CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

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

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.

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.

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?

By the way he is not the only knowledgable member who has left recently is he , they had nothing to do with me.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

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.

My Response is a above peter. Now we are all waiting on you to wriggle your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.

P.s. please keep your response as a sensible and intelligent response. If you can not do that, then instead of subjecting us to yet more childish and silly immature posts, do yourself and the rest of us a favour and just quietly shut the door on your way out.

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

WHILST WE ARE WAITING. ANOTHER MISSCONSEPTION OF YOURS

i DO NOT LOOK DOWN ON ANY ONE I MEARLY SAY THAT ON THIS POINT YOI ARE WRONG,
WHICH YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE

Peter
------------------------------- 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.

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 no more side tracking answer this please

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Hi Ok may be a mistake but i wil answer some of the missconseptions here

The creditor reporting a default to the CRA is not changing the account status nesseraly, that would be termination of the agreement. It is meerly reporting that the creditor regards the account as being in default. No peter it is not the creditor reporting the account is in default when recording defaulted payments at all, it is nothing more than reporting missed payments. Reporting of an account being in default is when the account status is changed to default which can only be done once an a VALID DN has been issued and the 14 days elasped without remedy and the account terminated.

In any case if by this you mean stopping further credit, the creditor can do that at any time without issuing a defaut notice. who said anything about stopping further credit? I never mentioned anything of the sort

I have not seen these two differnt clauses in an agreemet since both proceedures are identical one meerly follows from the other it would seem a like a waste iof ink but i would like to see one. Look closely as they are there, one under the default section of the terms and the other either in the same area or in the termination section or the section regarding recording of data. And even if their not their it would not make any difference in anycase. And no peter they are not identical, you see reporting of payment history is normal cause of account operations, issue a default though requires DN (a valid one) and legislation and regulations to be complied with prior to them being entitled to changed the account status to Default and only then if the debtor fails to remedy within the 14 days.

I ignore the core of your argument about the CCA because the recording of data does not concerne the CCA, this is done on all agreements wether covered by the cca or not and the method for placing the data has to be the same in all cases otherwise the future leder could not get a correct picture of the applicants credit worthy ness.

The core of my argument is not based on the cca argument like mcguffic case was. The core of my argument is based on consumer credit (default, enforcement and termination) 1983.

Now you answer my points please.

Peter

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.

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.


This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

Olk still no luck here it is again, appologies if you have answered this before perhaps you could repat for us, like i say it should only take a few words.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

OK NO luck so far here it is again.

Please answer in a few words as i said it is the conrestone of your argument you should be able to exlain why this is not the case.

Becaus if this is truen then there is no reason why a credit agency cannot record a default, dont forget that the default is difined by the ICO not the CCA.

Please stick to this point , it is your main argument after all.
Peter

I have already given the answer you however choose to ignore it as you can not accept i have proven you wrong.

Your post above just goes to prove you are incapable of disproving my argument. You still continue to ignore the core point of my arguments. Instead you dimiss my response in a pathetic attempt to carry on the argument in the hope is contradict myself, which is not going to happen. You clearly can not accept being unable to disprove my argument can you peter, You can not see any way of doing so and instead start to act like a little child. Its pathetic peter it really is and its not doing your reputation on here any favours, well whats left of it anyway, as your outbust in post 33 more or less made it clear to everyone that you cleary look down on the rest of us and out opinions, even celestine's.

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

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.

Hi Ok may be a mistake but i wil answer some of the missconseptions here

The creditor reporting a default to the CRA is not changing the account status nesseraly, that would be termination of the agreement. It is meerly reporting that the creditor regards the account as being in default.

In any case if by this you mean stopping further credit, the creditor can do that at any time without issuing a defaut notice.

I have not seen these two differnt clauses in an agreemet since both proceedures are identical one meerly follows from the other it would seem a like a waste iof ink but i would like to see one.

I ignore the core of your argument about the CCA because the recording of data does not concerne the CCA, this is done on all agreements wether covered by the cca or not and the method for placing the data has to be the same in all cases otherwise the future leder could not get a correct picture of the applicants credit worthy ness.

Now you answer my points please.

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.


This point alone is enough to prove the missconception.

Peter

OK NO luck so far here it is again.

Please answer in a few words as i said it is the conerstone of your argument you should be able to exlain why this is not the case.

Becaus if this is true then there is no reason why a credit agency cannot record a default, dont forget that the default is difined by the ICO not the CCA.

Please stick to this point , it is your main argument after all.
Peter

[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.

[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.

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
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.

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

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