CCA Posts from Hillesden Thread

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

I just did elaborate in my last post, though am sure Labman will jump in is he feels the need too.

I see you want to start a diferent argument because you are loosing this one.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Oh now i am with you, yes i checked, we do not need a credit liscence for offering informal advice anyh more than this site does however we have one anyway, i didnt know, not involvled in the running of it any more just a humble foot soldier when i can make it in.

Is this wha you mean?

As for my absence last night sorry about that had to pee, is that OK also.

Peter

Actually the whole argument was about when you said a group license under ABTUL covered all credit unions, no doubt including yours. But atlas, atleast you now admit you are not all knowing.

By the way you need a credit license for offering formal and informal adivce in a public or commerical capacity on financial issues, hence why Labman has one. I also believe legal beagles have one too.

Must have been a very long PEE, thats all i can say.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

So to cut a long story short mr patient OP ignore the above its b*l**cks.
Peter

And what legalisation or case law says otherwise. OHHH not a single one just your misinterpretion of what is nothing more than the ICO Guidances Notes, where such notes are hardly law or based on case law, now are they.

Atleast my argument was based on actual legislation and regulations and i was precise to which section of the legislation applied.

Oh and please don't belittle the OP, its obvious your the one that couldn't stop himself from carrying on the argument and even reverting to personal, belittle and snide comments towards me and a pathetic attempt to try and see out the whole argument in the hope i would just give up and walk away just so it then makes it look like you won. Sorry Peter, but i never back down and i will continue to respond accrodingly to ever post you make arguing your point, just to knock you off you high horse. I made it clear that both sides of the argument and nothing but techincal arguments neither of which have been directly tested in court. I also gave you 2 opportunities to bring about an end to the argument, in response all i got was more offensive and belittling comments from you.

You know its funny, you can always tell when a person is unable to prove their argument or that their opponent is wrong, as they always result to insults, snide and belittle comments.

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Technically Peter, if a default notice is invalid then the default on the credit file is not accurate as they have not issued the default inaccordance with Consumer credit act 1974 or in compliance with Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. As such they are not entitled to register the default on the credit file until a valid default notice is issued and the statutory 14 days has passed without remedy. For them to do so of the back of an invalid DN they have in effect prejudiced the debtor.


Off course my view and your views are simply just technical arguments that could go either way if tested, but i doubt it has been even tested in court or will likely be tested.

So to cut a long story short mr patient OP ignore the above its b*l**cks.
Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

You start so well then you say"were they can issue a default to file" - Yet more belittling eh Peter, such a child.
NO they do not have to issue a DN under 87 to file a default that is what we are trying to tell you.

Yes they do as their right to issue a default to file is a provision of a CCA terms and conditions that can only be enacted subject to 1 a breach by the debor and 2 a valid DN under section 87(1) that compiles witht he consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 as made clear by section 6(f) of schedule 2 of the consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983. If the DN is invalid then the Default is deemed as not having occured just as it is when a valid DN is remedied.

That only time they can issue a default on file without the need for a default under section 87 (1) is for agreements that are not regulated by the consumer credit act. You sir are getting confused between non regulated agreements and defaulting them and regulated agreements being defaulted.

As for this argument with Labman i am still unclear perhaps you had better ellaborate, i am a bit confused here, unusual for me.

Peter

I just did elaborate in my last post, though am sure Labman will jump in is he feels the need too.

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

Ohh i get it its ok to belittle others and make snide and personally offensive comments towards them when you unable to win an argument, that your only arguing about because you can not accept their opinion or point of view and think you have to be correct over everyone else.

Yet when i throw something back at you, you don't like it do you.

As for the issue, as in argument resolved, yeah only because labman put you in your place and corrected you resulting in you dissappearing from the forum all night, i assume in a sulk, though i accept that you probably had other things to do too. Like advice you Credit Union pals that ABTUL are not listed as having a credit license with the OFT and that labman suggested you ought to perhaps stop doing DMP's for people, as those who do hold valid CCL's, CFS Licenses, Cashflow Licenses etc... may feel obliged to report you and your credit union friends

Oh now i am with you, yes i checked, we do not need a credit liscence for offering informal advice any more than this site does however we have one anyway, i didnt know, not involvled in the running of it any more just a humble foot soldier when i can make it in.

Is this wha you mean?

As for my absence last night sorry about that had to pee, is that OK also.

Peter

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

You start so well then you say"were they can issue a default to file"
NO they do not have to issue a DN under 87 to file a default that is what we are trying to tell you.

As for this argument with Labman i am still unclear perhaps you had better ellaborate, i am a bit confused here, unusual for me.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

"Hell even Labman put you in your place yesterday over credit unions and DMP. Would you care for me to elaborate on that for the whole forum to see. Its time you accepted that you are not more knowledgable then the first of us, that your opinion is not always right and that you should stop being an egotistical prick."


Must admit i take great exception to this, what do you mean"Even Labman" i will have you know i have the greatest respect for labmans knowledge as for anything that you think need airing please feel free, i thought the issues raised were resolved.

Peter
"

Ohh i get it its ok to belittle others and make snide and personally offensive comments towards them when you unable to win an argument, that your only arguing about because you can not accept their opinion or point of view and think you have to be correct over everyone else.

Yet when i throw something back at you, you don't like it do you.

As for the issue, as in argument resolved, yeah only because labman put you in your place and corrected you resulting in you dissappearing from the forum all night, i assume in a sulk, though i accept that you probably had other things to do too. Like advice you Credit Union pals that ABTUL are not listed as having a credit license with the OFT and that labman suggested you ought to perhaps stop doing DMP's for people, as those who do hold valid CCL's, CFS Licenses, Cashflow Licenses etc... may feel obliged to report you and your credit union friends

[teaboy2]

Re: Hillesden DCA CCA request

HI
Yes it of course it does not say the ICO definition of default is when a dn notice is sent under the CCA1974.

Generally as far s the ICO is concerned it is just when the creditor reasonably considers that the agreement has broken down, there are as you see in the text general guidlines as to when this should be, but ther is a fair amount of leeway given to the creditor which may or may not be a good thing.

The confusion arises becouse it is usual practice for creditors to send out the notice of default on the same document as the default notice under section 87.

It is true that in this situation, if the section 87 is remedied then the notice of default on the file will also not take place.
The cra will still record any missed payments that occured leading up to the default.

It follows that there is nothing stoping the creditor from sending a notice saying that a default will be registered after missed payments without having to threaten court action with a section 87 dn.

This has to be true of course because many agreements are not covered by the CCA and would not require a section 87 notice yet they would still require the notice a per the ICO before a notice is placed on the credit file. - No one is disgreeing with that point peter, but the fact is this thread is about a regulated agreement so a section 87(1) notice is required and it must comply with the consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regualtions 1983 specifically section 6(f) which makes it clear, in order for the creditor to enact the provision in the agreement where they can issue a default to file, the debtor must be in breach of the specificed provision given in the DN. If however the DN is invalid then the Default is deemed as not having occured until a valid one is issued. Its not rocket science Peter. Also a notice of intent to issue a default is either in the terms and conditions off the agreement as a provision (which can only be enacted if a DN is valid), infact its in all regulated CCA agreements terms and conditions, and in a majority of cases a seperate notice is supplied with the DN itself too.


Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Sorry what was the question

Peter

------------------------------ merged --------------------------------
HI Labman

Any idea what he is on about?

Peter

It wasn't a question Peter, so stop being pathetic. You know perfectly well what am talking about and so does everyone else on here.

Lol funny how you have to ask Labman though i will not elaborate as to why, though Labman knows why.