CCA's and Dave against the world !!!

[The GodMother]

Oh well dave maybe a rite of is not what you wanted but it will stop you having to pay them.

 

Chrissi

[davefirewalker]

Hi all

 

just sent this to HFO in reply to their please contact us letter

 

HFO services

 

Dear Ms p*****

 

Thank you for your latest letter informing me of the huge savings to be made by contacting you and negotiating a discount on my alleged debt.

 

I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all.

 

I have previously sent you a number of letters explaining my position, of which you seem to have read none. So I will put my final response below.

 

I don’t know how many times I have to say this………

 

I AM NOT PAYING YOUR COMPANY ANY MONEY AT ALL

 

NONE,…… ZILCH,…..NOTHING,….. ZERO,…..ZIP,….. NADA !!!!

 

I cannot believe that it will not sink in

 

Please do not write any more, unless it is to inform me of the court date.

 

Mr D firewalker

Edited July 4, 2008 by davefirewalker

[davefirewalker]

Just been going over my lads bank account charges, which are being chased by crapquest

 

As a student he didnt really handle money very well at all....

 

but in a four month period they added £1800 in charges....??? no wonder he was depressed at the time...grrrrrrr

 

I'm now after them too

 

dave

[patrickq1]

you back on the warpath again dave lol

the reason i am being stubborn and diggin my heals in with MORGAN STANLEY ,is i honestley beleived that the PPI insurance would clear the debt,i have a leaflet here 4 years old and it says it will clear debts upto 15000 then when they wrote to me in july last year they slipped in only pay 3% well with intrest at 29 % it would nt even pay for toilet paper so that is my main contention with them,liars i cannot stand and to cap it all they added another PPI when i began the claim ? this is not acceptable,i rang them at the time when they started charging the second PPI and they said it was in case i took ill on a different matter,how dumb am i i did not question it at the time,and during the PPI payment33 mths they defaulted me 3/4 times,so they can go to court i think any right minded person would see this as a complete farce and also trully deceptive of them...so i am sticking to my guns and as for the Muppets they keep offering the debt to ive had six different companies and this last one is about as stupid as they can get HFO ,what a nice company they are they keep ringing me now it is down to 3 times a day but i love it when they do i am really enjoying their calls ,so much that i kindly play some fantastic pink floyd for them i am sure they appreciate it cause they keep ringing up for more.

patrickq1

[ODC]

Hi all

 

just sent this to HFO in reply to their please contact us letter

 

HFO services

 

Dear Ms [EDIT]

 

Thank you for your latest letter informing me of the huge savings to be made by contacting you and negotiating a discount on my alleged debt.

 

I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all.

 

I have previously sent you a number of letters explaining my position, of which you seem to have read none. So I will put my final response below.

 

I don’t know how many times I have to say this………

 

I AM NOT PAYING YOUR COMPANY ANY MONEY AT ALL

 

NONE,…… ZILCH,…..NOTHING,….. ZERO,…..ZIP,….. NADA !!!!

 

I cannot believe that it will not sink in

 

Please do not write any more, unless it is to inform me of the court date.

 

Mr D firewalker

 

 

Say what you mean Dave. Dont waffle.

[davefirewalker]

Say what you mean Dave. Dont waffle.

 

I'm sorry....was I being a bit long winded....

 

muppets

 

 

Dave

[Chalkitup]

"I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all."

 

Oh Dave ... What a fantastic line.

 

Cheered me up no end ..... been away for some time with illness but picking up the fight again with my creditors very soon.

 

Onwards and Upwards.

 

Chalkitup

[davefirewalker]

"I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all."

 

Oh Dave ... What a fantastic line.

 

Cheered me up no end ..... been away for some time with illness but picking up the fight again with my creditors very soon.

 

Onwards and Upwards.

 

Chalkitup

 

I try.....

 

dave

[The GodMother]

May partner has just gave me a brilliant idea and l thought it was good enought for posting.

 

If they write to you again offering a discount or summing maybe what you should do is search for a online translator and see how may languages you can find that tells them

 

Go away.

I am not paying you.

or any variation of that you wish to use.

 

That should keep them busy for 5 minutes.

 

Chrissi

[davefirewalker]

May partner has just gave me a brilliant idea and l thought it was good enought for posting.

 

If they write to you again offering a discount or summing maybe what you should do is search for a online translator and see how may languages you can find that tells them

 

Go away.

I am not paying you.

or any variation of that you wish to use.

 

That should keep them busy for 5 minutes.

 

Chrissi

 

 

I somehow dont think they will write again........

 

on the other hand they are so stupid, that it might take a few attempts to get through to them.

 

rgds

 

Dave

[patrickq1]

well g,maam i am not sure if you have had any phone calls from the hFO muppet store they are all foreigners lol

[tomterm8]

Hi all

 

just sent this to HFO in reply to their please contact us letter

 

HFO services

 

Dear XXXX

 

Thank you for your latest letter informing me of the huge savings to be made by contacting you and negotiating a discount on my alleged debt.

 

I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all.

 

I have previously sent you a number of letters explaining my position, of which you seem to have read none. So I will put my final response below.

 

I don’t know how many times I have to say this………

 

I AM NOT PAYING YOUR COMPANY ANY MONEY AT ALL

 

NONE,…… ZILCH,…..NOTHING,….. ZERO,…..ZIP,….. NADA !!!!

 

I cannot believe that it will not sink in

 

Please do not write any more, unless it is to inform me of the court date.

 

Mr D firewalker

 

LOL I think the judge might have a hernia from laughing so much, if he sees that letter;)

[ODC]

I'm sorry....was I being a bit long winded....

 

muppets

 

 

Dave

Muppets is being to kind. Just a pity the Cagbot wont let us say what we really think of these W (think of what a boat drops to stop it from moving) S

[maybelline]

status 8 i.e. default is clearly stated by the cra as meaning the agreement has ended, for me this is causing some confusion, because if the agreement has ended means the agreement has been forceably ended in as much as it is defaulted and the creditor now intends to take some other action, notice of default or not? but the rules on taking that action also require a notice of some kind dont they?

 

sorry I know I have mentioned this before but how can an agreeement be deemed to be 'ended' and then 'ended' again some time later, isnt there some contradiction in the meaning or intention of this default scenario.

[Alphageek]

I have decided to save myself even more money by not paying you at all.

 

You do have a way with words Dave

 

LOL

[nicklea]

this could be bigger than Wilson itself!!!!!

 

please give a great deal of consideration to the legal arguments and also i urge you to fully research this first before jumping in with both feet

 

Hi

I’ve seen quite a few comments about the Wilson v FCT case but nothing about the other Wilson cases that, to my mind, seem just as relevant to Dave’s case, if not more so.

In the Robertson case:-

Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088

She was trying it on (sorry – perhaps shouldn’t say that!) in the same way that she was in the previous pawnbrokers case:-

Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147

She was trying to say that when she renewed each agreement, because they were unenforceable, that she should get the principal amount back for each renewal of the agreement. The court decided that this wasn’t right (big surprise). However, what is important is that it was held that there was no dispute that she was entitled to keep the principal amount of the loan, have her security returned and to have all the interest paid by her returned. There was no comment on return of payments she made towards the principal amount as she hadn’t made any, she was just paying off the interest.

The issue

15 Mrs Wilson claims that, on its true legal analysis, each renewal was a "novation", involving repayment of the original loan followed by the making of a new agreement for a loan of the same amount, secured by the redeposit of the same item.

 

16 The consequence, according to her argument, can be best seen from an example:

i) Mrs Wilson enters into agreement 1 under which she pawns the watch for £400, and receives a loan of £400.

ii) At the end of the period, she enters into agreement 2 under which the same item is stated to be pawned for the same £400 amount. She pays the interest due on agreement 1. No further money changes hands, but her liability to pay the sum of £400 is treated as a liability under agreement 2.

iii) This process is repeated with agreement 3 replacing agreement 2, and then agreement 4 replacing agreement 3. Again she pays interest due on each agreement, but no money changes hands in respect of principal, her liability being transferred to the new agreement.

17 At the end of this process, because the agreements were unenforceable under the Act, it is not in dispute that she is able to retain the £400 loan, to recover the watch, and to receive back all the interest payments actually made. However, in addition, she claims that she is entitled to payment (in this example) of a further sum of £1200 (£400 x 3), on the footing that, even though no new money changed hands, on a true legal analysis she had paid £400 to discharge each of the agreements. This, she argues, was "an amount received by the creditor… on realisation of the security…" within the meaning of section 106(d) of the Act, and therefore is repayable to her.

The interesting bit here is from p17:-

At the end of this process, because the agreements were unenforceable under the Act, it is not in dispute that she is able to retain the £400 loan, to recover the watch, and to receive back all the interest payments actually made

 

And also here from p3:-

3 Following that decision, the stay on the present proceedings was lifted in November 2003, and the case came for hearing on April 2005 before HH Judge Rose. His judgment in turn was subject to an appeal before Laddie J in June 2005. The combined effect of those decisions was that the agreements were held to be both defective and extortionate. There was no dispute that Mrs Wilson was entitled in principle not only to retain the amount of the loans to her, but also to return of the pawned goods, and to repayment of interest previously paid by her.

I hope that this is of some help.

Regards

Nicklea

[davefirewalker]

Thanks for that Nick....

 

I was aware of the cases mentioned and have done a LOT of research into this......

 

Just waiting on some last minute developments and some advice then its full steam ahead.........

 

rgds

 

Dave

[nicklea]

Dave,

 

Sorry if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. I'd be interested to hear how things go with you. In my case, I'm looking to use this as part of a counterclaim that I'm putting together against Goldfish.

 

Regards

 

nick

[davefirewalker]

Dave,

 

Sorry if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. I'd be interested to hear how things go with you. In my case, I'm looking to use this as part of a counterclaim that I'm putting together against Goldfish.

 

Regards

 

nick

 

No probs matey...

 

I always keep this thread updated.....as much as i can

 

rgds

 

Dave

[ian1969uk]

"Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default or Termination Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Claimant a claim for damages. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)"

 

Dave, can you explain this part you have included please?

 

Where in Kpohraror does it say that unlawful rescission of contract prevents a court from enforcing an alleged debt?

[car2403]

"Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default or Termination Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Claimant a claim for damages. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)"

 

Dave, can you explain this part you have included please?

 

Where in Kpohraror does it say that unlawful rescission of contract prevents a court from enforcing an alleged debt?

 

Dave originally got this from me and I originally got it from tomterm8.

 

I think there should be a reference to Wilson -v- FCT somewhere in there, which is the way I'm playing it, after "prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt".

 

Kpohraror is the authority for the counterclaim to the value of £1k in substantial damages, without having to show special damages.

[ian1969uk]

Dave originally got this from me and I originally got it from tomterm8.

 

I think there should be a reference to Wilson -v- FCT somewhere in there, which is the way I'm playing it, after "prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt".

 

Kpohraror is the authority for the counterclaim to the value of £1k in substantial damages, without having to show special damages.

 

Ah right, but we need to clarify this. If asked by a judge how this conclusion is reached, we can't just say 'I got it from a mate who got it from another mate'

 

I agree that some further reference to Wilson would be appropriate. There is a clear precedent for the £1,000 damages but if the amount owed is substantially more, and the creditor can still enforce it, then the £1,000 is of limited benefit.

[davefirewalker]

Hi Ian

 

The debts ARE unenforceable....No prescribed terms at all.....one doesnt even have a creditors name and address. so no problems there...

 

 

rgds

 

Dave

[car2403]

Ah right, but we need to clarify this. If asked by a judge how this conclusion is reached, we can't just say 'I got it from a mate who got it from another mate'

 

I agree that some further reference to Wilson would be appropriate. There is a clear precedent for the £1,000 damages but if the amount owed is substantially more, and the creditor can still enforce it, then the £1,000 is of limited benefit.

 

No, I wouldn't say that neither.

 

I would say "the Creditor hasn't followed the prescribed process under the Act and Regulations and should lose the possibility of further enforcement under the agreement as a financial penalty, in line with the Woodchester and Wilson Judgments".

 

Might be just an opinion, but it has to be pursuasive argument at least. (If not binding!)

[ian1969uk]

I'm thinking that if a default and then a termination notice is inaccurate and invalid, then we could argue that a further default notice (corrected) cannot be issued as the agreement is no longer in force. This is the creditors own fault as they have acted unlawfully.

 

If they cannot then follow the correct procedure, then they can't take the next step in issuing court proceedings.

 

Just thinking out loud really, is there any merit in this?