Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Default Notice/Termination discussion (moved from Stone-broke's thread


nicklea
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4763 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

Hmnn, interesting post Nicklea. At first reading, the judges comments seem to suggest that a bad or 'defective' DN can be remedied by the service of a 'good' or non defective DN.

 

After which presumably, lender can then bring enforcement action?

 

Correct

 

I think there are not a few problems with that though. The main one being that of can the DN be remedied AFTER termination of the agreement? Or the reliance upon the bad DN by the debtor which causes them to change their behaviour in some way? How can a good DN ever be correctly served again after the original agreement, as initially specified, has ended?

 

Have a read of the many threads on this forum regarding this matter.

 

see here for example:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280020-Contracts-Termination-Repudiation-and-Rescission

 

Personally, I am firmly in the camp that termination can't take place without a valid notice so no notice means that there can be no termination.

 

I'll try and read this case much more thoroughly as it appears important to the issues at hand. One thing to be mindful of is the fact the lender was defendant in this case, though, it appears, on the basis of a counterclaim by the Claimant, to threats or actual legal action from the Lender?

 

Would really help if anyone with more detailed knowledge of this Harrison vs Link case please comment - thanks.

 

Have a read here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296622-Harrison-vs-Link-Financial-Limited-High-Court-judgment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am firmly in the camp that termination can't take place without a valid notice so no notice means that there can be no termination.

I have to say, I'm firmly in the other camp! Though a contract is a binding agreement, there's no reason why it cannot be broken by either party - there'll just be damages for doing so. It can certainly be ended prematurely - especially if both parties agree.

 

Under the CCA, the DN is there to allow for lawful termination under the CCA. A bad Notice followed by termination which is accepted, provides for a prejudiced termination, not just an invalid termination. It therefore gives rise to a counterclaim for damages - this is already case law.

 

...but you obviously probably don't see it that way...or maybe I just need to do more reading and get even more confused!:madgrin:

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the CCA, the DN is there to allow for lawful termination under the CCA. A bad Notice followed by termination which is accepted, provides for a prejudiced termination, not just an invalid termination. It therefore gives rise to a counterclaim for damages - this is already case law.

 

I would be interested to know what case you are refering to and I presume that you are also aware of R v Kettering Magistrates Court:-

 

The purpose of Section 170 (1) of the 1974 Act was to clarify (by disapplying) the common law rules relating to breaches of an Act of Parliament
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't see the relevance of Woodchester. It had nothing to do with claiming damages and there was no recission of contract.

 

This is from a thread that has been dleted from this site:-

 

The Woodche ter hearing was concerned with a hire agreement.

A hire agreement differs from a loan agreement in that there are no principle liabilities under the agreement.

“14 July 1998

Consumer hire - equipment lease to partnership - non-payment - default notice overstating amount due - whether complying with Consumer Credit Act 1974, s 88”

The photo copier remains the property of the creditor at all times. This was not a hire purchase agreement. I do not see how the debtor could keep the copier unless by the creditors consent I see nothing in the transcript I have to support this.

Briefly the original claim was for the future earnings (rental) on the copier. These are not actual liabilities and are only recoverable on the repudiatory breach of the creditor , the successful issue of a section 87 notice would have been part of this process.

When the notice was found to be ineffective all that was recoverable were the arrears due under the contract (rentals up to date) . Since the rental was up to date there was no longer a breach there was nothing due under the contract so nothing to claim.

In a loan agreement there are actual liabilities under the contract the loan or principle these are always due no matter how the contract is terminated.

 

Also, there is always s170 that prohibits any common law claims for damages

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?257032-RBS-Mint-Loan-Court-Action-Started-amp-Dodgy-DN-issues&p=3315942&viewfull=1#post3315942

Link to post
Share on other sites

I note your points but you seem to be ignoring the prescription of accuracy and correctness for DNs.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I note your points but you seem to be ignoring the prescription of accuracy and correctness for DNs.

 

Hmm The act says that a default notice is required prior to termination, then it states what must be in a default notice...

So if the default notice isnt a default notice due to being inaccurate or invalid by days to rectify then they are unable to terminate.

 

Simplistic but thats how I see it.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they can still terminate but then the termination per se becomes unlawful on the back of a faulty DN..

 

The innocent party can then choose whether to claim damages for breach and continue or to accept the unlawful termination and agree to end the agreement

 

however while there is no termination the faulty dn can be made good by sending a corect dn...as the agreement is still 'live'

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they can still terminate but then the termination per se becomes unlawful on the back of a faulty DN..

 

Exactly, and so they cannot do this. As a result, the agreement is not terminated and continues.

 

 

The innocent party can then choose whether to claim damages for breach and continue or to accept the unlawful termination and agree to end the agreement

 

I'm afraid they can't claim damages. Have a read of section 170. Also speak to pt2537 - he tried to use a common law remedy for one of his clients and was soundly beaten in the Court of Appeal.

 

With the second part of your comment, have you not read the thread about the person that did accept the termination and ended up being shafted as a result of doing that?

 

 

I really would suggest that your comments are totally wrong on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW....you have all been so busy! Some interesting comments though that I will read in greater depth re links that have been added. Some positivity and help would be more welcoming at this present time though! But nice to know some are looking in! :o)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the second part of your comment, have you not read the thread about the person that did accept the termination and ended up being shafted as a result of doing that?

Hi Nicklea

No, not seen this one. Do you mind posting a link to it please? Thanks

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, and so they cannot do this. As a result, the agreement is not terminated and continues.

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid they can't claim damages. Have a read of section 170. Also speak to pt2537 - he tried to use a common law remedy for one of his clients and was soundly beaten in the Court of Appeal.

 

....

 

the concept of an 'unlawful termination' does exist. yes, an agreement is said to 'continue' because once ended all outstanding sums due then become payable! but, when the total outstanding is demanded it would be regarded as 'ended', because that's when the total outstanding sum would become payable, according to the agreement. so, logic dictates, that if it has not technically been 'terminated' then the total outstanding sum would not be payable! but, where they 'think' that it has been ended, but it technically hasn't been, then there should be redress for all that follows their 'mistake'?

a claimant creditor seeks the equitable remedy of 'performance' of an agreement when they go to court. ie to pay the total outstanding sum (which becomes payable when an agreement is ended!).

 

a poss 'remedy' lies in equity. equity prevails over common law. s140 cca reflects this. depends on the circumstances.

imo

Edited by Ford
typ
Link to post
Share on other sites

the concept of an 'unlawful termination' does exist. yes, an agreement is said to 'continue' because once ended all outstanding sums due then become payable! but, when the total outstanding is demanded it would be regarded as 'ended', because that's when the total outstanding sum would become payable, according to the agreement. so, logic dictates, that if it has not technically been 'terminated' then the total outstanding sum would not be payable! but, where they 'think' that it has been ended, but it technically hasn't been, then there should be redress for all that follows their 'mistake'?

a claimant creditor seeks the equitable remedy of 'performance' of an agreement when they go to court. ie to pay the total outstanding sum (which becomes payable when an agreement is ended!).

 

a poss 'remedy' lies in equity. equity prevails over common law. s140 cca reflects this. depends on the circumstances.

imo

 

Hi

 

Of coure the way anything is, "Done or nor done" in the life of the agreement can be challenged under section 140.

I think where there has been excesive delay in representing or other shenanigins by the creditor as Ford says action under this section would be appropriate , unfortunatly this is pretty much virgin teritory so there is not much, if any case law to go off.

In the Nationwide case i posted on my the termination thread

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/slightly78/court%20pocs/IMG_0002-2.jpg

the deffective default was presented at court and the case was set asside under the courts own initiative pursuant of cpr 3.3.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

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 Nicklea

No, not seen this one. Do you mind posting a link to it please? Thanks

 

Here you go:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?257032-RBS-Mint-Loan-Court-Action-Started-amp-Dodgy-DN-issues&p=3313813&viewfull=1#post3313813

 

It has also happened here as well:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291988-Court-Case-pending-and-help-required-reviewing-position...&p=3345492&viewfull=1#post3345492

 

 

peterbard, who just posted above, commented on the first link as follows:-

 

Hi

Well we finally have a case that has gone to court using the acceptance of repudiation argument here it is

 

Well judgement has gone against me today. I am disappointed but not surprised. The DJ was very nice and treated me kindly and said I had fought a valiant battle and that my documents were all in excellent order. In his opinion "the Defendant's fatal flaw was to accept the repudiation of contract" meaning that I still owe the remaining balance. I do have right of appeal of course and I am also considering bringing a counter claim for damages caused by the repudiation. I shall take legal advice on that point. The DJ agreed the DN was a travesty. When I get the full judgement I will consider posting it up. He felt my argument was attractive but the fact I accepted the rescission in writing brought matters outside the CCA and into normal laws relating to debt.

NO it was deffinately

 

As you can see the judge not only threw it out but found for the creditor because the debtor had repudiated the agreement. The stinger in the tail is that if she had not followed the advice given the case would have been found in her favour as the creditor had already admited the DN was defective.

Needless to say there is multiple back peddling and re writing of history going on now but the tuth is now out, it was never going to work it was a fantassy as i turned out a dangerous fantassy.

 

Problem is that there are many cases like this waiting to come through all advised by the same jolly band.

 

Lets hope they have time to ammend their deffences before they suffer the same fate

 

Peter

 

The link to his comment is here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280020-Contracts-Termination-Repudiation-and-Rescission&p=3338072&viewfull=1#post3338072

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Of coure the way anything is, "Done or nor done" in the life of the agreement can be challenged under section 140.

I think where there has been excesive delay in representing or other shenanigins by the creditor as Ford says action under this section would be appropriate , unfortunatly this is pretty much virgin teritory so there is not much, if any case law to go off.

In the Nationwide case i posted on my the termination thread

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/slightly78/court%20pocs/IMG_0002-2.jpg

the deffective default was presented at court and the case was set asside under the courts own initiative pursuant of cpr 3.3.

 

Peter

 

 

so, where there is no technically terminated/ended agreement, then the demand for the 'full balance' is unlawful! therefore, there should be redress for anything that follows their unlawful demand. eg default registration, collection activities, etc.

there is the possibility of an equitable remedy, as well as that under s140. depends on the circumstances.

as for the idea of 'repudiation' by the creditor, that has been put forward by some - as have posted elsewhere before, '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, it may not necessarily be regarded as a repudiation even if the 'attempt' is unjustified.'

imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, where there is no technically terminated/ended agreement, then the demand for the 'full balance' is unlawful! therefore, there should be redress for anything that follows their unlawful demand. eg default registration, collection activities, etc.

there is the possibility of an equitable remedy, as well as that under s140. depends on the circumstances.

as for the idea of 'repudiation' by the creditor, that has been put forward by some - as have posted elsewhere before, '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, it may not necessarily be regarded as a repudiation even if the 'attempt' is unjustified.'

imo

 

HI

I dont think the demand for early repayment of a loan is unlawful, even if the account has not been termianted.

You have to remember that credit agrements are regulated by the CCA and the statute says that there can be no sanction for any breach other than the ones described within the statute itself. That does not mean of course that they can enforce the demand for payment, the statute prohibits that, unless of course there has been a default or some exceptional circumstance.

If an agreement was the subject of collection activities by say a DCA when it hadn't been terminated then this would be a breach by the creditor, but i do not see anyway that this could be actionablel unless under the unfairness sections of the statute, the DCA would be guilty of breaching OFT guidlines if they persisted once they where aware.

As i have said before i cannot see how a creditor can repudiate a contract, to do so he would have to deny the existance of the contract , how can he do that when he has liabilities belonging to him outstanding on it. By making recovery actions he is acknowledging that the contract exists. Contry to what is said on here a terminated contract does stil exist , it exists as a terminated contract untill all the liabilities under it are discharged.

It i differrent for the debtor he can deny the debt and the contract, he can and does repudiate when he defaults.

 

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

yes it is. by your own admission before also. a demand for the full bal can only be done when an agreement is ended. you, and others, have previously argued that there is no termination if the cca requirements have not been satisfied. therefore, there is no 'termination'. so, if the agreement has not been ended, then any demand for the full bal, which would be required if the agreement was ended, is unlawful. and, yes i am familiar with the cca! the cca does not restrict any other applicable rights of an individual.

i didn't suggest that a cred repudiates! see my post again.

imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it is. by your own admission before also. a demand for the full bal can only be done when an agreement is ended. you, and others, have previously argued that there is no termination if the cca requirements have not been satisfied. therefore, there is no 'termination'. so, if the agreement has not been ended, then any demand for the full bal, which would be required if the agreement was ended, is unlawful. and, yes i am familiar with the cca! the cca does not restrict any other applicable rights of an individual.

i didn't suggest that a cred repudiates! see my post again.

imo

 

Hi

What is it about this that gets everyone (including me sometimes) so annoyed.

 

I meant that there is nothing stopping a creditor demanding payment there is nothing stopping him demanding anything he cannot enforce but he can ask he can demand. We can do what we wish unless the law prohibits it it is the essence of our legal system and our freedom.Sorry if i missread your post.

 

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

It i differrent for the debtor he can deny the debt and the contract, he can and does repudiate when he defaults.

 

Peter

Even after the creditor issues a misleading DN that deprives the debtor of their rights? Somewhat changes the implied intention of the debtor does it not? Seems a bit like starting a fire with someone then immediately running off to call the fire brigade reporting your accomplice for their actions and claiming no wrongdoing yourself. The fault is equal however the creditor is supposed to know better? Just gets worse when they pretend to terminate and demand all liabilities.

 

A much debated point but creditor conduct is equally important, especially where the regulations in the CPUTR covering 'Misleading Actions' are concerned. A trader can mislead by action or omission, would suggest a crappo DN and subsequent misrepresentation of the creditor position regarding termination and DCA harassment fit nicely into misleading and unfair practices ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after the creditor issues a misleading DN that deprives the debtor of their rights? Somewhat changes the implied intention of the debtor does it not? Seems a bit like starting a fire with someone then immediately running off to call the fire brigade reporting your accomplice for their actions and claiming no wrongdoing yourself. The fault is equal however the creditor is supposed to know better? Just gets worse when they pretend to terminate and demand all liabilities.

 

A much debated point but creditor conduct is equally important, especially where the regulations in the CPUTR covering 'Misleading Actions' are concerned. A trader can mislead by action or omission, would suggest a crappo DN and subsequent misrepresentation of the creditor position regarding termination and DCA harassment fit nicely into misleading and unfair practices ;)

 

Hi

Yes it may be like all theses things , unfortunatly the one thing it is not like, is the only thing that matters, it is not like a breach of the act.:sad:

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

OK, this is all well and good, and very useful to be aware of these developments.

 

But where did the judge say he would have found in the Defendant's favour and on what basis??? What, in his learned opinion should the Defendant have pleaded that might have been more favourably decided? Surely part of the value of these initial losses is to help identify the arguments that don't work so that those coming behind don't repeat them?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this is all well and good, and very useful to be aware of these developments.

 

But where did the judge say he would have found in the Defendant's favour and on what basis??? What, in his learned opinion should the Defendant have pleaded that might have been more favourably decided? Surely part of the value of these initial losses is to help identify the arguments that don't work so that those coming behind don't repeat them?

 

It's not the judge's job to tell anyone what they should have pleaded in order to win.

 

The useful thing about these threads, I would suggest, is that it will deter people from attempting to use the repudiation argument in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a cred can repudiate, if they 'intend' to do so. but (as prev'y posted), it seems clear that a cred does not 'intend' to 'abandon' the contract as the contract is that all sums will be payable when it is ended. so, they are not abandoning it as such. they 'think' that it has been ended. the q is whether it has been lawfully ended? if not, then there should be appropriate redress. failure to 'end' properly is a breach of statute (if regulated). and there should be more to it then simply a 'correction' of a bad notice. i know there is Harrison, but the general principle re the correction of notices says that it should only be done if it no 'prejudice' is caused as a result?

also, as suggested, there is equity and/or s140.

in one cred's terms it says that they 'will follow legal requirements' when ending! so, failure to do so is also a breach of their own terms?

imo

Edited by Ford
typ
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, this is all well and good, and very useful to be aware of these developments.

 

But where did the judge say he would have found in the Defendant's favour and on what basis??? What, in his learned opinion should the Defendant have pleaded that might have been more favourably decided? Surely part of the value of these initial losses is to help identify the arguments that don't work so that those coming behind don't repeat them?

 

HI

 

THe quote contains the words "the DJ said the DN was a travesty" this would imply that he thought that the default notice was inefective. The court cannot enforce on a defective notice, unless somone says they are not going to be bound by the contract of course then the court has no option.

The creditor could reissue the notice but he would have to give another stutory period before enforcing and anything can happen in the interim.

There is nothing wrong with questiioning a default notice, if it is defective it can give you time to manuver and maybe even negotiate. But when all is said and done it is just a notice before action, it is not an agreement, it is for information only. The thought that it could ever be used to deny a creditor the right to reclaim his money is totally missplaced.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...