CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

[Guest]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

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

[Guest]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

I believe so but can not say for cetain though am sure it was mention in the past by someone, when discussing Cags lack of one, a few months back. Hopefully site team can confirm if they have or not.

Hmm sort of makes you a bit , How so we say it ....WRONG,,,, if they dont doesnt it.

I could have sworn you said that casual advice needed a liscence now you say CAG doesnt have one perhaps we should report them


Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

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 - I never said it did, only it stops them from posting the account status as defaulted when the DN is invalid. Off course they are fee to carry on recording payment history. But an invalid default means they do not have the benefit of section 6(f) schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983, that would entitled them to change the account status to default.
Peter

Peter Payment data is not a change to overall account status now is it? No. Off course they are entitled to keep upto date records and reporting of payment history, but they are not entitled under section 6(f) schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 to enforce a provision of the contract that can only be enacted upon the breach of a provision of the contract by the debtor.

A provisions is a term contained within the terms and conditions of a credit agreement, the issuing of a default to credit file is one such provision which can only be enacted upon when the debtor is in breach of a provision i.e. failed to keep up paymets.

In order for them to enforce section 6 (f) schedule 2 the default notice has to be valid otherwise it is in breach of the very regulations that contained section 6 (f) schedule 2. As such they can not enforce said provision to issue default. And yes an invalid default means the default is deemed as not having occured just like just like an invalid credit agreement is deemed as not having existed hence why courts can not enforce debts off the back of an invalid DN or Invalid CCA. if they could and they deemed the accounts to be in default regardless of the invalid DN, then why have all these court cases been thrown out of court and costs awarded to the debtor as a result of the DN being invalid which also resulted in the Default on debtors file being removed until a valid default notice is/was issued.

So seem to be completely ignoring the relevance of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 section 6 (F) schedule 2, and the fact the provison for the creditor to issue or change the account status to default on credit files can only be enacted it a valid DN is issued. As an Invalid DN would simply fail to comply with the above regulations, therefore denying the creditor the right to enact such provision, but also in breach of section 87 (1) of the CCA.

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Hmm sort of makes you a bit , How so we say it ....WRONG,,,, if they dont doesnt it.

No, it doesn't make me wrong at all - Learn to read peter (and don't give me the dsylexic line either as am dsylexic myself) i said "i believe they do have one", as it was mentioned by someone else. Therefore i can only go on the information given to me. Does my BELIEVE based on the information i was given, make me wrong? No, it just means the infomation i was told was wrong. If i had said YES THEY HAVE GOT ONE instead, well that would be different matter altogether.

You know twisting and turning words spoken by others to benefit your own course not only makes you looke childish, but also it just shows that your not very intelligent either.

I could have sworn you said that casual advice needed a liscence now you say CAG doesnt have one perhaps we should report them


Peter

As for what i said about CAG your right i did say they haven't got one, well atleast when you go back a few months to the time i was discussing the issue they didn't. And yes i did say if you which to give casual informal advice PUBLICY AND COMMERCIALLY i.e. in course of normal business such as via Websites, phone, place of work (such as drop in centres i.e. CAB). Then yes they do need one. Of course casual advice in private between friends is exampt form such requirement to have a license.

[Guest]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Peter Payment data is not a change to overall account status now is it? No. Off course they are entitled to keep upto date records and reporting of payment history, but they are not entitled under section 6(f) schedule 2 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 to enforce a provision of the contract that can only be enacted upon the breach of a provision of the contract by the debtor.

A provisions is a term contained within the terms and conditions of a credit agreement, the issuing of a default to credit file is one such provision which can only be enacted upon when the debtor is in breach of a provision i.e. failed to keep up paymets.

In order for them to enforce section 6 (f) schedule 2 the default notice has to be valid otherwise it is in breach of the very regulations that contained section 6 (f) schedule 2. As such they can not enforce said provision to issue default. And yes an invalid default means the default is deemed as not having occured just like just like an invalid credit agreement is deemed as not having existed hence why courts can not enforce debts off the back of an invalid DN or Invalid CCA. if they could and they deemed the accounts to be in default regardless of the invalid DN, then why have all these court cases been thrown out of court and costs awarded to the debtor as a result of the DN being invalid which also resulted in the Default on debtors file being removed until a valid default notice is/was issued.

So seem to be completely ignoring the relevance of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 section 6 (F) schedule 2, and the fact the provison for the creditor to issue or change the account status to default on credit files can only be enacted it a valid DN is issued. As an Invalid DN would simply fail to comply with the above regulations, therefore denying the creditor the right to enact such provision, but also in breach of section 87 (1) of the CCA.

HI
I thik i see wher you are going wrong here. placing a report on a crdit file is not a term of the agreement, nor i it a requirement of the CCA it does not need to be enforced, it is not enforcement of the agreement.

It i not a function of sectin 87 to enable the placing of a note on a credit file that trigger is made at the discression of the creditor, even if it was it would not amount to enforcement.

Section 79 in Mcguffic

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']In contrast, the bank invited the court (as set out in the list of issues) to conclude not only that reporting to the CRAs did not amount to enforcement, but that a number of other activities did not constitute enforcement: (i) reporting to CRAs without also telling them that the agreement is currently unenforceable; (ii) disseminating or threatening to disseminate the claimant’s personal data in respect of the agreement to any third party; (iii) demanding payment from the claimant; (iv) issuing a default notice to the claimant; (v) threatening legal action and (vi) instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise to seek to procure payment[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I really am not trying to be funny but you do not understand this stuff , what you ay does not make any sense.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I can show you, but i do hot think you are willing to learn, you would have to admit that you do not know already and i dont think that is an option for you.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Do you see[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Anyway got to go[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Peter[/FONT]
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

As for what i said about CAG your right i did say they haven't got one, well atleast when you go back a few months to the time i was discussing the issue they didn't. And yes i did say if you which to give casual informal advice PUBLICY AND COMMERCIALLY i.e. in course of normal business such as via Websites, phone, place of work (such as drop in centres i.e. CAB). Then yes they do need one. Of course casual advice in private between friends is exampt form such requirement to have a license.

How on earth did i get drawn into this


Please feel free to carry on without me

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

HI
I thik i see wher you are going wrong here. placing a report on a crdit file is not a term of the agreement, nor i it a requirement of the CCA it does not need to be enforced, it is not enforcement of the agreement.

It i not a function of sectin 87 to enable the placing of a note on a credit file that trigger is made at the discression of the creditor, even if it was it would not amount to enforcement. never said it was, just said they are not entitled to enforce the provision of the agreement that would allow them to do so, under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. I just said that an DN that does not comply with section 87(1) alss does not comply with the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. And the argument is not about enforcement, its about the creditor having the right to pursue a provision to issue a default to file as per section 6(f) scehdule 2. Which clearly they are not entitled to pursue such provision if they have failed to isse a valid DN

Section 79 in Mcguffic - irrelevant as it was not argued under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 - The case pretained only to the consumer credit act 1979. Which does not state anything about issuing default to credit files or provisions that entitle them to do so upon the debtors breach of another provision. Note: Enforcing a provision is not enforcement par se. Its merely an act of carrying out the provision, nothing more.



[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']In contrast, the bank invited the court (as set out in the list of issues) to conclude not only that reporting to the CRAs did not amount to enforcement, but that a number of other activities did not constitute enforcement: (i) reporting to CRAs without also telling them that the agreement is currently unenforceable; (ii) disseminating or threatening to disseminate the claimant’s personal data in respect of the agreement to any third party; (iii) demanding payment from the claimant; (iv) issuing a default notice to the claimant; (v) threatening legal action and (vi) instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise to seek to procure payment[/font]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I really am not trying to be funny but you do not understand this stuff , what you ay does not make any sense.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I can show you, but i do hot think you are willing to learn, you would have to admit that you do not know already and i dont think that is an option for you.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Do you see[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Anyway got to go[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Peter[/font]

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.

[ODC]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

The simple answer is NEVER make any agreement with a DCA either verbally or in writing unless and if they can produce a properly executed agreement then.

Its time enough then to try to work out a deal with them IF you feel so inclined.

If they CANNOT produce proof of a valid properly executed agreement then its highly unlikely that they wil be taking you to court in this millenium. They will of course threaten all sorts but in doing so they are the ones liable to end up in court for threatening action they know that they cannot take

[labman]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Curlyben's "Dealing With DCA's" is still incredibly relevant.

Dealing with DCA's - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Guest]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

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.

Beyond belief

[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.

[Guest]

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

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.

[Guest]

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

[labman]

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.

[Guest]

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