Voluntary Termination with Startline

[EssCee]

Sorry, late ro the party on this but....

 

Given a breach of s86B gives rise to temporary unenforceability under the CCA until remedy and an inability to charge during the period of non compliance and considering that enforcement is held as being entering judgment What grounds are there for suggesting the DFN and termination are invalid? 

 

Also if the DFN was somehow invalid what makes the termination invalid (Could it be treated as a simple termination of contract outside of provisions for breach)? In which case could it be unlawful? 

 

Start line do appear shockingmy inept but if the initial termination notice is good, the later notices dont mean anything as you cannot rescind termination amd you cant terminate twice.

 

In my view Very complaint worthy on misleading consumers and s140a unfair relationships. Could be worth arguing that and that the appropriate remedy is to accept the vt they have by their conduct led the debtor to beleive was a right that available to her.

 

Also your proposed letter could be treated as abandonment were you to carry that out and leave the vehicle as suggested.

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by EssCee
Additional information

[EssCee]

Not surprised, as per post #28. Perhaps try the s140a avenue.

[EssCee]

S98 consumer credit act dx. But it's a moot point if the DFN is compliant as the nosia issue doesn't invalidate it

[EssCee]

DFN is dated 8th March 17 and gives 21 days for compliance and appears to be in the prescribed format.

if the arrears are not overstated it's good and so is their termination

 

if I were you I'd complain on the misleading info and s140a and look to refer to the FOS and see where it gets you.

 

Legally assuming the DFN is good, as it appears, you lost the right to terminate as they have said IMHO 

[EssCee]

Because per doc1 above DFN 8th March 2017 termination 30th March 2017...

[EssCee]

The dfn point is not an easy argument at all with fixed sum hire purchase with fixed repayments, but worth a shot.

 

Could you argue estoppel in that they made representations the agreement continued in subsequent letters and notices which you relied upon to your detriment?

 

Just thought vomiting here.