Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes, but we are seeing a trend of arguments being developed which take things that step too far.

The circumstances you refer to above will be brought into light with the High Court Judgment being handed down tomorrow.

But these repudiatory arguments which have , and seemingly keep failing, need to be put to bed

Tomorrow! can't wait.

[basa48]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

But as Ihaterbs says, most people of these forums are desperate.

They haven't all spent like a WAG and then looked for a way to avoid paying it back. Most have been forced to borrow to stay afloat and then when disposable income is dropping the banks up the interest rates. OK most banks may set a reasonable repayment schedule if pushed but will insist the risk is covered by a CO. Thus they get a secured loan at unsecured rates.

Yeh - that's fair!!

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

So how do you answer the claim that creditors are looking for every argument, however twisted, to win in court?

That some DCA's are clearly acting outside of the law?

That the whole techicality issue is the fault of those institutions who were not competent, or who thought the law didbn't apply to them, or who couldn't be arsed to keep proper records - as required by law.

Every claim made by a bank or DCA should succeed because they had their house in order.

Its not the debtoras fault its the creditors, and if the law had been applied firmly, they would be properly writing off millions of debt because their business was not properly managed.

FFS stop blaming the debtors, and look at where the fault for all of this lies.

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Most people using consumer sites are in desperate need of help. Creditors are ignoring their requests to cease interest charges, penalty charges and/or refusing to accept token payments until an improved change in circumstances, often after divorce, bereavement, illness. I for one have been successful in having a DJ dismiss a creditors claim on technical breaches and have helped others do the same. The point is if a debtor who has been shafted by these scumbags can use any king of technical breach to distinguish a liability then who are we to judge after all they are operating within the law contrary to certain moneylenders and DCAs.

Keep up the fight.

Yes, but we are seeing a trend of arguments being developed which take things that step too far.

The circumstances you refer to above will be brought into light with the High Court Judgment being handed down tomorrow.

But these repudiatory arguments which have , and seemingly keep failing, need to be put to bed

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

Most people using consumer sites are in desperate need of help. Creditors are ignoring their requests to cease interest charges, penalty charges and/or refusing to accept token payments until an improved change in circumstances, often after divorce, bereavement, illness. I for one have been successful in having a DJ dismiss a creditors claim on technical breaches and have helped others do the same. The point is if a debtor who has been shafted by these scumbags can use any king of technical breach to distinguish a liability then who are we to judge after all they are operating within the law contrary to certain moneylenders and DCAs.

Keep up the fight.

[ed.]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So now we have financial bigamy to confuse us even more.

That's about as clear as the mud on Weston-Super-Mare beach at midnight when there's no moon or cloud.

[mystery1]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

HI
I think a lot of the problem is that some don’t seem able to understand the concept that the enforcement cannot happen if the default notice is defective.
We must remember that the act says that the creditor is not entitled to so therefore he cannot, the fact that he takes steps to do what he is not entitled to is not important, in law he cannot.
I always get the mick taken for using simplistic examples so here is your chance to have a go, but consider this.
I have a lady friend who married a man who was married before.
She accepted his termination, oops sorry I meant proposal.
The got the licence, they got the invitations, she walked down the aisle.
That night on their honeymoon he passed away from over exertion.
When the will was read his new wife got nothing at all from his estate, nope his first wife got it all.
You see he was not entitled to marry so even though he went through all the actions in law none of it happened.
OK
So now chip away
Peter

In the same scenario if he hadn't died but his 1st wife found out and it went to court he would be punished. The only reason that he wasn't punished was death.

M1

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

HI
I think a lot of the problem is that some don’t seem able to understand the concept that the enforcement cannot happen if the default notice is defective.
We must remember that the act says that the creditor is not entitled to so therefore he cannot, the fact that he takes steps to do what he is not entitled to is not important, in law he cannot.
I always get the mick taken for using simplistic examples so here is your chance to have a go, but consider this.
I have a lady friend who married a man who was married before.
She accepted his termination, oops sorry I meant proposal.
The got the licence, they got the invitations, she walked down the aisle.
That night on their honeymoon he passed away from over exertion.
When the will was read his new wife got nothing at all from his estate, nope his first wife got it all.
You see he was not entitled to marry so even though he went through all the actions in law none of it happened.
OK
So now chip away
Peter

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

If this is the case (and we think it is) then service of a new DN may raise the following questions;

1. Was the earlier mistake an offence under the 2008 CPRs at Reg 5 (misleading business practices) or was it just an honest mistake?
2. Was activity following the mistake an offence under the 2008 CPRs at Reg 7 (aggressive business practices) or was collection/recovery/action an unfortunate side-effect of the earlier honest mistake?
3. Does the period between the bad DN and the good DN fall under S140? Ie, did the OC abuse his position to introduce bias in the relationship in his favour and, if so, what are the risks that a court would discharge the debtor from the debt?
4. Does service of a new DN following a long period of aggressive (but erroneous) recovery action provide grounds for compensation under S140?
5. Has the 1998 DPA been breached where the bad DN prevents remedy, opening up a claim for compensation under S13 of that Act?
6. Does the OC want the contract to be reopened to a former customer who he has already marked with the CRAs as a bad risk? If he does, is there a risk that the OC falls foul of the OFT's irresponsible lending rules?
7. Is it actually possible to restore the relationship to how it was, or will the debtor (now customer again) forever worry that the OC will repeat his various mistakes?
8. Were goods repossessed? If so, how is the debtor to be compensated for unlawful seizure?

I'm sure there are other questions for the OC to consider, so it may not be as easy for him as some might think (unless there has been little/no activity between bad DN and good).

If goods are taken
then you could claim in conversion, the CPUT regs arent actionable by a private individual i believe on those parts, only by the specific authority

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

If this is the case (and we think it is) then service of a new DN may raise the following questions;

1. Was the earlier mistake an offence under the 2008 CPRs at Reg 5 (misleading business practices) or was it just an honest mistake?
2. Was activity following the mistake an offence under the 2008 CPRs at Reg 7 (aggressive business practices) or was collection/recovery/action an unfortunate side-effect of the earlier honest mistake?
3. Does the period between the bad DN and the good DN fall under S140? Ie, did the OC abuse his position to introduce bias in the relationship in his favour and, if so, what are the risks that a court would discharge the debtor from the debt?
4. Does service of a new DN following a long period of aggressive (but erroneous) recovery action provide grounds for compensation under S140?
5. Has the 1998 DPA been breached where the bad DN prevents remedy, opening up a claim for compensation under S13 of that Act?
6. Does the OC want the contract to be reopened to a former customer who he has already marked with the CRAs as a bad risk? If he does, is there a risk that the OC falls foul of the OFT's irresponsible lending rules?
7. Is it actually possible to restore the relationship to how it was, or will the debtor (now customer again) forever worry that the OC will repeat his various mistakes?
8. Were goods repossessed? If so, how is the debtor to be compensated for unlawful seizure?

I'm sure there are other questions for the OC to consider, so it may not be as easy for him as some might think (unless there has been little/no activity between bad DN and good).

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

But does it mean that they can reissue as many notices as they want, but after a bad notice there can NEVER be any enforcement?

I dont know the answer, I have no legal knowledge, but a pretty good grasp of the English language.

a bad notice can lead to no enforcement

[basa48]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So no enforcement but does that mean they can go back and try again with a new DN?

Apparently - yes !!!!

[toomanycalls]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

a bad notice can lead to no enforcement

Discuss

So no enforcement but does that mean they can go back and try again with a new DN?

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

a bad notice can lead to no enforcement

Discuss