CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

[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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[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

[Guest]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[labman]

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

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.

Thanks for that. When I win the lottery I am going to bring the CRAs to book. Their very existance should be illegal because of the information they gather. **** of a telephone threat monkey and by a simple click of their sweatshop keyboard they can F**k up your life. Im not worried mine is already trashed

[charitynjw]

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.

Just a hopeful thought, but I really do think that it's because of this kind of situation that forums like this exist & thrive.
Why the hell should we roll over & go belly-up for those who think they can employ financial muscle to make us shut up!

[labman]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

The Data Protection Act is a very unusual piece of legislation in that it states that Data Controllers are personally responsible for how their organisation processes data, and what is published - ie - if a member of staff messes up, the Data Controller can be held personally responsible for the mistake.

With CRA's the Data Controllers are vicariously liable with the Data Controller of the organisation who supply them with that data (a bank, loan company etc...). It would be great if they could all be brought to account for all incorrect data using this. Sadly very few people realise this is the case. If you try to go after the Data Controller in person you'll find you get an 'interesting' reaction - they really do not like it!

The Government Departments make this hard as their Data Controller is the Secretary of State.

[Turboman]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

I really am surprised, and despair at the aggression in this thread

I thought all this public aggression was put behind us now

Is not "The Kennels" more appropiate for this thread?

[basa48]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

OK I've read the original thread and the OPs opening statements.

IMO the situation is this.

There was clearly a financial relationship between the OP and the OC and the statements will prove that a debt exists.

A record of defaulted payments on a CRA file has no connection whatsoever to a Default Notice issued under the Act or Regs. Whether the lender can demonstrate the payments are in default without the agreement to specify the payment regime is an argument I will leave to others, save to say trying to get a default marker off a file using this argument would be an uphill struggle probably not worth the effort.

A valid DN is required however before the lender can 'take the next step' toward enforcing a debts repayment, but in the meantime can threaten all sorts in an effort to persuade the OP to make payments. A valid DN by definition presupposes a valid credit agreement.

The Act says "The court shall not make an enforcement order ..... unless a document ......containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor......."

Clearly the easiest way to prove a valid agreement is to produce the original document to the court. But I agree with Peterbard that this is NOT the only way. This is where the judge lottery kicks in as to what proof is required.

Personally my head hurts when I try to determine the legal effect of an account 'terminated' and sold on to a DCA following an invalid DN issued by the OC.

Finally IMO 'enforcement' does not start until a lender asks a judge to issue a CCJ.

[labman]

Re: CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Enforcement is quite clearly the start of court proceedings. That has been clearly defined for a long time and is one of the most frequently misunderstood things. Enforcement is NOT letters from DCA's.

Absolutely correct basa!