CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

The only way to answer this simply is to say because they can and do get away with it.

In an ideal world you should be able to go to the ICO, make a complaint and get all the information removed. However, the CRA's favour the creditors more than alleged debtors, so they will process the data and publish it. Once there it is a hell of a battle to get it removed. It can and is done, but it is a massive battle.

Wrong? Definitely, but sadly that's the way things are.

That's the simplest I can explain it.

[ODC]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

One query I have and would like a simple answer.

A creditor sells a debt to a DCA. The DCA start chasing you for this money. You ask them for proof of the debt such as the signed CCA. They cannot produce any document to prove you signed a credit agreement.

My query is this. How TF can they trash your credit account if they cannot produce any proof tha an agreement exists or that you gave them any permission to contact CRAs.

Simple answers please.

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

In fact the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is a seperate piece of legislation in its own rights and is therefore a seperate act of legislation which is merely only refferred to by the CCA 1974. So you are the one with the misconception Peter as according to your above statement the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is part of the consumer credit act 1974. Also theres no such thing as a secondary legislation my dear boy

This is so completely wrong it should have subtitles.

Is no one elsse out there willing to correct any of this rubbish.

Tell you what if no one else can be bothered i dont see why i should either.

I understand exactly now why Amy and others have left.

Happy trails

Peter

Oh am sorry peter but if am wrong then perhaps you would care to explain why the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 do not appear under the CCA 1974 (same for admended versions) as Part or schedule of the consumer credit act 1974, but appears as a seperate piece of legislation

Sorry peter but if it was part of the CCA1974 then the all that is contained withing the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 would have been written word for word into the consumer credit act as an admended version in 1983 and consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 simply would never have existed.

As for "Tell you what if no one else can be bothered i dont see why i should either." please peter spare us the pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that you have actually given up as you have been proved wrong, by carrying on the pretence you were right and are simply giving up because you can not make me understand. Also am sure that if i was so wrong that Labman and ODC would have told me and so would Celestine and all the others that have been following the thread.

Oh and referring to Amy, well am not aware shes left, but what i do see is an attempt to connect me to her leaving when i had nothing to do with Amy leaving - Thats if she has left.

Oh i forgot to mention - I guess that also means you now know how paul felt too when he left because of you and your argumentive streak.

And also some more information for you Peter - the DPA Principle 4 of the Eight underpinning fundamental principles states:

"Data must be accurate and up to date."

So yes, they CAN register a default on file, but as soon as they realise it is off the back of an invalid DN, then they have to remove it as it is no longer in accordance with Principle 4. As they are not entitled to register it in the first place, which therefore also confirms my point that they can not register a Default of the back of an invalid DN. Also it blows your whole ICO guideance notes argument clean out of the water too.

Lesson for today peter is that Teaboy never backs down when he knows or strongly believes hes right (though occasionally when believing am right i have been wrong and held my hands up after some debate, but its very rare i am wrong), that doesn't mean to say am always right as i have been wrong and corrected some times, and when that happens i do not argue with the person that corrected me i accepted it and either moved along quietly and not argued back as it would be pointless or i post an apology to the effect that i was wrong and xx is indeed correct. Hell sometimes i do not even bother arguing back even if i am right or strongly believe i am.

In this case though - i was not wrong!

And the beauty about forums like legal beagles is that they allow debates they allow people to stand up for their new arguments even if the rest agree - Why you ask? well because maybe just maybe, even though noone else has thought about it, just maybe that new argument is valid. Thats how this site and our fight for consumer rights continues to evolve Peter. Its also what makes us members and site admin/team so strong and good at what we do.

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Ther is no counter argument becausee there is no arhgument , the CCA does not apply.

As an asside i will tell you what the actual function of the regulation does if you like although it ha nothing to do with the points you raise.

Peter

Ohh but it does apply peter... oh but it does, after all its what regulates the who default process on regulated agreements.

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

In fact the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is a seperate piece of legislation in its own rights and is therefore a seperate act of legislation which is merely only refferred to by the CCA 1974. So you are the one with the misconception Peter as according to your above statement the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is part of the consumer credit act 1974. Also theres no such thing as a secondary legislation my dear boy

This is so completely wrong it should have subtitles.

Is no one elsse out there willing to correct any of this rubbish.

Tell you what if no one else can be bothered i dont see why i should either.

I understand exactly now why Amy and others have left.

Happy trails

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

You realy should be paying me for this.

Creditors do not have to terminate the agdreement in order to register a default with the CRA. Wrong because they bloody well do have too

This is not opinion i am affraid this is simple fact. Wrong law states the need for a valid DN and for the 14 days to have passed without remedy prior to a creditor being able to register a default. Remember if a DN is remedied the Breach is deemed as to have not occured. A Invalid DN means the Creditor is not entiled to terminate nor is he entitled to take any action that he would have been entitled to take if the DN had been Valid - Why because any actions taken of the back of an Invalid DN will have been Nollified - meaning any Default register to CRA's would have to be removed as the creditor was not entitled to register it in the first place.

They are given the right to do this by a clause in the agreement that allows them to share data. Wrong that applies only to sharing of payment history/records. it doesn't grant them the right to willy nilly register a default.
There is no need for the CA or any other legeslation to be involved in the process. Now that is obsurd, do you realise what you just said - am glad your not in charge of making legislation otherwise non of us consumers would have any rights or protections granted to us by the CCA.

Now you are saying that the clause in the agreement that enables the creditor does not apply what i wqnt to know is why you would think that. i never said that it doesn't apply (yet agan twisting things and wrongly stating i said something that i never stated eh peter) but only for registering payment history/records, i made it clear their is a second term in a CCA that entiles the creditor upon the debtors breach of a provision listed in the Default notice, to register a Default on their file - they are two very different terms of the agreement peter. Something you fail to grasp or understand.
You said yourself that the cca does not apply but a regulation made under it does, sorry but this makes no sense.

No i said using the CCA1974 does not apply to my argument, why because my argument is based on what is contained in the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. If i truely believe the CCA 1974 was irrelevant, then why have i constantly been referring to the need for a VALID CCA under section 87 (1) that also complies with perscribed terms under the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983?

Peter

Again peter your merely twisting what i have said in support of my argument to make out i said something i had not actually stated in order for you to try and discredit my argument.

Yest you still have not produced a VALID counter argument to the following which proves my argument -

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.

Read more at: Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - Reply to Topic

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

i already answered your questions back in this post



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.



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

Ther is no counter argument becausee there is no arhgument , the CCA does not apply.

As an asside i will tell you what the actual function of the regulation does if you like although it ha nothing to do with the points you raise.

Peter

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

You realy should be paying me for this.

Creditors do not have to terminate the agdreement in order to register a default with the CRA.

This is not opinion i am affraid this is simple fact.

They are given the right to do this by a clause in the agreement that allows them to share data.
There is no need for the CA or any other legeslation to be involved in the process.

Now you are saying that the clause in the agreement that enables the creditor does not apply, what i want to know is why you would think that.
You said yourself that the cca does not apply but a regulation made under it does, sorry but this makes no sense.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

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


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

Not an error at all, mcguffic case referred only to the CCA act 1974 and not to the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983

In fact the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is a seperate piece of legislation in its own rights and is therefore a seperate act of legislation which is merely only refferred to by the CCA 1974. So you are the one with the misconception Peter as according to your above statement the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 is part of the consumer credit act 1974. Also theres no such thing as a secondary legislation my dear boy.

Still trying to wiggle your way out of it aren't you peter. Though you fail to realise that even if what you said about was entirely correct it does nothng to change 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.

Oh and your comment about celestine was unnecassary as what she is doing now is entirely up to her. And such a comment just shows how spiteful and disrespectful you are.

Though your clearly getting even more desperate now aren't you 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!

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 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.

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

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

[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.