50% liability or not on termination

[postggj]

You seem quite argumentative on a few THREADS Dodgeball

 

You seem to disagree with everything and everyone without any supporting evidence or facts

 

Might i suggest before you post , you substantiate your reasoning with relevant links to established facts to avoid any bad feeling

 

This is a support forum, if you wish to engage in arguments, join Money Saving Expert to vent any frustrations

[Peterbard]

You seem quite argumentative on a few THREADS Dodgeball

 

You seem to disagree with everything without any supporting evidence or facts

 

Might i suggest before you post , you substantiate your reasoning with relevant links to established facts to avoid any bad feeling

 

This is a support forum, if you wish to engage in arguments, join Money Saving Expert to vent any frustrations

 

 

Not at all, you responded to my first post with this, "Thanks for the comment, it is appreciated but i am after objective reasoning, not opinions or subjective comments

 

I have posted up the case law to support my reasoning and case law dictates that all the creditor can claim is the 50% mark on the agreement

 

Please prove me wrong with either statute or case law"

 

I merely continued in the same vein.

 

Which particular points do you need affirming ? If it is the point about the default notice, it is in the section you have already copied, if it is the point relating to the termination of agreements whilst in default, I will find the case in due course or if not I am sure Sequency will, otherwise if you look on the national debtline fact sheet you will find it tells you the same thing.

[postggj]

The problem is

 

You have not quoted any regulations or case law to support your reasoning,

ITS ALL HEARSAY

 

I am not interested in fact sheets, code of conduct, guidance

 

Only supported facts via statutory means or case law

[Peterbard]

Exactly what are you referring to, perhaps if I know then I can explain better.

 

Do yo want me to go into chapter and verse regarding the function of section 87 of the act and quote all the surrounding legislation, if you do it is going to be very boring for most on here because we already know this elementary stuff.

 

There is an interesting point that could be discussed but if you are going to be bogged down in continually having to prove what is common knowledge it is going to take some time to come to it.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Dodgeball

[postggj]

Lets make this easy shall we

 

I started this thread asking for evidence to support a cause of action

 

I am dumb, i do not know what is common knowledge to our more enlightened posters

 

PLEASE EDUCATE ME

 

I am not prepared to play your little game anymore trying to instigate dissent, so if you will be so kind

 

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING ON MY THREAD IN FUTURE

[Peterbard]

How can I educate you if you don't want me to post ?:???:

 

OK Postbagg, however there are others who view these threads, and I shall continue to correct any factually incorrect statements that I see, unless instructed otherwise by a member of the site team.

 

As I trust that you will do, on any posts that I make in which I err

[SeanG79]

I don't have case law to support and I don't know of anyone challenging this but my understanding is as follows:

 

The debtor (consumer) can terminate at any time, return the goods and is liable for 50% of the contract as per the CCA and is listed in all regulated finance agreements

 

If the creditor terminates, after issue of default notice etc. then it is deemed that the creditor can treat the agreement as repudiated and terminate the contract. The total amount payable under the contract will fall due. Interest rebate will need to be applied, the vehicle will be sold off and proceeds deducted from the amount payable together will all payments that have been made.

 

I think the repudiatory breach is the distinction as to the customers liability, many consumers will not be aware of this and wont exercise their right to terminate prior to the lender terminating.

[postggj]

May i ask how the creditor can consider the agreement repudiated when 87(1) gives 14 days to rectify the breach.

 

Repudiation will occur after the 14 days has expired without rectifying the breach if the creditor decides to enforce

 

The question being debated is can the creditor claim all sums under the agreement on termination, or just the 50 % mark as to the case law already quoted

 

Yeoman Credit, Ltd. v. Waragowski

 

This is no longer applicable in regulated agreements which allowed creditors to claim all sums due under the agreement

[SeanG79]

Sorry if I was unclear (clearly I was).

 

The agreement is considered repudiated only after the 14 days have lapsed and the consumer has not rectified the account.

 

Prior to that the contract is still in force and the consumer would in theory still have the ability to pre-empt action and write to the lender to terminate the agreement

[postggj]

Totally agree on that statement

[Peterbard]

Sorry if I was unclear (clearly I was).

 

The agreement is considered repudiated only after the 14 days have lapsed and the consumer has not rectified the account.

 

Prior to that the contract is still in force and the consumer would in theory still have the ability to pre-empt action and write to the lender to terminate the agreement

 

Yep

 

Although strictly speaking it is the acceptance of the repudiation which is interrupted by the requirements of the CCA in the form of the section 87 notice.

But that really is nit picking.

[Peterbard]

The case I am thinking of the creditor issued a default notice and then terminated after the required period, subsequently seeking to reclaim all sums under the contract.

However the contract stated that the creditor must send a separate termination notice after the DN expires, it was successfully held that the agreement was not terminated and the debtor was permitted to terminate himself and apply section 99.

 

I will find the case reference eventually.

[SeanG79]

The case I am thinking of the creditor issued a default notice and then terminated after the required period, subsequently seeking to reclaim all sums under the contract.

However the contract stated that the creditor must send a separate termination notice after the DN expires, it was successfully held that the agreement was not terminated and the debtor was permitted to terminate himself and apply section 99.

 

I will find the case reference eventually.

 

That would tie in with the CCA and all the consumer finance (HP/Conditional sale) contracts I deal with, the DN is a warning, the creditor must then issue a termination notice.

[Peterbard]

It is quite a complex area, and VT is not always the best option particularity if the vehicle has held its price and is being part ex'd, it may be that a creditors termination with or without default leaves the debtor better off, the debtor would be due early settlement rebate under the act in either case of course, although not on VT.

 

Usually in cases where there is a dispute though we are talking about agreements that have not been settled passed thier term.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Ok, so a debtor misses some payments and default notice is issued giving warning of imminent termination of the agreement, there is nothing stopping the debtor getting in first( within the 14 day period) and terminating under section 99 of the act, in doing so he saves himself having to pay all the sums due under the agreement. This is something that finance companies do not tell you and neither do dealers.

.

 

Er, what about the fact that the Default Notice sets out in detail the debtor's right to terminate, including what his VT liability would be? How is the finance company not telling you then?

 

Looks like you are a classic example of a little knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge.

[postggj]

Er, what about the fact that the Default Notice sets out in detail the debtor's right to terminate, including what his VT liability would be? How is the finance company not telling you then?

 

Looks like you are a classic example of a little knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge.

 

The above is a prime example of why i insisted at the start of this thread that i will not accept personal opinion, only facts that can be substantiated through statutory measures or case law

 

Gastongrimesdyke has quoted the legislation, so please Dodeball, as already stated, if you wish to contribute to this debate, please supply links to support any argument,

 

WE ALL CANNOT BE CORRECT , BEING HUMBLE TO ADMIT MISTAKES MAKES US STRONG

 

That goes for me and everyone

[Peterbard]

Er, what about the fact that the Default Notice sets out in detail the debtor's right to terminate, including what his VT liability would be? How is the finance company not telling you then?

 

Looks like you are a classic example of a little knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge.

 

The default notices I have seen ave not been so accommodating or compliant sadly

 

Certainly there are cases all over the place where DN have been issued and customers have been unaware of the VT option.

 

Sorry cant do anything about your lack of knowledge, that is a matter for you.

[postggj]

Once again, this is my thread so no implied nasty comments Dodgeball

 

you have done it to me , now another poster

 

I WILL NOT TOLERATE TRYING TO BELITTLE ANYONE

 

QUOTE

Sorry cant do anything about your lack of knowledge, that is a matter for you.

 

lets all be nice to each other

[Peterbard]

Once again, this is my thread so no implied nasty comments Dodgeball

 

you have done it to me , now another poster

 

I WILL NOT TOLERATE BELITTLING ANYONE

 

QUOTE

Sorry cant do anything about your lack of knowledge, that is a matter for you.

 

You seem to be very selective in your criticism of behavior postbagg what about the comment that triggered that response from the previous post.

 

"Looks like you are a classic example of a little knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge."

 

There has been no case law quoted that I have seen perhaps I missed it.

[postggj]

I myself do not know the answer to the question, that is why i have opened up the debate

 

The only person i have voiced an opinion on is you in view of certain comments which you have posted

 

I HAVE REQUESTED YOU NO LONGER POST ON THIS THREAD SO PLEASE RESPECT MY WISHES

 

I DO NOT WISH TO ENGAGE IN PETTY ARGUMENTS OR POINT SCORING MENTALITY

[Peterbard]

I myself do not know the answer to the question, that is why i have opened up the debate

 

The only person i have voiced an opinion on is you in view of certain comments which you have posted

 

I HAVE REQUESTED YOU NO LONGER POST ON THIS THREAD SO PLEASE RESPECT MY WISHES

 

If you can give me a valid reason why I should not I may consider, or if instructed by an authorized member of the site team of course.

 

I feel I am adding to the debate, sorry if the answers to your questions do not meet with your views but this is why it is called debate surely. My opinions are informed unless you can show otherwise.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

The default notices I have seen ave not been so accommodating or compliant sadly

 

Certainly there are cases all over the place where DN have been issued and customers have been unaware of the VT option.

 

Sorry cant do anything about your lack of knowledge, that is a matter for you.

 

Well, at least we agree about one thing - where I have holes in my knowledge, I certainly won't be looking to you to fill them.

 

Meanwhile, why don't you have a look at para 8A to Schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 which will fill the gaping holes in your knowledge. Would be nice if you then came back and acknowledged your error.

[Peterbard]

Well, at least we agree about one thing - where I have holes in my knowledge, I certainly won't be looking to you to fill them.

 

Meanwhile, why don't you have a look at para 8A to Schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 which will fill the gaping holes in your knowledge. Would be nice if you then came back and acknowledged your error.

 

Yes I am aware of what should be contained on a section 87 notice, you seem to think that creditors always do everything they should, newsflash, they don't. In addition it is usually not the creditor who collects the vehicle, and as said they do not advise of the debtors rights, in most cases.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Dodgeball
you right was a bit sexist (blame my age)

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Yes I am aware of what should be contained on a section 87 notice, you seem to think that creditors always do everything they should, newsflash, they don't. In addition it is usually not the creditor who collects the vehicle, and as said they do not advise of the debtors rights, in most cases.

 

You seem to be spoiling for an argument all over this forum, time of the month ? (sorry ladies)

 

Is that the best you can do? You made a general allegation that creditors didn't tell debtors about their right to VT, and when it's proved to you they have to you then change it to "oh well, sometimes they might not". Go on, fess up, your opinion was not informed as you claimed.

 

Incidentally your last comment is rather sexist, some might take offence at that.

[sequenci]

Come on guys! It's nearly the weekend, quit with the infantile remarks! You're all welcome to discuss this thread - and I, for one, value all contributions.