bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

[Guest]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Common law is built on case history, show me some to support this contention.
I have shown plenty to disprove.

It is pointless me trying to educate you, you are unwilling to learn, and you would have to admit to much previous error.

All i can say is that untill you find some proof of the effectiveness of this, please refrain from trying out your theories on others, do that and i am quite happy to leave you to your missconceptions

Peter
Peter

[Guest]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Dint know why you should have produced one of Puls posts to prove your case. He was and cstill is in full agreement with me on this always has been.

Just more evedence, that you do not really understand what you are reading.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Common law is built on case history, show me some to support this contention.
I have shown plenty to disprove.

It is pointless me trying to educate you, you are unwilling to learn, and you would have to admit to much previous error.

All i can say is that untill you find some proof of the effectiveness of this, please refrain from trying out your theories on others, do that and i am quite happy to leave you to your missconceptions

Peter
Peter

No peter you have shown nothing, you have made statements but provided nothing to back them, you provided 1 link to a case where it was decided that the DN was indeed valid and where the account had never been sold, therefore not relevent to the argument on unlawful rescission - despite your claim to knowing loads of cases where unlawful rescission was argued and failed, yet failed to provide a link to one. The other 2 links were to your own posts continuing your argument and not proving anything in addition to what you have said here on this thread. You have no case law, though i do have case law to support unlawful rescission of agreements/contracts (which everyone on consumer forums know off), though non were for Credit agreements which this argument is for - so they can not be used to support my argument for unlawful rescission of credit agreements. You constantly state the act does not allow it, yet each time i ask you to inform us where it states as such, you do not - why? Well probably cos it does not state anything that would not allow it.

As for "All i can say is that untill you find some proof of the effectiveness of this, please refrain from trying out your theories on others, do that and i am quite happy to leave you to your missconceptions"

Well you have no proof that my argument is wrong, nor have you provided proof of such. To say it is a misconception and a theory purely because it has not yet been tested in the high court on credit agreements is rediculous as its not a theory, when it has been successful on other contracts and where the act does not state anything to prevent unlawful rescission. So just becuase you disagree with my argument and interpretation in law, and as you have no prove to definitively back what you say about my arguement, then i would suggest you stop telling me what i can and can not post. Afterall they may well be a high court case in the near future where my argument is successful. If people didn't post new arguments up then we would never have anything to change the status quo, would we? No, we wouldn't and if that ever happens, then we might as well all give up fighting for our rights. In fact thats exactly what your telling me to do, when you tell me to not post my advice on this matter even though you have nothing to prove that it is incorrect. As i said before, i invited MBNA to take me to court twice and they refused as they a fully aware of my argument, and thats the only defence i have against them - So don't you think thats a little strange given there link to the Harrison case, if according to you they have nothing to fear. Sounds to me that they do not want to risk it going to the high court and getting case law in favour of my argument.

So peter your above statement is redirected back at you as i could say the same about your argument since it has not been proven in court either.

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Dint know why you should have produced one of Puls posts to prove your case. He was and cstill is in full agreement with me on this always has been.

Just more evedence, that you do not really understand what you are reading.

Peter

I was responding in regards to when they can and can not remedy a bad DN not in regards to my arguement par se. I suggest you reread my post and the linked post that volvodriver linked too, before posting statements that i was using it to prove my case on unlawful rescission, as i think you will find i made no mention to my argument nor did i say anything to the effect that it supports my argument. As for the Harrison case - well the judge decided that the DN was valid, so it has no effect on my argument as it was not decided on unlawful rescission, though i did make it clear in earlier posts that i believe the judge in the harrison case made an error in law in his reasoning as to why the DN is valid.

So please do not tell me i am using the harrison case to support my argument when i clearly am not as it had nothing to do with unlawful rescission due to the DN being deemed valid by the judge - Just like in the case that you posted a link too.

[Guest]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

As i said read some of my earlier posts on the subject if you want to know how the act really opperates in this regard.

Please reffrain from telling others to follow a proven dangerous path.

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

As i said read some of my earlier posts on the subject if you want to know how the act really opperates in this regard.

Please reffrain from telling others to follow a proven dangerous path.

Not proven dangerous path at all peter, you have proven nothing, in fact lets go back to this post you linked to shall we - Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission - Page 2

It clearly states the fatal error was there acceptance of the creditors repudiation. And - "He felt my argument was attractive but the fact I accepted the rescission in writing brought matters outside the CCA and into normal laws relating to debt."

You say the act does not allow for unlawful rescission of contract yet ignore the above where unlawful rescission as occured and the debtors fatal flaw was the acceptence of their rescission - SO i say this:

The result of that case kind of proves that they can be in repudiation and unlawful rescission of contract, and in order to be in repudiation of contract they have to unlawfully rescind the contract. As section 87 in the act is what allows the creditor to lawfully resind the contract if compiled with, so if not complied with then its unlawful rescission that then puts the creditor in repudiation of the contract, but you should never write to confirm acceptence of their repudiation as that is a stupid thing to do as it allows for the repudiation to be a mutual rescission instead. So basically you have proven my argument for me peter.

Because acceptence of their unlawful rescission/repudiation leads to such rescission/repudiation becoming mutual rescission, then that is why i have never and do not ever advise people to write to confirm acceptence. So i have to ask you Peter - What if the debtor had not written to accept their rescission/repudiation, what would the result of been then? - I think you will find that it would have been in the debtors favour and as such in favour of my argument too.

p.s please refrain from telling people what advice to give just because you do not agree with it - ever consider that you might be the one that is wrong here?

[Guest]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Not proven dangerous path at all peter, you have proven nothing, in fact lets go back to this post you linked to shall we - Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission - Page 2

It clearly states the fatal error was there acceptance of the creditors repudiation. And - "He felt my argument was attractive but the fact I accepted the rescission in writing brought matters outside the CCA and into normal laws relating to debt."

You say the act does not allow for unlawful rescission of contract yet ignore the above where unlawful rescission as occured and the debtors fatal flaw was the acceptence of their rescission - SO i say this:

THis is what i mean by you not understanding what you read, which part of "taken outside of the CCA " dont you understand

The result of that case kind of proves that they can be in repudiation and unlawful rescission of contract, and in order to be in repudiation of contract they have to unlawfully rescind the contract. As section 87 in the act is what allows the creditor to lawfully resind

PLease show us wher the act says anything about rescining the conrtact
the contract if compiled with, so if not complied with then its unlawful rescission that then puts the creditor in repudiation of the contract, but you should never write to confirm acceptence of their repudiation as that is a stupid thing to do as it allows for the repudiation to be a mutual rescission instead. So basically you have proven my argument for me peter.

Because acceptence of their unlawful rescission/repudiation leads to such rescission/repudiation becoming mutual rescission, then that is why i have never and do not ever advise people to write to confirm acceptence. So i have to ask you Peter - What if the debtor had not written to accept their rescission/repudiation, what would the result of been then? - I think you will find that it would have been in the debtors favour and as such in favour of my argument too.

NO if the DN is defective they will just write another one, it is not that complicated and they do it all the time.

Should i explain the difference between rescission of contract and termination or perhaps you would like to tell me your take on it.

p.s please refrain from telling people what advice to give just because you do not agree with it - ever consider that you might be the one that is wrong here?

Not jiust me that doesnt agree though is it, you are acting irresponsably in the extreme, i know you have a vested interst in proving this theory but you should not do it at the risk of other members.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Not jiust me that doesnt agree though is it, you are acting irresponsably in the extreme, i know you have a vested interst in proving this theory but you should not do it at the risk of other members.

Peter

Given it is a counter claim that can be used, then how does it put peoples cases at risk, when they would still need to have an invalid DN, prior to making a counter claim for unlawful rescission? errr it doesnt does it as an invalid DN prevents the court enforcing the creditors claim.

It has no effect whatsoever on a Debtors defense against a creditors claims.

Also no point boasting and making smug comments about it not just being you that disagrees peter, as am sure theres plenty that would agree with me and disagree with you aswell

[buster1967]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Hi Guys/Ladies,
Bit of an update , could do with some help please ,
To sumarise, dodgy DN only giving 9 days to rectify, assigned to Lowells in July of this year

Basically not a lot has happened in last few months , then a couple of weeks ago lowells sent me a letter basically saying pay up or else, and we are considering court action etc

Wrote back to Lowells told them them as far as I was concerned account was in dispute with OC

In the same letter I also said as they had claimed they were considering court action against me, could they please provide the documents they would rely on in court etc, I did this as CPR 31.16 pre action disclosure request on the basis of saving court time and costs etc

Lowells have now written back to me and said they have been in touch with the OC, who admit I did raise a dispute with them over a defective DN , but as far as the OC was concernened the account was defaulted correctly and they should persue as normal ?

They also say they wont comply with my CPR 31.16 pre action request as legal action has not yet commenced

Any advice help much appreciated, the DN is clearly defective, only gives 9 days to remedy,so the OC is clearly trying to mislead or deceive , so do I just leave them too it now and let em start court action and then point out the error of their ways , or do I write back to them and explain the errors in the DN ,?

Is there anything else I should also be doing to get them to produce a copy of the DN . as that could be very interesting too see what they come up with



Thanks

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

How close to stat barred? Be careful not to admit the debt
They will not have kept a copy of the Dn, however they should be able to reproduce the template they used at that time.
If you can get them to produce false evidence as a reproduction (to the court) and provide proof they are lying it will help your case. IMHO

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

I agreed with New Age Bikers points above. Though if it was default in 2009 it will not be statuted barred until june 2015 (or june 2014 if you live in scotland).

[buster1967]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

How close to stat barred? Be careful not to admit the debt
They will not have kept a copy of the Dn, however they should be able to reproduce the template they used at that time.
If you can get them to produce false evidence as a reproduction (to the court) and provide proof they are lying it will help your case. IMHO

Its not stat barred for about another 3 years yet,
If they take me to court ,im hoping their insistence its a valid dn when it clearly isnt will go against them and no right of action etc

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

What New Age biker is saying is that when they issue the claim you can CPR them for the documents they intend to rely on, one such document will be the DN they issued you, and if the dates on that copy of the DN is different to the dates on your copy that you originally received - Then you will basically have them by the short and curlies.

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Indeed so Teaboy
The idea was to make them provide a document which you know will be a falsehood.
If this is done before disclosure it will hurt them & they will be in a position they cannot then rectify.
It is my belief (for what that's worth :tinysmile_aha_t that once they litigate you provide a defence. Part of that defence will be that there was no valid Dn, however you need to get them to provide a copy of the DN that they say they sent, using a 31.14 request. At that point I think it's possible to ask for the case to be struck out as there would be no right of action & once a claim has been issued I suggest it will not be possible for them to correct their error. If the case is then struck out it makes it much harder for them to ever come back at you, they would need the courts permission.

[teaboy2]

Re: bank loan,defective dn, but contract specifically has clause about termination

Indeed so Teaboy
The idea was to make them provide a document which you know will be a falsehood.
If this is done before disclosure it will hurt them & they will be in a position they cannot then rectify.
It is my belief (for what that's worth :tinysmile_aha_t that once they litigate you provide a defence. Part of that defence will be that there was no valid Dn, however you need to get them to provide a copy of the DN that they say they sent, using a 31.14 request. At that point I think it's possible to ask for the case to be struck out as there would be no right of action & once a claim has been issued I suggest it will not be possible for them to correct their error. If the case is then struck out it makes it much harder for them to ever come back at you, they would need the courts permission.

And just too add to what new age biker said above - If they ever did issue a new claim when their original claim was struck out and they reissued such claim without prior permission to do so from the court, then they would be committing an abuse of the court process - which would give you grounds to apply for such reissued claim to be automatically struck out and may open the door to you for a possible counter claim against them.