioned individuals who are giving freely of their time to try to help YOU! It is hard to draw any conclusion other than you are absolutely paranoid about your defence and enjoy wasting others time.

 

My best advice in all sincerity now is get this to court and get it over with. Put it behind you (I honestly hope you do win!) and move on.