Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yip, just trying to see it from the other viewpoint too

[Garlok]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No one is talking specifics her are they. Let us just take a specific example which has occurred probably thousands of times.

Barclaycard.
A dispute/complaint/ s78 request/SAR occurs.
Toute suite Mercers are involved. They issue routinely very defective DNs headed s87(1)
Argument still carries on with Mercers, they get bored eventaully and pss it on to the next level of thuggery in the BC coven i.e. Calders.
Who, if true to form after maybe 10 unsuccessful threatening telephone calls issue a demand for the full amount allegedly outstanding on the account.

A lay person is perfectly entitled to believe that the OC has terminated the agreement in its entirety. In fact how can it possibly endure? It may or may not be a fact that the debt may endure ( I note that there is very little discussion of the cases where DJ's have instructed the OC to write the debt off and clear the alleged debtors files). There fore on what basis is the cause of action. A dispute has occurrred which has clearly not been resolved by the OC in a proper manner. What is now being said is that we all need to be QC's to deal with our problems or get hammered into the ground. Why does this thread exist? why does this forum exist then?

I would like to know and these are serious questions.

regards
Garlok.

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

HI
Nothing here about the default being found to be enforceable under the consumer credit act.

2 Definition of ‘Default Data’ from ‘Information Sharing – Principles of Re

10 Indicators of a default
The following indicate that a breakdown has occurred in most types of product (excluding those in the section on Exceptions at paragraphs 12-15). This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

��

The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.

��

The account has been referred for legal action.

��

The account has been included in a bankruptcy, IVA, or similar.

��

The asset financed has been repossessed or instructions for repossession have been given.

��

The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided (or would do so if they were not prevented on social rather than commercial grounds or by other regulations, codes of practice or statute).

��

The customer has not made satisfactory proposals in response to a demand for repayment.

Peter

[Algee]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

It is an accepted industry standard to record only serious ‘defaults’ with credit reference agencies. The term ‘default’ on credit reference files is used to refer to the situation when the relationship between the lender and borrower has broken down. A record showing a series of payments as six months in arrears when this does not reflect the real payment history should not be used as an equivalent of a default. Where a code is used to describe a default or variation in payment, it should always be accompanied by an explanation in plain and intelligible terms which informs the reader of its meaning.

PB


This quote is taken from the ICO guidance. It is at this point that the Creditor issues a Default Notice, asking you for the arrears, or he will post a Default on your file. If you pay, he will not and you can carry ohn as if nothing happened.


How does this square up with your post #448?


Alan

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Garlok,

''DJ's have instructed the OC to write the debt off and clear the alleged debtors files''

Can you point me to some of these pls.

I don't think any one is saying you need to be a QC, the only way to work out if there is, or isn't an argument, against reissuing a DN is to discuss it, and discuss it in terms wherever possible that a lay person can understand and would be able to convey to a court if they should so chose to try that route. I think personally I'm just making the point that the court acts, rightly or wrongly, far more on common sense than technicalities.

Ame
xx

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No one is talking specifics her are they. Let us just take a specific example which has occurred probably thousands of times.

Barclaycard.
A dispute/complaint/ s78 request/SAR occurs.
Toute suite Mercers are involved. They issue routinely very defective DNs headed s87(1)
Argument still carries on with Mercers, they get bored eventaully and pss it on to the next level of thuggery in the BC coven i.e. Calders.
Who, if true to form after maybe 10 unsuccessful threatening telephone calls issue a demand for the full amount allegedly outstanding on the account.

A lay person is perfectly entitled to believe that the OC has terminated the agreement in its entirety. In fact how can it possibly endure? It may or may not be a fact that the debt may endure ( I note that there is very little discussion of the cases where DJ's have instructed the OC to write the debt off and clear the alleged debtors files). There fore on what basis is the cause of action. A dispute has occurrred which has clearly not been resolved by the OC in a proper manner. What is now being said is that we all need to be QC's to deal with our problems or get hammered into the ground. Why does this thread exist? why does this forum exist then?

I would like to know and these are serious questions.

regards
Garlok.

Hi
I am not sure what the questions are but.

The agrement endures for as long as there are liabilities under it.

NOt sure i have seen any cases where the debt had been writern
of by the court on the default issue but i would like to see one perhaps you could indicate where one exists.

I think this forum exists to give realistic and reliable information to people in order for them to better defend themselves against unfair actions by creditors/DCAs

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

PB


This quote is taken from the ICO guidance. It is at this point that the Creditor issues a Default Notice, asking you for the arrears, or he will post a Default on your file. If you pay, he will not and you can carry ohn as if nothing happened.


How does this square up with your post #448?


Alan

Sorry where does it say"at this point the creditor must issue a 87 notice"

Defaults are registered on all kind of accounts not just those covered by the CCA many do not have to issue default notice at all , mobile phones ,electric any number.
In order to give an accurate report of the customers credit worthyness there must be a common method of assesment there cannot be a special arrangement fo CCA debts only.

The creditor may decide not to issue a section 87 but the ICO would still expect him to give a reliable report of the customers payment record.
Hope this answers your question

Peter

[Algee]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No, PB, as usual you have not answered the question. If you read what I posted

It is at this point that the Creditor issues a Default Notice, asking you for the arrears, or he will post a Default on your file. If you pay, he will not and you can carry ohn as if nothing happened.

Or if you want to be pedantic, the creditor issues a s87 notice.

Alan

[StoneLaughter]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So... do we have a date for Handing Down yet? Because until the Judgement is handed down, all the discussion is achieving is plaiting fog. Or herding cats.

PT?

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

lol handed down a couple days go Stoney, but it's not got a massive emphasis on the issue, though it does say a bad notice can often be remedied. Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.

is pretty much it lol.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So... do we have a date for Handing Down yet? Because until the Judgement is handed down, all the discussion is achieving is plaiting fog. Or herding cats.

PT?

Post deleted after viewing above.

[StoneLaughter]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No I just missed the page with the Judgement on it. I was wading through the insults and personal comments and got bored and skipped some pages.

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No, PB, as usual you have not answered the question. If you read what I posted Or if you want to be pedantic, the creditor issues a s87 notice.

Alan

Cant find this quote but i will have to be pedantic i am affraid

THe default notice would be the notice of intention to register the default not the Secion 87 variety.
This guide is for general use it would not refer to just one sattute i found this also

The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when "the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down"

2.

I am trying to answer your question believe it or not

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

No I just missed the page with the Judgement on it. I was wading through the insults and personal comments and got bored and skipped some pages.

Always the best plan

[Garlok]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

The overriding question then is :- For those platoons arguing the multiple issue until we get a judgemnt we like,

Why do we have default notices, demands for full payment of any alleged outstanding amounts etc.?

The toilet paper you have reduced the CCA1974/2006 to is now only a tool to enable creditors to go back to court over and over again until they get what they want.

Well be assured they canot blight people's lives forever. No senior judge would allow it on several other counts.

As regards enduring debts etc. and cause of action ( because the evil felonious debtor has stopped paying) in our own cases after two long years of battles to stalemate with a legitimate complaint as to conduct of OC we issued a formal letter to the OC demanding that they deal with our complaint in a proper compliant fashion or at noon on a certain date all payemnts would cease forthwith. A compensation claim for a six figure sum would be made which would rise in the same way as their contractual interst and a serious criminal allegation was made against them in writing directed specifically at the Chief executives concerned.

When we sought profesional legal advice we were told that we had acted quite properly in giving them the option to come to the table or payments would cease. In fact it was said that they would have advised exactly the same course of action had they had the instructions at that time. They now do and they have never suggested ever (18 months now) that any payments be made on these disputed accounts. This is even after they have conducted some pretty serious investigations inot our affairs with our fullest co-operation.

best regards
Garlok

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I don't think any one is or has argued'' the CCA1974/2006 to is now only a tool to enable creditors to go back to court over and over again until they get what they want.'' certainly not platoons anyway.

The fact is a bad notice can be made good, any detriment should be redressed, more than once (and we haven't actually seen any cases in court which have been told to do the correct DN come back with another incorrect one anyway) and we suggest the court would strike them out for being numpties and they'd have trouble getting back in. Just as you say ''no senior judge would allow it on several other counts''.

So really I think we're in agreement.

I don't know your case Garlok or what the '' serious criminal allegation'' is so it is difficult to comment on individual cases. I agree that where you have a serious dispute on the debt and been through complaints processes and got nowhere then it is perfectly legitimate to stop paying until the dispute is properly investigated and resolved.