CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Peterbard You have ruined this thread by your petty arguments and childish insults to other members. You disgust me. This forum exist to help not as a a personal ego trip. What you quote in law may or may not be legally correct. The plain fact is we are dealing with greed driven DCAs whose grasp of the law is tenuous to say the least. They will always step away from a fight they know they cannot win.

If I was a new member of this group seeking help I would be totally disheartened by now. You have totally ruined this thread and remind me of someone on CAG who was an argumentative asshole too.

It's not all insults by the way There is one thing on which we both agree.

Support your local Credit Union

Does this forum exist to give correct information?

If it does then i can provide it (in this area anyway) i will not let incorrect information be given to members. simple as that .

Peter

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

hi
you seem to think that if you write enough words it makes what you say correct it doesnt.

The facts are as i have stated, really thast is all there is to it.

if you dispute the fact that a notice can be placed on a credit file on a cca account without the issuance of a 87 notice thenl ets see the evidence. i have shown you the ICO guidlines that sow this , i have shown that the statute does not apply in this . You have not shown anything that indicates an intelegent contry argument.

Just one small paragraph if that is possible

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

I agree ODC, DCA's are not exactly high flying barrister that know the law inside out, so when you throw legal arguments at them and same for creditors, they soon go silent. Doesn't matter if the argument hasn't been tested or some might not agree with it, what matters is whether a dca or a creditor will be able to answer it and/or more importantly willing to be the first to go up against it in court. There is more greater risk for the DCA then for the debtor, after all the debtor will only have to still repay the debt with additonal costs if they lost, where a creditor/dca would likely lose value to the debt (written off) and pay theirs and the debtors legal costs, and possible compensation for inaccurate recording of a default on their file if my argument were successful.

Peter misunderstanding here is that he believes that a default can be issued at any time on all forms of financial accounts, purely because of what the ICO guidance note says. What he fails to realise is that although he is right and a default can be issued at any time without the need for a default notice on unregulated agreeements. Regulated agreements however, do require that the creditor follows and complies with legislation and regulations that governs the issuing of a default and only when such is complied with is the creditor entitled to the benefits of section 6(f) schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regaulations 1983, which is the very section that allows them to enact the provision of the regulated agreement to issue a default to credit the debtors credit file, but only upon the breach of another provision listed in the DN by the debtor. If the DN is invalid then it does not comply with said regulations of section 87 (1) as such the creditor is not entitled to the benefits of section 6(f).

He also seems the think the ICO guidedance notes are GODS words, their are not, their simply nothing more then a generalised guidance on when and to issue a DN, it does not differentiate between regulated and regulated and its not exactly the best written guidance or the most detailed or specific. So it fails to make clear beyond doubt, the difference between issue a default on a regulated agreement and on an unregulated agreement. Remeber Unregulated agreements do not have to comply with section 87(1) CCa1974 or with consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 - Where as Regulated agreement do have to comply when a creditor issues a default notice.

We have all read CCA agreements we have all seen the term in the terms and conditions where the creditor mention their right to report the account as defaulted to the CRA's upon the debtors breach and failure to remedy such breach - such terms is the very provision that section 6 (f) schedule 2 is referring too.

[ODC]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Peterbard You have ruined this thread by your petty arguments and childish insults to other members. You disgust me. This forum exist to help not as a a personal ego trip. What you quote in law may or may not be legally correct. The plain fact is we are dealing with greed driven DCAs whose grasp of the law is tenuous to say the least. They will always step away from a fight they know they cannot win.

If I was a new member of this group seeking help I would be totally disheartened by now. You have totally ruined this thread and remind me of someone on CAG who was an argumentative asshole too.

It's not all insults by the way There is one thing on which we both agree.

Support your local Credit Union

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Yep just the same as it has always been


Thanks for stating the blindinglhy obvious

Peter

And what would the obvious be peter. Hmmm the fact that what labman said only applies in the case the DN is Valid perhaps.

No its not bloody enough because the member does not have a substansiated correct answer to the question they have posed - And you do, do you. I think not, as the issue about the Default on the OP's file is not really an issue for the OP, all the OP is concerned about is where she stands on the issue, and she made her current stance on the issue pretty clear - i.e. she is happy to continue repaying the debt.


You know Celestine i amk getting heartily sick of this, there are people that know that everything i say here is absolutely correct i know because these points have arrisin before, yet you sit back and let plonkers like this miinform members and dont speak up , Come on Amethyst you know all about this stuff what about curly lets here what you have to say. no what is it not good for business. Isa this why youo are loosing knowledgeable members all over the place.
Peter

So everything you say is correct. so you admit you like to think your correct all the time and everyone else is wrong. Well let me tell you something peter, if that was the case then all the new arguments based on new interpreatations of the law that stemed from people like you and me reading up on the law along with those legal professionals that stood up for consumer rights, we would not be where we are not in the fight for consumer rights.

Publicly back talking Celestine is totally uncalled for, and to me shows you lack of respect not just for the rest of the members here but also for the site team and the site administrators too that allow for open debates and arguments based on different interpretations of the law. You seem to think your above and better then the rest of us, well thats your progative, but that doesn't mean we should all stand back when peter says where wrong. If anything you need to accept that others will have a different interpretation and opinion to you. I made it clear that my argument was an untested one, or as far as i know it is. But i backed it up with legislation, yet regardless of that, you just saw the bit where i said untested, and jumped at it just to prove i was wrong, when really its up to a court to decide if i am wrong or not and until that day comes and the court decides against my argument, i will bloody well stand by it.

Your attempt to debunk it using a case that pretained to the consumer credit act 1974 and not like my argument based under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. Was a pathetic attempt of debunking my argument as the case you referred to had no relevance to the legislation in which my argument was based on, and in my opinion mcguffic's msitake was to argue it under the CCA 1974, where if he had used the same legislation to which my argument is based on, then he may well have come out on top.

A number of times you made snide, offensive and insultive comments, in reponse to me and my arguement. Just like how a child reacts when they realise they are not getting what they what, they cry and say naughty things like i hate you mummy. So your reverting to such, is pathethic. i tried to refrain myself a number of times but, and quite rightly so, on the odd occasion i lapsed in refraining myself. And then you trying to insinuate that i was changing the subject when i was only elaborating on previous comments that you had ask me to elaborate on, just says to me your desire was to devert me from my arguement so it looks like you had won, while making it look like i had changed the subject - Clever, but you underestimated my level of intelligence and ability to spot and work out precisely what you were trying to do, hell it may even come natural to you and therefore you may not even realised you were doing..

What i noticed the most peter, is how you never actually directly responded to the core of my argument. Instead you just ignored it.

I aplogise to celestine and thewife666 for this 1 additional post, but i feel the above needed to be said, and off course i apologise to you both for my part in the argument as well as apologise to everyone else that had to endure it. I did try to end in on 2 or 3 occasions but peter decided to ignore my recommendation to end it, in order to save the thread. However am not the type of guy to backway just because someone disagrees with my post, especially when they make snide comments etc towards me. Though i do apologise for being that type of person that does not back away when i strongly believe something and i do accept the blame for my part in all this.

Anyway with that i think the above needed to be said, but as of now i will say no more about it. I see no point discussing the argument in the VIP section as no doubt it will only result in the same pathetic argument all over again, though i would appreciate other peoples views on my argument, so feel free to start a thread based on my argument Celestine.

And peter am sorry your grandson is in hospital, and i have nothing personal against you, as you are a valuable member of the site. Its just you need to let people have their opinions without cross examining them all the time.

Teaboy signing off... Well untill tomorrow anyway

[Celestine]

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.

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

The fact that the OP's polite request has been utterly ignored speaks volumes.

Enough, any further posts debating this will be removed.

Thewife666.....Please accept my apologies for the pointless argument that has erupted on your thread. x

No its not bloody enough because the member does not have a substansiated correct answer to the question they have posed


You know Celestine i amk getting heartily sick of this, there are people that know that everything i say here is absolutely correct i know because these points have arrisin before, yet you sit back and let plonkers like this miinform members and dont speak up , Come on Amethyst you know all about this stuff what about curly lets here what you have to say. no what is it not good for business. Isa this why youo are loosing knowledgeable members all over the place.
Peter

Peter

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Taken directly from Experian's Website:

The account is in ‘default’. You failed to keep to your credit agreement and have not responded satisfactorily to requests to bring your payments up to date, so the credit agreement has ended.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

The requests are:
1. A Pre-Default Notice telling you the lender is not happy and is planning to default you.

2. Default Notice which means the lender is going to place a Default against your credit file and demand full repayment unless you're able to clear the arrears within 14 days.

3. The Termination Notice where the lender has already defaulted you and placed an entry with the Credit Reference Agencies - the account is now in default and you have limited resources to get it removed assuming it was served in the correct form.

Hope this clarifies things gentlemen.

I dont need anything clrifying when it comes to this stuff thanks anyway.

Waiting for teaboys anwer to my query

eter

[Celestine]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Gents, Once again thanks for the input but the "point of view ping pong" is begining to cloud things slightly.

The fact that the OP's polite request has been utterly ignored speaks volumes.

Enough, any further posts debating this will be removed.

Thewife666.....Please accept my apologies for the pointless argument that has erupted on your thread. x

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Taken directly from Experian's Website:

The account is in ‘default’. You failed to keep to your credit agreement and have not responded satisfactorily to requests to bring your payments up to date, so the credit agreement has ended.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

The requests are:
1. A Pre-Default Notice telling you the lender is not happy and is planning to default you.

2. Default Notice which means the lender is going to place a Default against your credit file and demand full repayment unless you're able to clear the arrears within 14 days.

3. The Termination Notice where the lender has already defaulted you and placed an entry with the Credit Reference Agencies - the account is now in default and you have limited resources to get it removed assuming it was served in the correct form.

Hope this clarifies things gentlemen.

Yep just the same as it has always been


Thanks for stating the blindinglhy obvious

Peter

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Taken directly from Experian's Website:

The account is in ‘default’. You failed to keep to your credit agreement and have not responded satisfactorily to requests to bring your payments up to date, so the credit agreement has ended.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

The requests are:
1. A Pre-Default Notice telling you the lender is not happy and is planning to default you.

2. Default Notice which means the lender is going to place a Default against your credit file and demand full repayment unless you're able to clear the arrears within 14 days.

3. The Termination Notice where the lender has already defaulted you and placed an entry with the Credit Reference Agencies - the account is now in default and you have limited resources to get it removed assuming it was served in the correct form.

Hope this clarifies things gentlemen.

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

HA HA HA

This section means nothing like that, for gods sake, even if the placing of a notice on a CRA file was triggerd by a default notice(which it most definately is not) this would not have any effect.

Honestly i spat my coffe out all over my keyboard, are you winding me up.

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

For god sake Peter i never said it did stop them filing payment history and payment records to Credit Reference agency. What i have said though is that a creditor is not entiled to enact a provision of the contract to issue a default to credit file, if the default notice is invalid as per section 6(f) scehdule 2 of the consumer credit (Default, Enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. Its not bloody dificult to understand - theres a big difference between recording payment history and apply a default status to the account on the credit file.

In fact here is for you in plain black and bloody white:

Now i can not be any clearer then that Peter, if you can get it or understand it then god help us all, thats all i can bloody say.

Go On then tell me which" provision of the agreement" is this enforceing

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Unbelievable
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


ABOVE AGAIN

For god sake Peter i never said it did stop them filing payment history and payment records to Credit Reference agency. What i have said though is that a creditor is not entiled to enact a provision of the contract to issue a default to credit file, if the default notice is invalid as per section 6(f) scehdule 2 of the consumer credit (Default, Enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. Its not bloody dificult to understand - theres a big difference between recording payment history and apply a default status to the account on the credit file.

In fact here is for you in plain black and bloody white:

SCHEDULE 2
FORM OF DEFAULT NOTICE BEFORE A CREDITOR OR OWNER CAN BECOME ENTITLED, BY REASON OF ANY BREACH BY THE
DEBTOR OR HIRER OF A REGULATED AGREEEMENT, TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT, DEMAND EARLIER PAYMENT OF ANY
SUM, RECOVER POSSESSION OF ANY GOODS OR LAND, TREAT ANY RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE DEBTOR OR HIRER BY THE
AGREEMENT AS TERMINATED, RESTRICTED OR DEFERRED OR ENFORCE ANY SECURITY

Action intended to be taken by creditor or owner
6
A clear and unambiguous statement by the creditor or owner indicating, if any action specified under paragraph 3(c) or
(d) as required to be taken is not duly taken or if no such action is required to be taken, the action which he intends to take
by reason of the breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement--
(a) to terminate the agreement;
(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum;
(c) to recover possession of any goods or land;
(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred;
(e) to enforce any security;
(f) to enforce any provision of the agreement which becomes operative only on a breach of another provision of the
agreement as specified in the notice, (i.e. notice bein DN and debtors breach being debtor misses payments) Read it carefully, twice, think about it, look at what its saying and it should become dam well clear to you then.

at any time on or after the date specified under paragraph 3(c) or (d), or, if no action is specified under that paragraph as
required to be taken, indicating the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice,
on or after which he intends to take any action indicated in this paragraph. i.e. Invalid DN means they are not entitled to the benefits of 6(f)

Now i can not be any clearer then that Peter, if you can get it or understand it then god help us all, thats all i can bloody say.

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Unbelievable
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

OK lets have a look at this
“Thats irrelevant, whats relevant here peter is that the Creditors have no legal entitledment to envoke the provision under a CCA to issue a default to file. Why because an invalid default notice prevents them from enforce such provision in the agreement”

The creditors do not need any entitlement to register the default, this is not a precursor to enforcement it is just recording the payment information, they do of course need permission to share the data but that will be in the contract and not in the statute.
An invalid default notice does not stop them filing information with a CRA, please show me where you think it says it does
Peter

ABOVE AGAIN

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Beyond belief

No peter whats beyong belief is you reference to a case, purely in a vein attempt to back up your argument, when the case had nothing to do with my argument and was based on what actions a creditor was entitled to do when the agreement was unenforceable. The case had no bearing on the fact that section 6(f) schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 (as the regulations where not used as part of the claiments argument) prevents a creditor from enacting a provision that entitles them to issue such a default on a debtors creditor file upon the debtors breach of the provision to pay, when said DN notice is invalid.

Whats even more beyond believe, is despite me previously recommending on 2 or 3 occasions to stop the argument so that is does not destroy the thread, that you still continued.

And even more unbelievably, you then accused me of changing the subject not one but twice, second time when you stated:

"How on earth did i get drawn into this


Please feel free to carry on without me

Peter"

When it was you yourselve that asked my to elaborate on what i had mentioned in response to your originally asking me to elaborate on the issue of credit license and credit unions that you had argued with labman about yesterday.

It amazes me how you systematically attempt to save face by pretending it was me that changed the subject when it was you that asked me to elaborate - You do realise when you ask for more details, or ask a questin about something, then you tend to get given an answer don't you.

It is ridiculous how you could compare the arguments in the mcguffic case that pretained to the consumer credit act 1974 - when my argument is based on the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. Which if mcguffic had used as his arguement would likely have resulted in a competely different outcome depending on whether the DN in the mcguffic case was valid or not. if it was valid then my argument would not apply as my arguement only applies to cases where the DN is invalid, my argument does not pretain to cases were the agreement is unenforecable either it only pretains to the DEFAULT NOTICE VALIDITY and what the creditor is and is not entitled to do depending on if its valid or not, nothing more nothing less.

So please tell me of a single court case where the default was invalid, where my argument was used, where a judged ruled in favour of the creditor. Instead of wasting my time and everyone elses, by referring us to cases that have no connection to my actual argument, in a pathetic attempt to debunk my argument. You of all people should knwo that case law for one argument does not mean the same argument based on different legislation or regulations will have the same outcome, which as such made the case you referred to irrelevant to the my argument.