CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Ok so this is the tem you mean is it?

right so think abouut this

The creditor constantly updates your credit file with payment information irrespectve of whether the account is in default or not, true?

How do you think he is able to do this.

The term in the agreement allows the creditor to share data, it is not enabled by breach otherwise he could never use it in the normal course of events, ie to record your payment history.


This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

OK NO luck so far here it is again.

Please answer in a few words as i said it is the conerstone of your argument you should be able to exlain why this is not the case.

Becaus if this is true then there is no reason why a credit agency cannot record a default, dont forget that the default is difined by the ICO not the CCA.

Please stick to this point , it is your main argument after all.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Lol Peter, reporting payment history and changing account status are 2 different things. They are free to report payment history as they see fit, though they are not free to change the status of the account to default on regulated agreements (if they were allowed to, then they would default us all at anytime regardsless of whether we were in default of not, purely because the creditor felt the relationship had broken down - just like they can with unregulated agreements, though a claim for libel would be likely) unless they have first complied with the very legislation and regulations that grants them the benefit to do so when they have issued a Default notice that must be VALID in order for them to be entitled to enact a provision in the agreement to report the status of the account as being defaulted upon the debtors breach of a provision of the agreement listed in the Default notice itself i.e. missed payments. The only time they are entitled to change the account status to default without a default notice is on UNREGULATED agreements such as phone contracts. A point you choose to ignore.

Its worth pointing out that majority of agreements have 2 seperate provisions for reporting or payment history and that of entitlement to place the account in default status with CRA's.

In fact peter, if your so right, then why is it you continue to ignore the core of my argument and have so far not in the sligtest provided anything that counters my argument under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983?

Probably because you can not, and instead you choose to carrying arguing blindly by not even bothering to fully read or digest my posts. Instead you attempt to throw spanners in the work out of desperation to distract those reading this thread from seeing my argument.

Hell even ODC made it clear to you, that using my argument and throwing at DCA would be useful. As not doubt it would give them something to think about.

Hi Ok may be a mistake but i wil answer some of the missconseptions here

The creditor reporting a default to the CRA is not changing the account status nesseraly, that would be termination of the agreement. It is meerly reporting that the creditor regards the account as being in default.

In any case if by this you mean stopping further credit, the creditor can do that at any time without issuing a defaut notice.

I have not seen these two differnt clauses in an agreemet since both proceedures are identical one meerly follows from the other it would seem a like a waste iof ink but i would like to see one.

I ignore the core of your argument about the CCA because the recording of data does not concerne the CCA, this is done on all agreements wether covered by the cca or not and the method for placing the data has to be the same in all cases otherwise the future leder could not get a correct picture of the applicants credit worthy ness.

Now you answer my points please.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

OK NO luck so far here it is again.

Please answer in a few words as i said it is the conrestone of your argument you should be able to exlain why this is not the case.

Becaus if this is truen then there is no reason why a credit agency cannot record a default, dont forget that the default is difined by the ICO not the CCA.

Please stick to this point , it is your main argument after all.
Peter

I have already given the answer you however choose to ignore it as you can not accept i have proven you wrong.

Your post above just goes to prove you are incapable of disproving my argument. You still continue to ignore the core point of my arguments. Instead you dimiss my response in a pathetic attempt to carry on the argument in the hope is contradict myself, which is not going to happen. You clearly can not accept being unable to disprove my argument can you peter, You can not see any way of doing so and instead start to act like a little child. Its pathetic peter it really is and its not doing your reputation on here any favours, well whats left of it anyway, as your outbust in post 33 more or less made it clear to everyone that you cleary look down on the rest of us and out opinions, even celestine's.

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Ok so this is the tem you mean is it?

right so think abouut this

The creditor constantly updates your credit file with payment information irrespectve of whether the account is in default or not, true?

How do you think he is able to do this.

The term in the agreement allows the creditor to share data, it is not enabled by breach otherwise he could never use it in the normal course of events, ie to record your payment history.


This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

Olk still no luck here it is again, appologies if you have answered this before perhaps you could repat for us, like i say it should only take a few words.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Hi Ok may be a mistake but i wil answer some of the missconseptions here

The creditor reporting a default to the CRA is not changing the account status nesseraly, that would be termination of the agreement. It is meerly reporting that the creditor regards the account as being in default. No peter it is not the creditor reporting the account is in default when recording defaulted payments at all, it is nothing more than reporting missed payments. Reporting of an account being in default is when the account status is changed to default which can only be done once an a VALID DN has been issued and the 14 days elasped without remedy and the account terminated.

In any case if by this you mean stopping further credit, the creditor can do that at any time without issuing a defaut notice. who said anything about stopping further credit? I never mentioned anything of the sort

I have not seen these two differnt clauses in an agreemet since both proceedures are identical one meerly follows from the other it would seem a like a waste iof ink but i would like to see one. Look closely as they are there, one under the default section of the terms and the other either in the same area or in the termination section or the section regarding recording of data. And even if their not their it would not make any difference in anycase. And no peter they are not identical, you see reporting of payment history is normal cause of account operations, issue a default though requires DN (a valid one) and legislation and regulations to be complied with prior to them being entitled to changed the account status to Default and only then if the debtor fails to remedy within the 14 days.

I ignore the core of your argument about the CCA because the recording of data does not concerne the CCA, this is done on all agreements wether covered by the cca or not and the method for placing the data has to be the same in all cases otherwise the future leder could not get a correct picture of the applicants credit worthy ness.

The core of my argument is not based on the cca argument like mcguffic case was. The core of my argument is based on consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) 1983.

Now you answer my points please.

Peter

I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983. One must wonder what you have been reading all this time as i clearly made it clear in nearly all my post what the core point of my argument was based on, infact, in one post i even took the liberty to actual post a word to word copy of the very section of the very regulations in which my argument was based on. How you missed that is anyone guess.

Anyway, i think is now time i ended this arguement once and for all. I therefore refer you to the following.

UPDATED - Defaults, The Law Removal - allaboutFORUMS

Particularly post # 4 that clearly states - "Default notices are governed under various acts, particularly The Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default & Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Amended). s.87(1) of the CCA1974 states that a "default notice must be served before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor (a clear confirmation of what section 6(f) schedule 2 relates too)". What this means is that if you fall into arrears, then the lender can issue a default notice to you, giving you 14 days to remedy the breach (i.e. bring the arrears up-to-date) before they can issue a Termination Notice, which allows them to then register a default against you with the CRA's.

In other words

1. Correct DN leads to Termination Notice = CRA's can report

2. Incorrect DN = everything thereafter is nullified, and the ICO will support Default removal in these circumstances.

Argument over - Am right and you were wrong!

Oh and thanks to NIDDY for his excellant thread over on allabouts forum.

By the way in Labmans last post Peter, you missed the bit in bold where Labman clearly made it clear the DN had to be VALID.

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

WHILST WE ARE WAITING. ANOTHER MISSCONSEPTION OF YOURS

i DO NOT LOOK DOWN ON ANY ONE I MEARLY SAY THAT ON THIS POINT YOI ARE WRONG,
WHICH YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Ok so this is the tem you mean is it?

right so think abouut this

The creditor constantly updates your credit file with payment information irrespectve of whether the account is in default or not, true?

How do you think he is able to do this.

The term in the agreement allows the creditor to share data, it is not enabled by breach otherwise he could never use it in the normal course of events, ie to record your payment history.

The section you refer to in the regualtions does not have this function anyway, i would explain what it is for to you but I dio not want to sidetrack.

This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

Here it is again no more side tracking answer this please

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983. One must wonder what you have been reading all this time as i clearly made it clear in nearly all my post what the core point of my argument was based on, infact, in one post i even took the liberty to actual post a word to word copy of the very section of the very regulations in which my argument was based on. How you missed that is anyone guess.

Anyway, i think is now time i ended this arguement once and for all. I therefore refer you to the following.

UPDATED - Defaults, The Law Removal - allaboutFORUMS

Particularly post # 4 that clearly states - "Default notices are governed under various acts, particularly The Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default & Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Amended). s.87(1) of the CCA1974 states that a "default notice must be served before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor (a clear confirmation of what section 6(f) schedule 2 relates too)". What this means is that if you fall into arrears, then the lender can issue a default notice to you, giving you 14 days to remedy the breach (i.e. bring the arrears up-to-date) before they can issue a Termination Notice, which allows them to then register a default against you with the CRA's.

In other words

1. Correct DN leads to Termination Notice = CRA's can report

2. Incorrect DN = everything thereafter is nullified, and the ICO will support Default removal in these circumstances.

Argument over - Am right and you were wrong!

Oh and thanks to NIDDY for his excellant thread over on allabouts forum.

By the way in Labmans last post Peter, you missed the bit in bold where Labman clearly made it clear the DN had to be VALID.

My Response is a above peter. Now we are all waiting on you to wriggle your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.

P.s. please keep your response as a sensible and intelligent response. If you can not do that, then instead of subjecting us to yet more childish and silly immature posts, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and just quietly shut the door on your way out.

[Guest]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

When I was studying Law, it was always drummed into us that the Law can be interpreted many ways and that there are multiple methods to defend and fight a case.

LB has always prided itself on allowing debate and not taking sides in disagreements about interpretation. My actions are neutral purely to respect the OP's wishes about THEIR thread.

Clearly the two of you are not going to agree on this point, so why not take the debate to a VIP thread if you want to thrash this out.

The last knowledgeable member we lost Peter, was someone who was fed up of fighting you constantly, yet we didn't take sides then, nor will I now. So that was a pointless and inaccurate dig from you.

I don't want a response btw, I just want this thread to return to sanity.

In your studies you must have notced that certain aspects of the law and in fact life in general are not up for debate, they are facts, this is one of them.

Now i dont think that this site prides itself on putting placing incorrect information on it pages does it.

Now you mention Paul, would you like me to go into the reasons why he realy left both here and CAG are you sure you want to bring that up?

By the way he is not the only knowledgable member who has left recently is he , they had nothing to do with me.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

But you have not answerd the points you just ring up new missconceptions. Fot instance lets look at this;

I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983.

Now Celastine what is your view on this statement. Is this an opinion?

Or is it just plainly incorrect and displaying a core lack of knowledge and in particular the way secondarry legislateion is enacted.

You tell me

.
Mean while tea boy still waiting fot a co herant answer.

Perter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

In your studies you must have notced that certain aspects of the law and in fact life in general are not up for debate, they are facts, this is one of them. That is the most ridiculus statement i have seen for a long while peter. Still holding onto the believe the word of law is taken word for word are you. Its not its open to interpretation based on facts of the issue at hand. You never studied law peter, so who are you to question Celestine- ohh i forgot your the self proclaimed mr always correct king of the hill.

Now i dont think that this site prides itself on putting placing incorrect information on it pages does it.

Now you mention Paul, would you like me to go into the reasons why he realy left both here and CAG are you sure you want to bring that up? We all know the reason peter, its because you couldn't accept you were wrong. If that was not the case then Celestine would not have referred to it as being so, now would she!

By the way he is not the only knowledgable member who has left recently is he , they had nothing to do with me. - So what, point is paul left directly as a result of you - the others left for other reasons. I fail to see what your trying to prove there.

Peter

I see your trying to change the subject peter to distract from the arguement in a vein attempt to get round not having to respond to my last post.

Come on peter, respond to my last post... Prove me wrong - we are all dying to see you try.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

But you have not answerd the points you just ring up new missconceptions. Fot instance lets look at this;

I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983.

Now Celastine what is your view on this statement. Is this an opinion?

Or is it just plainly incorrect and displaying a core lack of knowledge and in particular the way secondarry legislateion is enacted.

You tell me

.
Mean while tea boy still waiting fot a co herant answer.

Perter

Ohhh whats up peter, have you no response to my last post where i referred you to NIDDY's. It clearly validates my argument and proves you wrong, so off course you can not repond to it.

Remember peter this whole argument is about how and when a creditor is entitled to register a default on a debtors credit file. Not about when or how the regisiter/record a persons payment history on the credit file, which you seem to be attempt to use as your argument as an attempt to muddy the waters and distract from the original argument.

Here is my last post for you again peter - enjoy:

Originally Posted by teaboy2
I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983. One must wonder what you have been reading all this time as i clearly made it clear in nearly all my post what the core point of my argument was based on, infact, in one post i even took the liberty to actual post a word to word copy of the very section of the very regulations in which my argument was based on. How you missed that is anyone guess.

Anyway, i think is now time i ended this arguement once and for all. I therefore refer you to the following.

UPDATED - Defaults, The Law Removal - allaboutFORUMS

Particularly post # 4 that clearly states - "Default notices are governed under various acts, particularly The Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default & Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Amended). s.87(1) of the CCA1974 states that a "default notice must be served before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor (a clear confirmation of what section 6(f) schedule 2 relates too)". What this means is that if you fall into arrears, then the lender can issue a default notice to you, giving you 14 days to remedy the breach (i.e. bring the arrears up-to-date) before they can issue a Termination Notice, which allows them to then register a default against you with the CRA's.

In other words

1. Correct DN leads to Termination Notice = CRA's can report

2. Incorrect DN = everything thereafter is nullified, and the ICO will support Default removal in these circumstances.

Argument over - Am right and you were wrong!

Oh and thanks to NIDDY for his excellant thread over on allabouts forum.

By the way in Labmans last post Peter, you missed the bit in bold where Labman clearly made it clear the DN had to be VALID.

If you can not counter it Peter, then i seriously recommend that you give up and go quietly before you destroy the remaining shreds of your reputation that you are now left with. As your continued refusal to accept the facts, the law and that i was right, purely to save your own face and self delustional believe your always right and the rest of us are wrong, is seriously undermining the respect other members (no doubt including site team and site admin too given you back talking to celestine) had for you prior to this argument.

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Ok so this is the tem you mean is it?

right so think abouut this

The creditor constantly updates your credit file with payment information irrespectve of whether the account is in default or not, true?

How do you think he is able to do this.

The term in the agreement allows the creditor to share data, it is not enabled by breach otherwise he could never use it in the normal course of events, ie to record your payment history.

The section you refer to in the regualtions does not have this function anyway, i would explain what it is for to you but I dio not want to sidetrack.

This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

Here it is again if you lost it

A few words should be adequate to disprove this if it is false

Peter

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Sorry missed the bit sbout Niddies forim. Your not serious.
Most of te stuff on there isnt even opinion its just bile, not the place for intellegent analasys, ideal for you though.

However if there is a point een raised over there that you think is relavant letd here it meanwhile please answer the questions.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Here it is again if you lost it

A few words should be adequate to disprove this if it is false

Peter

Originally Posted by teaboy2
I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983. One must wonder what you have been reading all this time as i clearly made it clear in nearly all my post what the core point of my argument was based on, infact, in one post i even took the liberty to actual post a word to word copy of the very section of the very regulations in which my argument was based on. How you missed that is anyone guess.

Anyway, i think is now time i ended this arguement once and for all. I therefore refer you to the following.

UPDATED - Defaults, The Law Removal - allaboutFORUMS

Particularly post # 4 that clearly states - "Default notices are governed under various acts, particularly The Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default & Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Amended). s.87(1) of the CCA1974 states that a "default notice must be served before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor (a clear confirmation of what section 6(f) schedule 2 relates too)". What this means is that if you fall into arrears, then the lender can issue a default notice to you, giving you 14 days to remedy the breach (i.e. bring the arrears up-to-date) before they can issue a Termination Notice, which allows them to then register a default against you with the CRA's.

In other words

1. Correct DN leads to Termination Notice = CRA's can report

2. Incorrect DN = everything thereafter is nullified, and the ICO will support Default removal in these circumstances.

Argument over - Am right and you were wrong!

Oh and thanks to NIDDY for his excellant thread over on allabouts forum.

By the way in Labmans last post Peter, you missed the bit in bold where Labman clearly made it clear the DN had to be VALID.

This disproves your whole bloody argument, read it instead of showing yourself to be nothing more that a self delusion thread troll that is incapable of accepting your wrong even when faced with the facts. That also reverts to pathetic distraction from main argument tactics so you can wrongly insinuate i changed the subject when it was yourself, and who also reverts to childing snide, offensive and insulative comments in a pathetically vein attempt attempt under the delusional believe the rest of us reading this thread do not have the intelligance to see exactly what your up to and that the only reason your doing is because you can not prove me wrong.

I suggest you call it a day peter, you have lost spectacularly (arse kicked by a teaboy lol) and its time you finally realised your not the mr know it all thats always correct like you claim to be. But then you won't will you, because you simply can not accept that you are wrong even when the facts and evidence proving you are have been clearly presented to you.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Sorry missed the bit sbout Niddies forim. Your not serious.
Most of te stuff on there isnt even opinion its just bile, not the place for intellegent analasys, ideal for you though.

However if there is a point een raised over there that you think is relavant letd here it meanwhile please answer the questions.

Peter

In other words you can not produce an effective counter argument to what is a legal fact and law. Instead you just choose to completely dimiss it as bile (in your words) You are a sore loser peter.

Until the day you can produce an effective counter argument, then you have no right to demand i answer your questions especailly when i have already done so and you choose just to ignore my answers purely because you can accept your wrong. I used to have good deal of respect for your contributions on here and elsewhere, but now you have shown your true colours, i have no respect for your opinions anymore regardless of whether i agree or not with such opinions. And i think the majority that have read this thread will feel the same too.

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Ok so this is the tem you mean is it?

right so think abouut this

The creditor constantly updates your credit file with payment information irrespectve of whether the account is in default or not, true?

How do you think he is able to do this.

The term in the agreement allows the creditor to share data, it is not enabled by breach otherwise he could never use it in the normal course of events, ie to record your payment history.

Why would a Section dn be needed to place a d on a file if the above is true

This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

Here it is again just qoute this and answer the one point please.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

But you have not answerd the points you just ring up new missconceptions. Fot instance lets look at this;

I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983.

Now Celastine what is your view on this statement. Is this an opinion?

Or is it just plainly incorrect and displaying a core lack of knowledge and in particular the way secondarry legislateion is enacted.

You tell me

.
Mean while tea boy still waiting fot a co herant answer.

Perter

Obviously Celestine is to busy with her law books to enmlighten you here. so i will have to do it.

What you sre quoting here is secondaary legislation made uder authority of the CCA 1974,

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations
1983

Made - - - 24th October 1983

Authority: Consumer Credit Act 1974, ss 76(3), (5), 87(4), 88(1), (4), 98(3), (5), 182(2), 189(1)

This IS part of the act

One of your lesser errors

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Here it is again just qoute this and answer the one point please.

i already answered your questions back in this post

Lol Peter, reporting payment history and changing account status are 2 different things. They are free to report payment history as they see fit, though they are not free to change the status of the account to default on regulated agreements (if they were allowed to, then they would default us all at anytime regardsless of whether we were in default of not, purely because the creditor felt the relationship had broken down - just like they can with unregulated agreements, though a claim for libel would be likely) unless they have first complied with the very legislation and regulations that grants them the benefit to do so when they have issued a Default notice that must be VALID in order for them to be entitled to enact a provision in the agreement to report the status of the account as being defaulted upon the debtors breach of a provision of the agreement listed in the Default notice itself i.e. missed payments. The only time they are entitled to change the account status to default without a default notice is on UNREGULATED agreements such as phone contracts. A point you choose to ignore.

Its worth pointing out that majority of agreements have 2 seperate provisions for reporting or payment history and that of entitlement to place the account in default status with CRA's.

In fact peter, if your so right, then why is it you continue to ignore the core of my argument and have so far not in the sligtest provided anything that counters my argument under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983?

Probably because you can not, and instead you choose to carrying arguing blindly by not even bothering to fully read or digest my posts. Instead you attempt to throw spanners in the work out of desperation to distract those reading this thread from seeing my argument.

Hell even ODC made it clear to you, that using my argument and throwing at DCA would be useful. As not doubt it would give them something to think about.

Now again i suggest you stop trying to distract everyones attention with your nonsense peter, as i do not have to answer the same question twice when my original answer was not only sufficent but is also backed up by the following.

Originally Posted by teaboy2
I have already answered all your points Peter, you admit to not answering my core point, as you wrongly assumed it was based on the CCA 1974, when its actually based on the consumer credit (default, enforecement and termination) regulations 1983. One must wonder what you have been reading all this time as i clearly made it clear in nearly all my post what the core point of my argument was based on, infact, in one post i even took the liberty to actual post a word to word copy of the very section of the very regulations in which my argument was based on. How you missed that is anyone guess.

Anyway, i think is now time i ended this arguement once and for all. I therefore refer you to the following.

UPDATED - Defaults, The Law Removal - allaboutFORUMS

Particularly post # 4 that clearly states - "Default notices are governed under various acts, particularly The Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default & Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Amended). s.87(1) of the CCA1974 states that a "default notice must be served before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor (a clear confirmation of what section 6(f) schedule 2 relates too)". What this means is that if you fall into arrears, then the lender can issue a default notice to you, giving you 14 days to remedy the breach (i.e. bring the arrears up-to-date) before they can issue a Termination Notice, which allows them to then register a default against you with the CRA's.

In other words

1. Correct DN leads to Termination Notice = CRA's can report

2. Incorrect DN = everything thereafter is nullified, and the ICO will support Default removal in these circumstances.

Argument over - Am right and you were wrong!

Oh and thanks to NIDDY for his excellant thread over on allabouts forum.

By the way in Labmans last post Peter, you missed the bit in bold where Labman clearly made it clear the DN had to be VALID.

Now where is you counter argument peter, as am dying to see it!