CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

[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

[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.

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

Waiting for teaboys anwer to my query

eter

[Guest]

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

[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.

[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

[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: 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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

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.

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

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

HI
Ust been looking arround
As i said this has ben resolved on her and elswher many times

See here

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...chohol&page=14

See particularily Amythyst post 341 and angry cat post 347 but the reast of the thread will confirm.

Peter

[teaboy2]

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

I do not think the more words i write make me right at all, perhaps you missed the vital parts were i have said my argument remains untested, i never claimed it to be 100% right, but i have made it clear its not wrong either as its backed up with the legislation that i based my argument on.

It is yourself that believed the argument was wrong, despite the fact it has not been tested to the best or my knowledge in court. But just because its not been tested it does not make it wrong now does it.


I do not dispute the fact that a default can be placed on a credit file with the issuing of a valid DN after the statutory 14 days have passed without remedy at all - what i do dispute however, is when they issue a default on to credit file when an invalid DN is issued where either the 14 days have not been given or it fails to meet the prescribed terms which means they are not entitled to issue a default to file. A point which is backed up by section 6 (f) schedule 2 that grants them the right to enact the provision of the contract to place a default on the breach of the agreement by the debtor, which only applies if the DN is valid and complies with prescribed terms, because if it is not valid then it fails to meet the requirements of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 and we both know that for a DN to be valid and for them to take the actions intended that are mentioned in the DN including inacting the provision of the contract to place a default on the debtors file upon the debtors breached listed in the DN, that such DN must comply with the said regulations 1983. Thats seems the be the part you fail to understand peter.

Again you refer to ICO guidance notes, they are just general guidance notes peter, nothing more nothing less, they do not differientate between regulated and unregulated with the expection of reference to issuing a DN under section 87 (1) and for the lender to comply with code of practice, that very code of practice for regulated agreements will no doubt instruct the lender to comply with legislation and regulations. You seem to think the what is contained in the guidance notes makes the legislation and regulations that governs the issuing and validity of Default notices issued for regulated agreement, no longer relevant - That is not the case, as they are very much relevant, its just the guidance notes you refer to do not go into specific details as to how and when to issue a default on a regulated agreement or what legislation or regulations they must comply with.

Using Ico Guidance notes to attempt to debunk an argument that is based on the very Regulations that governs Default notices and the entiltments of the lender to enforce or in the event the DN is invalid the same legislation/regulations deny the lender the right to enforce (when i say enforce i do not mean the debt, but enforement of a right to enact a term of contract, i.e. Termination, default, registering of a default or securing or security or property). Is quite frankyly ridiculous - In fact i can see mine and your argument being played out in court right now, me claiment you defendant.

Claiment - When a default notice fails is invalid it fails to comply with the Consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 (by the way it contains the word default in the title of the regulations for a reason peter). As such the same regulations prevent the defendant from benefitting from section 6(f) schedule 2 where by the defendant can enact/enforce a provision of the contract to issue a default to debtors credit file upon the debtors breach of another provision of same contract as listed in the DN.

Defendant - THe ico guidance notes make it clear a default can be issued at anytime to credit file.

Claiment - The Ico guidance notes are merely a generalization on how and when to issue a default to a credit file and said notes do not differetiate between issuing a Default to file for regulated agreements and how to issue a default to file for unregulated agreements. Though it does say that the landers most comply with a code of practice that governs such issuing of default notices, such code of practice for regulated agreements will no doubt be inline with section 87 (1) CCA 1974 and that of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination regulations) 1983 which a lender must comply with when issuing a Default notice in order to be entitled to the benefits granted to them by section 87 (1) CCA 1974 and by the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 - Non compliance means the issued DN is invalid as such they are not entitled to the benefits contained within section 6 of the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 or section 87 (1). section 6 which clearly states that such action 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. Therefore if the DN is invalid for failing to give the required number of days they can not take such actions outline in section 6 of the regulations, not only that but if the DN fails to comply with prescribed terms they also can not take such action specified under section 6 schedule 2 as the DN would invalid for failing to comply with Persrcibed terms. As such it can not be deemed that a debtor is in Default of the agreement until a VALID DN has been issued and the debtor has failed to remedy within the prescribed 14 day period. Because if a debtor does remedy then the Defaunt is deemed to have not occured as per section 89 CCA 1974. Therefore to deem the default has accured off the back of an invalid DN, is nothing more then prejudice towards the debtor and denial to the debtor of his/her rights under CCA 1974 and the consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983

Judge - Default Judgement in favour of Claiment as defendants defence is not based on legislation or legal regulations and is therefore unlikely to succeed.

Sorry peter but thats what the result would be is me and you tested our arguments in court even if you referred to mcguffic case, it would not change anything as my arguement is mainly based on consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 - therefore the mcguffic case has no relevance to my argument. Read the title of that regulation as its clear as to what the regulations governs.

[Guest]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Bloody hell do i have to read all that again.

Please address the simple points i have made in my last two posts. with a straightforward resonse to those particular points

Peter
n
------------------------------- 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.


Peter

Here it is again

If this is wrong you should be able to say why it is wrong in a few words

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

HI
Ust been looking arround
As i said this has ben resolved on her and elswher many times

See here

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...chohol&page=14

See particularily Amythysxt post 341 and angry cat post 347 but the rea of the thread will confirm.

Peter

Clutching at straws with yet more ICO guidance - Not to mention the fact the posts you linked to only applies if ther Default Notice is VALID. Not to mention the fact the thread and posts you refer to was prior to me bringing up my argument and was therefore at the time, back then, believed to be standard process on issuing of defaults to file for both regulated and unregulated agreements. By the way Defaulted payments can be listed in the payment history, i have never denied that, what i clearly dispute though is the changing off accounts overall status to Default, not the listing of defauted payments for missed payments, which on many occasions can add up to 6 - 7 Defaults payments in the payment history before a creditor tries change the status of the account to default.

As i said it has not been tested, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong. Trying to continue to prove it is wrong is simply futile peter as you are not a court or a judge, and its only a court and judge that can ultimatly decide if its wrong or not.

Oh and as for your post about this forum being here to give correct advice, well not exactly as not all advice fits all whether its correct or not, the sit is also here for new arguments to be presented to DCA creditors and others, after all its the presentation of such new arguments that got us and other consumer rights advocates to where we are today i.e. stronger in knowledge, stronger in numbers, with a hell of a bigger legal arsenal of effective legal arguments (tested and untested i might add) that has put creditors, DCA and the likes firmly on the back foot. Are you suggesting we do not expand on this and simply let our gaurd down and wait for creditors and DCA's to hit back at our succesful arguments rendering them useless, leaving us with no new argument to throw back at them and resulting in us losing the upper hand? Surely not.

And as for "i will not let in correct information be given to members. simple as that." - Who are you to decide which legal arguments are correct and which are not? Are you a forum moderator a member of the site team whom are more then happy to allow debate on such legal arguments? No your not, so just who are you to decide if another members interpretation of law or opinion or law is different to yours, it is automatically incorrect? Your not all knowledgable, you are not correct yourself all the time, despite your earlier claim to be (post 33) you are not the king of and ruler or law, nor are you the judge that ultimate is the person that decides which legal intepretation is correct and which is wrong. No your just a member of a consumer site that gives advice to help members in difficulties, just like me. You are also the same guy that wrong advised that the Sales of goods act does not apply to private sales, or did you forget about that.

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Bloody hell do i have to read all that again.

Please address the simple points i have made in my last two posts. with a straightforward resonse to those particular points

Peter
n
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Here it is again

If this is wrong you should be able to say why it is wrong in a few words

Peter

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.