Jump to content


Cap1 & CCA return


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3888 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

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DEFAULT AND TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT CORRECTLY

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such Notice, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 ) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

 

BRW,

 

can I ask the source of the above quote, this would come in extremely handy for me in a case I'm in

 

Cheers

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

BRW,

 

can I ask the source of the above quote, this would come in extremely handy for me in a case I'm in

 

Cheers

 

Here you go ncf :)

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-library/1015-woodchester-lease-swain-co.html

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ncf355!

 

Thanks to CitizenB for that Link.

 

The quote is from CAG, I regret I do not now know which Thread I got that from.

 

However, the key is the Case History as that backs up the way that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers the issue. Have a good read, and I think they support my understanding of the issue.

 

A Default has to be both accurate in terms of the numbers, in the correct form, and must allow the Statutory time from Date of Service. The latter can be key, so it's important to keep the Envelopes any DNs were sent in to prove when they were Posted.

 

Many bankers will back date a DN, then Post it late, just to give the Consumer little or no time to respond. This is because they want to Terminate to go straight for the Balance.

 

However, that little plan falls apart if it can be shown via the Envelope that the DN was posted days after the issue.

 

The real key is a DN can only be issued during the currency of an Agreement. Once the Agreement is Terminated, it is closed, and there can be no going back to remedy a defective DN. They will try this, but there's no provision for this within the CCA.

 

The battle is to state this clearly when you go to Court, and make sure the opposition are not allowed to steer the Judge away from this fundamental issue.

 

That, as ever, is the hard part. But if the case goes against you, despite the bankers not having a valid DN, then I believe you would have strong grounds for an Appeal on a point of Law...just like Swain & Co did!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Default has to be both accurate in terms of the numbers, in the correct form, and must allow the Statutory time from Date of Service. The latter can be key, so it's important to keep the Envelopes any DNs were sent in to prove when they were Posted.

 

How can you prove the DN came in that envelope, then?

 

The real key is a DN can only be issued during the currency of an Agreement. Once the Agreement is Terminated, it is closed, and there can be no going back to remedy a defective DN. They will try this, but there's no provision for this within the CCA.

 

Where does this come from?

 

The battle is to state this clearly when you go to Court, and make sure the opposition are not allowed to steer the Judge away from this fundamental issue.

[\quote]

 

Which you can only do by showing your source of precedent, hence my question above.

 

That, as ever, is the hard part. But if the case goes against you, despite the bankers not having a valid DN, then I believe you would have strong grounds for an Appeal on a point of Law...just like Swain & Co did!

 

I think you're a little confused there - the Swaine case outlines the effect a faulty Default Notice has on the enforcement proceedings brought under it.

 

What you've outlined here is an interpretation of the caselaw you've quoted above in light of Swain.

 

I'm not being argumentative, (actually, most of what you've posted above is probably from me on other threads - which I also can't now find - outlining exactly the same thing) but I think we need to be careful when putting ideas like this forward without the caveat that they are interpretations and not definate precedents.

 

For instance, if I was the Judge and I said I disagreed with the view you've expressed above, as I interpret those precedents in a different way, how would you convince me? I may decide that the DN is faulty, but the case should be stayed to allow another that isn't faulty to be issued, for example.

 

:eek:

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when an agreeement is terminated? Why would a creditor do this as surely they lose their rights to add interest and charges under the (now canceled) agreement? Obviously they are free to pursue the balance as they wish but I fail to see how they can continue to add interest.

 

Can someone explain this for me? What benefit is there to a credit to cancel the agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Chris!

 

Thanks for these questions, I'll do my best to answer or explain.

 

How can you prove the DN came in that envelope, then?

 

It would have to be on the balance of probabilities, in that the Envelopes usually have their Postal Licence, so that's the first piece of evidence. What ever the Envelope contained, it did come from them.

 

If you are lucky, the Envelope may also have a dated Franking mark, which is another piece of the jigsaw. I appreciate this still does not prove the issue, but it's getting more convincing. That proves Date of Posting for whatever the Envelope contained.

 

Then there is the issue of the possibility of a Postal Barcode being on the Envelope, which when I can finally read these, should show the Royal Mail Routing, and may also show the Date of Posting. I'm still working on this issue, but the Light Orange Barcodes - if present - should reveal quite a lot about the Envelope, where it came from, when, and where it went. That's proof of Sender and Recipient and the (hopefully dated) Tracking between them...of whatever was in the Envelope.

 

Then there would be other evidence such as having all past and later Letters and Envelopes from the same banker concerned, i.e. to show all other Letters from them to you are accounted for, so none are being used to pretend the Default Notice came in another Envelope. If all other Letters sent before and after are accounted for with their own Envelopes, then what else could've been in that Envelope?

 

That, in my opinion, should be enough to prove the DN came in that Envelope. If submitted as Evidence, the banker would then have to explain how one of their Envelopes, with their Postal Licence, with Barcodes showing Royal Mail Routing from them to you, and possibly with a Postal Date too, could possibly have contained anything else.

 

Where does this come from?

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974, s87 and s88. These make no mention of being applicable to a closed Agreement. The Act sets out how an Agreement can be made, and how it can be closed/Terminated. These sections are there to cover the closure and Termination of an Agreement.

 

There's no section that covers re-opening a closed Agreement.

 

I feel Terminated, as explained, means just that. Likewise, if not Terminated, then I have said they may be able to issue another DN. But not once the Agreement is at an end, as then there is no Agreement...just a Debt, a Debt that may, or may not, be Enforceable depending on the Original Agreement and the lawful or unlawful way the Agreement was ended.

 

An Agreement is still a Contract, just one that is also Regulated by the Act.

 

Otherwise, what is to stop them coming back Years later to issue a new DN, saying the Agreement was not Terminated, and now they'd like some more money please. If they have sold the Debt, then that implies they had to have lawfully Defaulted and Terminated. The Act requires this.

 

For instance, if I was the Judge and I said I disagreed with the view you've expressed above, as I interpret those precedents in a different way, how would you convince me? I may decide that the DN is faulty, but the case should be stayed to allow another that isn't faulty to be issued, for example.

 

I think that would boil down to if I had a Letter saying the Agreement was ended/Terminated. I agree that in the absence of that, there is some scope for them to re-issue a 2nd Default Notice, as that is just a Notice, it does not necessarily follow that they did go ahead and Default and Terminate, although that is the main reason for issuing one.

 

The grey area, as I see it, is the gap between the end of the DN, and the Termination. But, if a DN has been issued, and they then proceeded to Terminate, then the Agreement is at an end by any reasonable understanding of the word Terminate. Likewise, if they sell the Debt, that also implies the Agreement has been Terminated.

 

If all of this has been done lawfully, then they are entitled to seek early repayment of the Balance, i.e. the Balance that was not, until then, due for Payment. Up until that point, all that was due for Payment would be any Arrears that had built up, less any Charges that had been applied unlawfully.

 

I cannot see anything in the Act that allows them to un-Terminate an Agreement so that they can have a 2nd stab at getting the Default Notice correct. Otherwise why do we not have any precedent that shows a bank doing this?

 

As always, Chris, your thoughts are most welcome, and it is important to try and thrash these things out here rather than in Court...by then we need to have everything clear!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if they terminate the agreement but then fully assign it to another company

 

Are they able to do this by law, or do they have to do this within the currency of the agreement?

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello ncf355!

 

Are they able to do this by law, or do they have to do this within the currency of the agreement?

 

As I understand it, what we are talking about at this stage is a straight lump sum Debt as opposed to a Regulated Agreement.

 

If the Agreement is still live, then it can be Sold whilst still live, provided the Buyer holds a Consumer Credit Licence and is able and willing to carry on with the Agreement and offer the same service to the Consumer in line with the Terms that bind the Original Creditor (OC).

 

If not, i.e. if that which is being sold is just a lump sum Debt, then it suggests the Agreement hit the buffers at some point, and must now be at an end. If so, and if there is now a lump sum Debt, then the Debtor had to be lawfully Defaulted and the Agreement lawfully Terminated if anyone now wants to seek Payment of the whole Balance.

 

Once Terminated, then the OC can Sell or Assign that Debt to whoever they like (provided the Buyer has the necessary licences to handle such things). But, the thing they are Selling or Assigning, is no longer an Agreement, as the Debtor has lost all Rights to any of the benefits once the Agreement has been lawfully Defaulted/Terminated. It is no longer a two-sided issue, it is a one-sided issue wholly in favour of the Original Creditor or who ever they sell that Debt to.

 

The only Rights the Debtor has at this stage, is the Right not to be Harassed or intimidated, in line with other Laws and assuming the group chasing this Debt follows OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

 

I think this suggests there is no point, say, in sending a DCA a s77-79 Request. This is because what they have now is not an Agreement, but a Right to seek Payment of an Enforceable lump sum Debt. That's assuming they have all the Paperwork, i.e. Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement to confirm the Debt stemmed from an Enforceable Agreement, provided they also have proof that the Debtor who defaulted on payments in relation to the Agreement was lawfully Defaulted, initially via a compliant Notice and then followed by a lawful Default/Termination.

 

Without at the very least having firm evidence of an Enforceable Agreement having existed and a lawful Default Notice issued in relation to that Agreement, I think the majority of the Debt will not be Enforceable, or at best, only the Arrears can be Enforceable. No lawful Default and Termination means the OC has blown their Right to seek early Payment of the full Balance. They've also blown that Right for anybody else who later Buys that lump sum Debt.

 

The lump sum is just the Arrears plus the Total that was not due for Payment at the time of the Default Notice and Termination. If they want early Payment of any sum otherwise not due before Termination, the Act requires the OC to Default and Terminate lawfully. Fail to do that, and they do not have what the act requires them to have before they can seek early Payment. Once they Terminate, then they immediately place themselves outside of the protection of the Act as well. Their ability to Default via s87/s88 went out of the window at the point of Termination, as that was the exact turning point when the Agreement ended and the lump sum Debt came into being.

 

I feel the most suitable thing to send a DCA is a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) rather than a s77-79 Request. We have seen on CAG examples when a banker refuses to respond to a s77-79 Request once an Agreement has been Terminated, claiming (correctly I think) that they are no longer obliged to respond, as the Agreement is Terminated/Closed so they are no longer bound by the Act. That rather confirms that if they can't do that, then s87 no longer applies either. It cuts both ways.

 

If a DCA wishes to chase Payment for a lump sum Debt, then it is reasonable that the Consumer should be able to ask for proof that they are entitled to seek Payment. A s77-79 Request seems to be accepted by many DCAs that they have to respond, but I wonder if they really do, as I do not think they are really bound by the Act at this point.

 

I am not clear what is the correct approach in such circumstances. A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should reveal some of this, but if a s77-79 is not applicable, then it leaves me wondering what is the correct approach to force a DCA to prove they have a Right to seek Payment on a lump sum Debt.

 

The acid test is Court, and if a DCA is quite convinced they have their paperwork in Order (i.e. the Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, clear evidence of lawful Default and lawful Termination), then the only proper thing for them to do is to proceed to Court and obtain Payment or Judgement.

 

But, what ever they have, it is no longer an Agreement regulated by the Act. The Debtor cannot ask for their Credit Cards back, and say they'll Pay the minimum again and nip off to the Shops to buy some bits and bobs. All of that ended when the Agreement ended. Both Debtor and OC/DCA are, by then, outside of the Act. An OC can't just nip back in whenever it takes their fancy to have another crack at being compliant with s87/s88.

 

Well, that's until this Government waters that down as well. You heard it here first folks, I bet s87/s88 will be erased in CCA 2009!

 

Section 87 to be replaced by:

 

s87 (1) bankers are wonderful creatures, so it's only sensible and tidy that they should be allowed to end an Agreement whenever they like, and un-Terminate it at random to have as many goes as they like to get their paperwork right.

 

Section 88 to be replaced by:

 

s88 (1) bankers just need to tread on a Frog, at any time, and an agreement is made enforceable again. The merest whisper from a bankers backside is quite enough.

 

Comments all welcome.

 

Cheers,

BRW

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

s88 (1) bankers just need to tread on a Frog, at any time, and an agreement is made enforceable again....

 

 

Think there could be lots of bankers at the moment who just wish they were frogs & could spend the coming deep financial winter at the bottom of some grubby pond - back where they came from! :roll:

 

Seriously BRW, great posts, I'm bookmarking furiously :)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello brw,

 

then it leaves me wondering what is the correct approach to force a DCA to prove they have a Right to seek Payment on a lump sum Debt.

 

You have already shown the correct approach when one called on you:D

 

aa

 

keep up the stirling work.

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BRW,

 

thanks for such a detailed response to my question, very helpful indeed!

 

:)

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello ncf355!

 

 

 

As I understand it, what we are talking about at this stage is a straight lump sum Debt as opposed to a Regulated Agreement.

 

If the Agreement is still live, then it can be Sold whilst still live, provided the Buyer holds a Consumer Credit Licence and is able and willing to carry on with the Agreement and offer the same service to the Consumer in line with the Terms that bind the Original Creditor (OC).

 

If not, i.e. if that which is being sold is just a lump sum Debt, then it suggests the Agreement hit the buffers at some point, and must now be at an end. If so, and if there is now a lump sum Debt, then the Debtor had to be lawfully Defaulted and the Agreement lawfully Terminated if anyone now wants to seek Payment of the whole Balance.

 

Once Terminated, then the OC can Sell or Assign that Debt to whoever they like (provided the Buyer has the necessary licences to handle such things). But, the thing they are Selling or Assigning, is no longer an Agreement, as the Debtor has lost all Rights to any of the benefits once the Agreement has been lawfully Defaulted/Terminated. It is no longer a two-sided issue, it is a one-sided issue wholly in favour of the Original Creditor or who ever they sell that Debt to.

 

The only Rights the Debtor has at this stage, is the Right not to be Harassed or intimidated, in line with other Laws and assuming the group chasing this Debt follows OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

 

I think this suggests there is no point, say, in sending a DCA a s77-79 Request. This is because what they have now is not an Agreement, but a Right to seek Payment of an Enforceable lump sum Debt. That's assuming they have all the Paperwork, i.e. Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement to confirm the Debt stemmed from an Enforceable Agreement, provided they also have proof that the Debtor who defaulted on payments in relation to the Agreement was lawfully Defaulted, initially via a compliant Notice and then followed by a lawful Default/Termination.

 

Without at the very least having firm evidence of an Enforceable Agreement having existed and a lawful Default Notice issued in relation to that Agreement, I think the majority of the Debt will not be Enforceable, or at best, only the Arrears can be Enforceable. No lawful Default and Termination means the OC has blown their Right to seek early Payment of the full Balance. They've also blown that Right for anybody else who later Buys that lump sum Debt.

 

The lump sum is just the Arrears plus the Total that was not due for Payment at the time of the Default Notice and Termination. If they want early Payment of any sum otherwise not due before Termination, the Act requires the OC to Default and Terminate lawfully. Fail to do that, and they do not have what the act requires them to have before they can seek early Payment. Once they Terminate, then they immediately place themselves outside of the protection of the Act as well. Their ability to Default via s87/s88 went out of the window at the point of Termination, as that was the exact turning point when the Agreement ended and the lump sum Debt came into being.

 

I feel the most suitable thing to send a DCA is a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) rather than a s77-79 Request. We have seen on CAG examples when a banker refuses to respond to a s77-79 Request once an Agreement has been Terminated, claiming (correctly I think) that they are no longer obliged to respond, as the Agreement is Terminated/Closed so they are no longer bound by the Act. That rather confirms that if they can't do that, then s87 no longer applies either. It cuts both ways.

 

If a DCA wishes to chase Payment for a lump sum Debt, then it is reasonable that the Consumer should be able to ask for proof that they are entitled to seek Payment. A s77-79 Request seems to be accepted by many DCAs that they have to respond, but I wonder if they really do, as I do not think they are really bound by the Act at this point.

 

I am not clear what is the correct approach in such circumstances. A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should reveal some of this, but if a s77-79 is not applicable, then it leaves me wondering what is the correct approach to force a DCA to prove they have a Right to seek Payment on a lump sum Debt.

 

The acid test is Court, and if a DCA is quite convinced they have their paperwork in Order (i.e. the Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, clear evidence of lawful Default and lawful Termination), then the only proper thing for them to do is to proceed to Court and obtain Payment or Judgement.

 

But, what ever they have, it is no longer an Agreement regulated by the Act. The Debtor cannot ask for their Credit Cards back, and say they'll Pay the minimum again and nip off to the Shops to buy some bits and bobs. All of that ended when the Agreement ended. Both Debtor and OC/DCA are, by then, outside of the Act. An OC can't just nip back in whenever it takes their fancy to have another crack at being compliant with s87/s88.

 

Well, that's until this Government waters that down as well. You heard it here first folks, I bet s87/s88 will be erased in CCA 2009!

 

Section 87 to be replaced by:

 

s87 (1) bankers are wonderful creatures, so it's only sensible and tidy that they should be allowed to end an Agreement whenever they like, and un-Terminate it at random to have as many goes as they like to get their paperwork right.

 

Section 88 to be replaced by:

 

s88 (1) bankers just need to tread on a Frog, at any time, and an agreement is made enforceable again. The merest whisper from a bankers backside is quite enough.

 

Comments all welcome.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Interersting theory. If I am reading this right the debtor has no rights (other than in court) to use the CCA as proof of the debt being enforceable, however using the same token, no debt actually exists once the CCA is wiped out via termination. Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello MTAR!

 

Interersting theory. If I am reading this right the debtor has no rights (other than in court) to use the CCA as proof of the debt being enforceable, however using the same token, no debt actually exists once the CCA is wiped out via termination. Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

 

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

 

A Debt can exist after Termination, but the size and enforceability of that Debt then depends on three things:

 

(A) An original copy of the Enforceable Agreement still in existence.

 

(B) Lawful Default/Termination.

 

© Lawful Assignment (if anyone else wishes to Enforce).

 

All bets are off if there is no (A)!

 

Assuming there still exists an (A), then the size of the lump sum Debt that may exist at Termination depends on (B).

 

If (B) is Lawful, then everything is due, i.e. Arrears and any future Balance that was otherwise Payable after the Date of Termination [even this can be undermined if before Termination there were present Unlawful Charges, as the size of these could render (B) unlawful].

 

If (B) was unlawful, then only Debts due before Termination can be due. Any Debts otherwise Payable after the Date of Termination are then lost forever.

 

The Assignment issue is simply concerned with passing on the lump sum Debt Parcel to the next group in the game. They can only Enforce if they have (A) and (B) and ©. If they don't have (B), then all they may be able to Enforce is the Arrears, just like the Original Creditor.

 

The Debtor has full Rights from the CCA up until the moment of Termination, provided that Termination is lawful. After lawful Termination, then protection via the CCA is gone, but the Debtor is then protected by other Laws to ensure any subsequent Debt Collection or Enforcement activities are lawful (in effect, any activity must follow OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, and avoid falling foul of Harassment Laws and/or CPUTR 2008 ).

 

If the Termination was unlawful, then the Consumer is still protected by the CCA. It is the OC who is then in trouble, as they've extracted themselves from their side of the Agreement unlawfully.

 

Let us not forget what Agreement means...it means two sides agreeing to something. The CCA is there to Regulate the two sides, supposedly giving greater protection to the weaker side, namely the Consumer. The Original Creditor is the one needing most Regulation, but they have Rights if the Debtor does not keep to their side of the Agreement, via s87/88.

 

The Original Creditor is profoundly bound to the Agreement, and cannot just jump out when the mood takes them. To extract themselves from an Agreement that has gone sour on them, the CCA requires that they must follow explicit steps, namely s87 and s88.

 

If they do not, but instead go ahead to bang out of the Agreement anyway, then the Act intended that they must suffer a penalty for this, and that penalty is the complete inability to seek early Payment of any future Debt that was not otherwise Payable before Termination.

 

Once the OC Terminates, then they have jumped out of the Agreement once and for all, there is no provision in the Act for going back. To Terminate means to Terminate, it is not a revolving door allowing them to keep popping back in.

 

More fool them if they jump out and Terminate forgetting to take their s87/s88 Parachute with them.

 

I hope this explains things better.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BRW & everyone :)

 

This thread is one of the best for help and advice.

 

BRW - Thank you for some extremely helpful posts recently on this thread regarding default notices. I did try to click you but was told to spread my clicks around a bit first :rolleyes:

 

I've received 2 very iffy default notices from Link Financial recently and your posts have given me food for thought and a lot of very useful info for the future. Thanks again.

 

Love SG x

Please note I am not legally qualified, I am offering advice based on my own personal experience in the hope that it may be of help to others in a similar situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulatory Risk at RBS/Natwest Group are now saying they don't have to provide a copy of the consumer credit agreement under the data protection Act because it doesn't form part of a relevant filing system...............guess it beats having to either

a) produce an unenforceable one

b) admit they don't have it or

c) admit they destroyed it!

 

Guess now the Government effectively owns them the ICO will roll over too...............:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regulatory Risk at RBS/NatWest Group are now saying they don't have to provide a copy of the consumer credit agreement under the data protection Act because it doesn't form part of a relevant filing system...............guess it beats having to either

a) produce an unenforceable one

b) admit they don't have it or

c) admit they destroyed it!

 

Guess now the Government effectively owns them the Information Commissioners Office will roll over too...............:eek:

well time for the good ol'e Pre action discovery application then

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disputing a CCA with one of my creditors as they never signed the agreement! However, they have went ahead and issued a default and termination even though I had notified them of the dispute via recorded delivery prior to the default and termination.

 

Have they terminated the agreement correctly? Are they entitled to terminate while not complying with a s78 request and not having a fully executed agreement?

 

What other implications might there be regarding this termination?

 

As far as Im concerned the termination is a good thing as they have stopped adding interest and charges onto the account. I care little if they take me to Court as I'll argue my case and even if I lose I don't have any money to pay them anyway!

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS posted by tinkerbell

 

Regulatory Risk at RBS/NatWest Group are now saying they don't have to provide a copy of the consumer credit agreement under the data protection Act because it doesn't form part of a relevant filing system...............gues s it beats having to either Ok so they are now in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998, Consumer Credit Act 1974. They are probably trying to stave off massive claims and complaints to prevent and even bigger fine than Alliance and Leicesters.

a) produce an unenforceable one

b) admit they don't have it or

c) admit they destroyed it!

 

Guess now the Government effectively owns them the Information Commissioners Office will roll over too...............:shock:

 

The Information Commissioners Office have taken 160 days so far from my original complaint in March they acknowledged in May and despite several phone calls my case has not yet been allocated to a case officer:eek:

 

On the brighter side I am hopefully going to receive a settlement from the RBS on behalf of Direct Line Financial Services after referring the case to the FOS. FOS called me today and said their initial offer had been increased. FOS words they have rolled over and offered a settlement.:wink: I refused their first derisory offer.

 

Stay the Course and do not be put off by misleading information.

 

aa

 

PS.

well time for the good ol'e Pre action discovery application then

 

 

What is this please PT?

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am disputing a CCA with one of my creditors as they never signed the agreement! However, they have went ahead and issued a default and termination even though I had notified them of the dispute via recorded delivery prior to the default and termination.

 

A missing creditors signature won't prevent enforcement - s.127(3) only requires a debtor, not a creditor, signature to allow the enforcement by Court order at least.

 

Have they terminated the agreement correctly?

 

Given the above, yes, probably.

 

Are they entitled to terminate while not complying with a s78 request and not having a fully executed agreement?

 

Yes. Terminating an agreement isn't a form of enforcement, which is open to interpretation, but this seems to be the way the Court interprets it.

 

What other implications might there be regarding this termination?

 

Not sure what you mean there?

 

As far as Im concerned the termination is a good thing as they have stopped adding interest and charges onto the account. I care little if they take me to Court as I'll argue my case and even if I lose I don't have any money to pay them anyway!

 

They may still be able to add interest and charges - depends what the agreement says.

 

If they take you to Court and win, which the above suggests, you will have to pay court fees and costs on top of the debt.

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he is referring to the pre action protocols regarding disclosure of documents when a claim as been instigated!

 

Jeff.

no not at all, i am refering to the point where the other side refuses to disclose docs that you need to assess if you have a legitimate claim

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/147432-high-court-judgement-rankines-7.html#post1766169

 

check this post, it explains a little better

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it does, but if it goes to court and it's only missing the creditors sig it will be quickly remedied by the Judge ordering it to be signed?

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Cap1 & CCA return
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3888 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...