Originally posted by teaboy2
View Post
The creditors right to place a default on a credit file in the event of a breach by the debtor is a written term in CCA terms and conditions. Section 6 (f) of Schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. Prevents them for enacting their right to issue such default to file upon breach of a provision by the debtor. Because in order for them to be entitled to the benefits of section 6 (f) schedule 2 the DN MUST BE VALID. If its not valid then it does not comply with the the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations as it will have failed to comply with section 87 (1). They are therefore not entitled to enforce any rights or provisions in the terms and conditions off the back off an invalid DN.
If what you were saying was true then they would be able to enforce in court regardless of invalid DN, even though the same Consumer Credit (Default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 and section 87 (1) deny them the right to enfore in court when the DN is invalid.
Your now trying to dismiss my argument on the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 by referring to a court case, which pretained to arguing under the consumer credit act 1974 and data protection act and nothing to do with the regulations my argument is based on. Granted the CCA 1974 is not a great way to argue what is enforcement and what the creditor was entitled do to either. Not only that, was the DN in the mcguffic case invalid? if not then its even more irrelevant, infact it contended to reporting of data on an account belonging to an unenforcable agreement. If mr mcguffic had gone down the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations it may well have been a very different outcome.
Also Mr Mcguffic was the claiment to so the bank was not enforcing the debt.
What you fail to understand it the argument is not about enforcing a debt, its about what the creditor is entitled to do if the DN is invalid and sorry peter but section 6(f) schedule 2 is pretty dam clear.
If what you were saying was true then they would be able to enforce in court regardless of invalid DN, even though the same Consumer Credit (Default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 and section 87 (1) deny them the right to enfore in court when the DN is invalid.
Your now trying to dismiss my argument on the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 by referring to a court case, which pretained to arguing under the consumer credit act 1974 and data protection act and nothing to do with the regulations my argument is based on. Granted the CCA 1974 is not a great way to argue what is enforcement and what the creditor was entitled do to either. Not only that, was the DN in the mcguffic case invalid? if not then its even more irrelevant, infact it contended to reporting of data on an account belonging to an unenforcable agreement. If mr mcguffic had gone down the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations it may well have been a very different outcome.
Also Mr Mcguffic was the claiment to so the bank was not enforcing the debt.
What you fail to understand it the argument is not about enforcing a debt, its about what the creditor is entitled to do if the DN is invalid and sorry peter but section 6(f) schedule 2 is pretty dam clear.

Leave a comment: