Message For Teaboy

[michael]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Now what part of "Now stop replying my posts, i have asked you plenty of times now and have made it clear i view your replies to my post as nothing more than an attempt to harass me in to responding. I also made it clear i have no desire to argue this with you since you refuse to back up your assertions with case law and legislation. " do you not understand. This is your last warning Davyb as i will not tolerate i have already contacted the site team - I have made it clear on a number of occasions that i no desire to continue this arguement with you as all you are doing is stating things as fact and not providing anything to back up what you state. You said you had earlier, but i see no case law or legislation from you that backs up your assertions. You say you have answered my arguments, you have not as you have done nothing but twist things, bring up now subjects to deflect from having to counter. All your doing now is a feable attempt to assinate my charater and reputation.

You do know that by harassing me on these forums, you are committed a offence. If back up your arguments with case law and/or legislation or shut the hell up.

A truly astonishing post. Someone has clearly lost the plot here.

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

"I said to you "The passing of the loan duration does not exempt a creditor from the need to allow a debtor the chance to remedy a breach by issuing a DN under section 87(1), There is no exemption to this require under the act for fixed term agreements just because the loan period has past, or for any other reason." Just others know the bit above was what i stated not what Davyb Stated

The only way to remedy the breach is to pay the totall amount due TB, if he could do that there would be no debt.

You are letting your strange interpretation of the act interfere with your common sense.

D

Wrong Davyb, the creditor has a statutory duty under the act to inform the debtor of on breach - You can not simply assume that a debtor will automatically be aware that they are in breach. Their could be various reasons for non payment, including banking errors leaving the debtor unware they had missed payments hence why the judge in the woodchaster case, made it clear as to the need for a DN to be issued when a debtor has defaulted. The DN explains the the debtor what part of the agreement that are in breach of how to remedy and when such remedy must occur before. Without, it then how is a debtor suppose to know they can remedy the breach of such a breach actually occured - Look at the recent natwest problems, millions were effected and a hell of alot of them will have defaulted on loan repayments and on PDL payments and probably were not aware of it, are you saying the creditor could just simply issue a POC witin 24hrs of the breach, as that what your interpretation would allow them to do.

Facts are PDL's issue default notices - Facts are PDL's will have consulted Lawyers regarding the need to issue DN's - Facts are a debt can not be enforce without a Valid DN allowing the debtor to remedy within the statutory period of 14 days. Fixed term agreements are not exempt from the need to issue a Valid DN, just because the loan period has passed, if they where then all fixed term lenders would simply not bother issuing DN's and would simply wait for the loan period to pass and then take it to court knowing the debtor would not have a defense based on invalid DN according to your logic.

Just re-reading your blog. So would you advise that someone receiving a defective dn, and having the account terminated, claim unlawful rescission and sue the creditor as it says??

"Now i am 100% for the Unlawful Recission Argument, but it must be used in a certain way, and is not ment to be used as part of a defense against a creditors claim's but as a counter claim. The act does not say anything that does not allow you to make such a claim - infact it does allow for it"

i AM SURE YOU HAVE CASE LAW IF YOU ARE 100% SURE, COULD WE SEE IT?

D

As i said before, there is no case law as its not been tested in the higher courts, but then their is also no case law where it failed either, so your point is mute - Though contractual law does support it in general. You are now just simply trying to stain my character and reputation to try and win the argument instead of backing up your assertions with facts, case law and legislation. By deflecting the argument away from what it is, to questioning my perfectly reasonable legal theory on unlawful rescission/repudation of credit agreements, when sold off the back of a faulty DN.

Now what part of "Now stop replying my posts, i have asked you plenty of times now and have made it clear i view your replies to my post as nothing more than an attempt to harass me in to responding. I also made it clear i have no desire to argue this with you since you refuse to back up your assertions with case law and legislation. " do you not understand. This is your last warning Davyb as i will not tolerate i have already contacted the site team - I have made it clear on a number of occasions that i no desire to continue this arguement with you as all you are doing is stating things as fact and not providing anything to back up what you state. You said you had earlier, but i see no case law or legislation from you that backs up your assertions. You say you have answered my arguments, you have not as you have done nothing but twist things, bring up now subjects to deflect from having to counter. All your doing now is a feable attempt to assinate my charater and reputation.

You do know that by harassing me on these forums, you are committed a offence. If back up your arguments with case law and/or legislation or shut the hell up.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Just re-reading your blog. So would you advise that someone receiving a defective dn, and having the account terminated, claim unlawful rescission and sue the creditor as it says??

"Now i am 100% for the Unlawful Recission Argument, but it must be used in a certain way, and is not ment to be used as part of a defense against a creditors claim's but as a counter claim. The act does not say anything that does not allow you to make such a claim - infact it does allow for it"

i AM SURE YOU HAVE CASE LAW IF YOU ARE 100% SURE, COULD WE SEE IT?

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

"I said to you "The passing of the loan duration does not exempt a creditor from the need to allow a debtor the chance to remedy a breach by issuing a DN under section 87(1), There is no exemption to this require under the act for fixed term agreements just because the loan period has past, or for any other reason."

The only way to remedy the breach is to pay the totall amount due TB, if he could do that there would be no debt.

You are letting your strange interpretation of the act interfere with your common sense.

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

Already answered several times TB.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Really then where is the legislation, where is the case law. You never provide it, you simply make assertions as a matter of fact but never provide anything to back it up.

Sorry but you do not answer my arguments at all, you ignore them, twist my words to make it seem i said something that i had not said and then have the nerve to say your answering my agruments. I do not see how merely stating your assertions based on your interpretation does anything to answer or counter my arguments. I have provided case law, i have stated legislation time and time again, and not once have you provided any case law of legislation to back up your arguments.

I said to you "The passing of the loan duration does not exempt a creditor from the need to allow a debtor the chance to remedy a breach by issuing a DN under section 87(1), There is no exemption to this require under the act for fixed term agreements just because the loan period has past, or for any other reason."

You said in response "Exempt who said anything was exempt, section16 isn't it"

Its clear that you have been arguing that a fixed term agreement where the loan duration has passed and the debtor is in default, that the creditor is exempt from issuing a DN under section 87(1), you then referred to section 16 which says nothing about them being exempt. In fact no where in the CCA does it say a creditor is exempt from issuing a DN in default cases when the loan duration has already past. Yet your saying that a creditor is exempt if its a fixed term loan agreement and the duration has passed - Despite the CCA not saying anything that would back up your assertion. As i said before if what you are saying were true, then creditors of fixed term loans would be better of waiting for the total loan duration to pass, and taking it straight to court, then issue a DN half way through the loan duration. Not only that PDL companies would save a fortune by not issuing DN when someone defaults on their repayments. But then if what you were saying was true, then PDL's would not be issuing any DN's in the first place and would instead be issuing claims to court or selling the debts on straight away, and am pretty sure they have had the relevant legal advice from professionals regarding the need to issue a DN (are you saying they are wrong too? Surely not!), its clear they can more than afford to.

Now stop replying my posts, i have asked you plenty of times now and have made it clear i view your replies to my post as nothing more than an attempt to harass me in to responding. I also made it clear i have no desire to argue this with you since you refuse to back up your assertions with case law and legislation.

Re: Message For Teaboy

No I answer your arguments and you either do not understand or they do not agree with you preconceptions so you ignore them.
My point have always been backed up by the legislature.
i shoul be charging you for the lesson you could have learned here, it is wasted i know.

But see my last post.

I may start a thread and analyse your blog one day, that would be a real laugh

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Bed now and no more on these threads for me, but casting a friendly eye just case you try to advise any of our innocent members with this stuff.

Most if it is harmless i suppose, but it would be an idea to lay off the default stuff, you dont understand it and you could do some harm.

D

Prove am wrong them Davyb!!!! Oh you can't thats why you have avoiding backing up your statements with legislation or case law and rely soley on your own interpretation. By the way, thanks for admitting that you will pursue a course of conduct of stalking me online on this forum. You do realise what the legal consqeunces that would be for you, and same for if you continue to try and goad or harass me in to replying, by replying to any of my posts in any thread of this forum, whether past or future. You have been warned.

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

It doesn't exempt agreements have nothing to do with any thing thats why i wondered why you brought it up? Hang on a minute your the one saying its exempt agreement as far as section 87 (1) and issuing DN are concerned. I asked you to provide me with prove by case law or by legislation, you replied with section 16. Twisting things again eh Davyb!!!

You cedit agreement is a running credit account ,not a fixed sum fixed term ??????????????? Yes i know my credit card is a running credit agreement, but that agreement is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the argument on fixed term agreements where a creditor is in default preventing the agreement terminating after the loan period has past. So why keep trying to point out to me my agreement is a running term when i quite bloody clearly know that it is.

Scrapeing the barrel now TB. No your the one thats scraping the barrel, not me, you referred to section 16 when i asked you to prove a fixed term agreement was exempt from the need to issue a DN when the debtor was in Default. Not me.

Been reading your blog, you really don't know anything do you, everything you think you know is based on what you have read on here, filed in with your own imagination. Oh yeah we had the argument on unlawful rescission/repudiation already (didn't bode well for you if i recall), my blog has nothing to do with this argument. And for the record, when a creditor sells an debt of the back of an invalid DN they have unlawfully repudiated the agreement and can not reissue a DN, to remedy the invalid one, as once its sold all rights transfer to the new owner of the account and only the original creditor can issue a DN. In order for the original creditor to issue a DN, they would have to buy the account back, and get permission from the debtor to reinstate the agreement. Not only that i made it clear back then that there is no case law to support it as yet as its not been tested in court, but then there is no case law that goes against it either. Oh and by the way, how the hell would know where i get my legal knowledge from, you statement above would imply everyone else on here is wrong too. And for the record i get my knowledge and interpretation and theoritical legal arguements from studying cases, case law and legislation not just from here or other forums, i do not just read legislation or what is posted by others and jump sudden conclusions. To say otherwise is libellous. I also get my knowledge from my own experience in cases some in court, i also have a full legal team whom i can debate things with - What have you got other than a few libarary books written by people giving their own intepretation of law. Sorry but you should go to a law library rather than a public one or buying books online. Hell you didn't even relise that "enforcing any security" (as stated under section 87(1)) also includes enforcing an unsecured debt in court via judgement and court orders etc granting security on goods, assets (including finances and property).

My advice
If you really are interested in the subject, get off here and down the library, but first forget everything you think you know because most of it is wrong.

My advice is you need to get rid of the ego and stop assuming you are alwayes right as you once famously proclaimed during one of your tantrums under the username peterbard. Its not just me that questions the advice and your legal knowledge here.

D

Now as i have said 2-3 times now - stop replying my posts, as i deem you replies as nothing but an attempt to harass me into responding. Because you do is twist my words to make it look like said something i did not, you ignore arguments you can not counter, you use mental pyschology tactics, to try and win the arguement all whilst at the same time providing nothing to back up your statements, that you are stating as matter of fact, or your claims. And then just like above you try and turn it back round on me. Its pathetic, annoying and it does not impress anyone.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Bed now and no more on these threads for me, but casting a friendly eye just case you try to advise any of our innocent members with this stuff.

Most if it is harmless i suppose, but it would be an idea to lay off the default stuff, you dont understand it and you could do some harm.

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

Oh really, so where does it say anything about a fixed term loan being exempt under section 16 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/16

I do not see it say that anywhere. And last time i checked a PDL was not an insurer, charity, local authority or any other the others named, nor is it regaurding purchase of land or provision of any dwellings on any land.

And no my credit agreement with MBNA is not relevant to this arguement at all.

It doesn't exempt agreements have nothing to do with any thing thats why i wondered why you brought it up?

You cedit agreement is a running credit account ,not a fixed sum fixed term ???????????????

Scrapeing the barrel now TB.

Been reading your blog, you really don't know anything do you, everything you think you know is based on what you have read on here, filed in with your own imagination.
My advice
If you really are interested in the subject, get off here and down the library, but first forget everything you think you know because most of it is wrong.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Its relevant because an open ended agreement has to be terminated, because, well, its open ended, a fixed term doesn't because , well, its fixed term.

Exempt who said anything was exempt, section16 isn't it

Sorry not with you

D

Oh really, so where does it say anything about a fixed term loan being exempt under section 16 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/16

I do not see it say that anywhere. And last time i checked a PDL was not an insurer, charity, local authority or any other the others named, nor is it regaurding purchase of land or provision of any dwellings on any land.

And no my credit agreement with MBNA is not relevant to this arguement at all.

Re: Message For Teaboy

yes it is a credit card, but thats irrelevant.

The passing of the loan duration does not exempt a creditor from the need to allow a debtor the chance to remedy a breach by issuing a DN under section 87(1), There is no exemption to this require under the act for fixed term agreements just because the loan period has past, or for any other reason. The agreement has not been fulfilled, as the debtor is in default of it. So it does not terminate untill the default is remedied or the creditor terminates as a result of the debtors non complience with the default notice.

To say they are exmpt is misleading and inaccurate.

Its relevant because an open ended agreement has to be terminated, because, well, its open ended, a fixed term doesn't because , well, its fixed term.

Exempt who said anything was exempt, section16 isn't it

Sorry not with you

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Teaboy


Your MBNA would presumably be a credit card agreement, they are open ended, so they need to be terminated. Fixed term agreements don't, they terminate themselves after they have run there term.

D



I apologies if this does not answer our questions, but i fund it hard to decipher your meaning(my fault i am sure)

yes it is a credit card, but thats irrelevant.

The passing of the loan duration does not exempt a creditor from the need to allow a debtor the chance to remedy a breach by issuing a DN under section 87(1), There is no exemption to this require under the act for fixed term agreements just because the loan period has past, or for any other reason. The agreement has not been fulfilled, as the debtor is in default of it. So it does not terminate untill the default is remedied or the creditor terminates as a result of the debtors non complience with the default notice.

To say they are exmpt is misleading and inaccurate.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Dear ***********

Thank you for your reply.

I take your points, although I’m not sure legal (and lawful) assignation of the rights under a contract amounts to unlawful rescission.

I never said the assignment itself was unlawful or that the rights of the assignee are effected (as to their ownership), Unlawful rescission is the termination of a contract or in this case credit agreement, when the original creditor sells the account without serving a valid or accurate default notice to the debtor. As such the following case law confirms the failure of a default/termination notice to be valid is unlawful rescission.

“Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998) but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).”

So the assignment and ownership is not unlawful itself and perfectly legal, but selling the account without a valid default notice being served is unlawful rescission – though unlawful rescission of contract itself, does not make the assignment unlawful. But it does mean the assignee can not enforce the account/debt in court, and also the assignee can not remedy the invalid default notice. Though an invalid default notice can be remedy by the original creditor, BUT ONLY PRIOR to selling the account, once the account is sold, and as with (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998) case law, the agreement ceases to exist and therefore can not be remedied. Though a debt still exists with or without an agreement - Though with no valid agreement, or if such agreement is unlawfully rescinded, then the assignee can not enforce the debt via the court, to do so would not only be an abuse of the court process, but also itself unlawful. So their are for this purpose to different acts, act 1 being termination of contract, act 2 being assignment of account/debt. IF act 1 is done unlawfully it does not effect the legal ownership of act 2. though the assignee can not enforce the account/debt if act 1 was done unlawfully, though that does not effect their legal ownership of the debt.

Further, I am not sure there was anything to rescind from as ** had already full performed their obligations under the same and the credit period allowed had already expired. As for a default notice, it is without question that such a document can be lawfully and properly served at any time prior to the date of issue of a legal action. Even if it turns out that a default notice has not been served (and my information is that is it has), the simple remedy would be to serve one.

Doesn’t matter, they still had to perform the service of a default notice as per the CCA ACT 1974 for which the agreement is governed by. As they failed to perform to serve a default notice under the agreement governed by the CCA act 1974 then they did not perform their legal obligations under said agreement (if it ever existed) as such they terminated the agreement whilst in breach of the CCA ACT 1974 (and therefore whilst in breach of contract) even if a debtor fails to pay, the creditor must still adhere to the CCA ACT prior to terminating the agreement, by issue a default notice, failure to pay is not a breach of contract as the default notice under part vII allows for the debtor to remedy and by doing so the ACT is clear that when a default (failure to pay) is remedied then the breach will be treated as never have occurred. So the debtor is not in breach of contract until they have received a valid default notice and failed to remedy the default. That is why it is so important for a creditor to serve a valid default notice allowing 4 working days for postage (before it is deemed as served) after the date of the notice, and another clear 14 days (it’s a statutory right for a debtor to have 14 days to remedy form after the date the default is deemed served) after after the date it is deemed as served for the debtor to remedy. So to put it simply a default notice is a legally required notice that must be served on a debtor informing them of the their breach and allowing the to remedy and put the agreement back to where it was before the default, hence why law states that upon remedy the breach will be treated as not having occurred. So if the default is invalid or not served then no breach on the debtors part has occurred as such a breach only in the eyes of the law occurs after a valid default notice is issued. So default of account is not the same as a breach of agreement, as a default is not a breach of contract as a breach of contract only occurs when a valid default is issued and the debtor fails to remedy the default. You simply can not serve a default at anytime prior to legal action, it must be served by the original creditor and be valid and contain the prescribed content prior the the original creditor selling the account. Once sold it can not be remedied by ‘simply issuing a new one’, the law is clear on that as is the case law above (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998)




I DO HOPE THIS A PIECE OF YOUR HANYWORK TEABOY AND WOULD VALUE YOUR COMMENTS

YOU GO ON ABOUT NEEDING A DEFAULT NOTICE TO TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT PRIOR TO SELLING ETC. THATS STATUTE LEGISLATION SO NO ISSUES ON THAT. WHAT I AM ASKING IS HOW THIS SCENARIO PANS OUT WITH PAYDAY LOANS.

PAYDAY LOANS ARE OVER THIRTY DAYS THEN THEY EXPIRE SO S.86 AND S.87 OF THE CCA 1974 APPLIES

the whole amount of the loan automatically becomes due on the expiration of the original term which would be the thirty day loan so

IS A DEFAULT NOTICE SERVED UNDER 87 (1) OF THE CCA 1974 REQUIRED FOR A PAYDAY LOAN PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT (WHICH IT HAS AFTER 30 DAYS)

PRIOR TO SELLING THE DEBT TO A DCA THEN THE DCA THREATNING TO GO LEGAL

So in answer to your question Mill, no they no they don't, unfortunately the agreements have run there course and therefore do not need a DN in order to terminate.(they are already terminated)

Many PDL companies still send them, but really they are just letters before action.

D