Message For Teaboy

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Guys..

can I add my 2p in here? I'm in a DMP atm, and we were told by the DMP provider, the lender by agreeing to the lower payment in writing cannot issue default notices willynilly due to the reduced payments, only if you stop paying altogether, and then they have to attempt to restart the payments first.

I freely admit, I am not as intelligent as you both, you say things and my brain goes "Ok, lets put Barney on and sing the I love you song", and I have no problem admitting I respect you both highly, and wish I had the brain to understand half of what you say, so PLEASE!!!!! stop arguing!

Hi Puff

Yes this is true however i suspect you would have been getting notices of default sums?.

The DN would be a precursor for action being commenced in court, as you say if you keep to your arranged payments you should not receive one of these.
Have you had a look at your CRA file? Interesting to know how they have marked your file.
D

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Message For Teaboy

nope, just thank you for your payment your account will be reviewed in x months.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Just set one up for a relative with payplan, six credit cards about 15K.
Everything hunk-dory touch wood, so far.

They usually send section 86 notices of default sums(one a month) although they are not added to the account unless you default on your arrangement, its a requirement of the 2006 act.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

No teaboy the point is that if you agree a reduced payment, even though the creditor excepts it, your account will still go into default, anyone who has ever set up a DMP will know this.

I said i wasn't going to do this, oh well.

Your view seems to be that an agrement continues until the creditor issues a default notice, no matter what the term.

OK so you have a payday loan for a month and you don't pay.
So according to you the agreement will continue until a DN is served, so presumably the creditor will be entitled to charge contractual interest until he sees fit to send the default notice.
I am very pleased to say that this is most assuredly not the case.

D

So davyb, First you quite clearly said that a creditor would default you if you asked them for a reduced payment, now your saying the account will go into default (which is bascially into arrears). Well that all depends on whether the creditor accepts your lower repayment offer and whether or not they decide to extend the loan duration or not, if they do not extend the loan duration then yes the account goes into default (arrears) but the debtor is not defaulted by the creditor as you original stated. Not only that, but when the debtor has caught back up with the arrears the account is no longer in default. Plus no adverse data is recorded on the credit file by the creditor as payments are still being made on time as agreed, unless of course the debtor misses one or stops repaying completely.

No they can not add more interest than what the contract allows regardless of how long they wait before issuing a DN, in most cases all they have chased people for is the original due sum, including the interest for the duration of the loan only, plus countless charges for non payment prior to issuing a default notice, regardless of whether it is issued 2 months or 12 months after the debtor defaulted. If the agreement had terminated at the end of the loan duration like you say it does, then the creditor would not be able to enact the terms of the agreement that allows them to issue a DN and enforce - You can not enact terms of a contract that has already terminated. Look back at the other thread where i posted the example of a DN from Quick Quid, you will see the loan amount was £300 (which was inclusive of monthly interest) and that the opening balance was £300 also. So no they do not keep adding interest as they can only apply interest that is stated in the contract (hence why is is commonly stated as Total Charge For Credit) for the actual loan duration in the contract not the duration of the agreement itself, the loan duration lasts for 1 month only, so that is all they can charge interest on, regardsless of whether the debtor has defaulted or not, as a debtor defaulting on the loan repayment does not automatically extend the loan duration, in fact it puts the debtor in breach of that term and the repayment terms, as such the agreement continues until the debtor pays in full or it is terminated by the creditor, though regardless of this the creditor can not apply more interest. The only exception to this is when the creditor takes it to court and can then add 8% interest on as part of their claim. If the debtor has not repaid the loan, then not only is the debtor in breach of the agreement, the agreement carries on, until the creditor has enacted the terms that allows the creditor to default the debtor and to terminate the agreement and/or enforce it - Or until the the debtor has repaid where if within the statutory 14 days of the DN the debtors breach is deemed to have not occured.

Now Davyb, you have already proven yourself incapable or unwilling to back up your interpretation so i see no point in continuing to debate this with you. If you which to debate it then back up your arguements so we can all see just how you come to your interpretation.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Another very long post teaboy

The facts are that PDL company, can charge contractural interest for as long as the contract permits. Generally this is the term of the contract 1month. anything after that would be a default charge.

We have been fighting PDL companies for the last four years for charging contractual interest on default, so please don't tell us we have been getting it wrong all this time.
This is getting very boring now.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Another very long post teaboy

The facts are that PDL company, can charge contractural interest for as long as the contract permits. Generally this is the term of the contract 1month. anything after that would be a default charge.

We have been fighting PDL companies for the last four years for charging contractual interest on default, so please don't tell us we have been getting it wrong all this time.
This is getting very boring now.

D

There you go again Davyb, making out i said something i had not. I merely said they can only charge for the contractual interest which is also know as the TOTAL Charge For Credit e.g. the amount of Interest due on the original amount loaned, as per the stated duration of the loan in the contract itself, so if its 1 month, then only 1 months interest can be charged, if its 12 months then only 12 months interest can be charged. I never mentioned anything about default charges, which for payday loan companies is £12 for every failed attempt they make at taking payment from your card/bank, which often amount to daily attempts or 2-3 on a daily basis each of which they add a charge for. Nor did i say they can charge interest for each month the debtor is in default off repayments. To say i was saying anything about such charges, or that the creditor can charge interest on a monthly basis for each month the debtor is in default, in my last post is nothing but a pathetic attempt at trying make others believe i had said something when i had not. It also is another way for you to deflect from the arguement by attempting to change the subject just because you have not been able to counter me and prove your own interpretation.

Now what part of "No they can not add more interest than what the contract allows regardless of how long they wait before issuing a DN" did you misinterpret, was it "No they can not" that you misintrepreted as "Yes they can"? As i think you will find that i quite clearly and undeniably said that "NO they can not add more interest that what the contract allows". Therefore if the total charge for credit (interest) was £25 pound on a 1 month loan, then that is all they can charge as interest (if it was a 3 month loan, then the Total Charge for Credit would be £150 and no more), no matter how long they wait before issuing a DN. The only other interest they can claim is 8% interest as per their entitlement to do so when they issue a claim in court to enforce the debt.

As for it being a long post, well its pretty clear that some people need to be given long posts in order to explain things to them clearly and fully. Though with yourself that is clearly a futile battle as your simply are not willing to listen nor provide proof to back up your argument, and prefer to instead avoid backing up what you state, and attempt to use mental psychology tactics to try and win an argument - But then from someone whom previously said hes is always right, that is not in the slightest surprising, as there is clearly no way of convincing you over that of your own ego. That is off course if my assumption is right and you and PeterBard are one and the same. Which given your chosen tactics and charateristics of your posts and nature of your advise, its a pretty dam close match to that of Peterbards. I should know more than most, given the previous arguments i have had with Peterbard. I also do not see why the you are being so fussy about the lengh of my posts, everyone has their own way of writing and explaining things, so fail to see why you tend to like to draw attention to the lengh of my post, except by deliberately drawing peoples attention to the lengh of my post as some vein attempt to show i have some sort of inadequacy, which would be further example of your use of mental pyschology tactics. Now you may not even be aware you are using such tactics, as most people use them subconciously, but i believe you are more than aware as you are quite an intelligent man, even if i do disagree with your interpretation. You are no doubt aware of your own level of intelligence and no doubt that is why you (whether your peterbard or not) can not accept being wrong and refuse to back up your statements as a possible result. But please do act as though i am intellectaully inferior to you, by using such tactics in arguments with me, as i am certainly not intellectually inferior to you. If i was, then i would not have even noted the tactics you are using like some people reading this thread will have not noticed you are using them until they read this post and reread what you have posted.

Now as i said before, i see no point in continuing this argument with you as you are clearly not willing to back up your interpretation. not only that is clear to me that you are simply now relying on underhand mental psychology tactics, which by the way i can see coming a mile off so do not work with me, by yet again trying to make out i said something i had not said or even suggested. You are also avoiding trying to counter parts of my arguement by choosing to use such tactics and by refusing to back up your own statements and interpretation and therefore simply expect people to just take your word for it - Which is exactly the kind of atitude a person whom thinks hes always right would have.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

There you go again Davyb, making out i said something i had not. I merely said they can only charge for the contractual interest which is also know as the TOTAL Charge For Credit e.g.

First mistake, The total charge for credit is all the amounts paid for obtaing the loan not just interest(see 1980 TCC regs)

the amount of Interest due on the original amount loaned, as per the stated duration of the loan in the contract itself, so if its 1 month, then only 1 months interest can be charged, if its 12 months then only 12 months interest can be charged.

What you are talking about here is an open ended credit agreement this is a fixed period as per contract


I never mentioned anything about default charges, which for payday loan companies is £12 for every failed attempt they make at taking payment from your card/bank, which often amount to daily attempts or 2-3 on a daily basis each of which they add a charge for.

Default charges are anything that are charged on default of the agreement, on PDL there are a variety, letter charges admin charges refused payment charges and so on.

Nor did i say they can charge interest for each month the debtor is in default off repayments. To say i was saying anything about such charges, or that the creditor can charge interest on a monthly basis for each month the debtor is in default, in my last post is nothing but a pathetic attempt at trying make others believe i had said something when i had not. It also is another way for you to deflect from the arguement by attempting to change the subject just because you have not been able to counter me and prove your own interpretation.

Not with you

Now what part of "No they can not add more interest than what the contract allows regardless of how long they wait before issuing a DN" did you misinterpret, was it "No they can not" that you misintrepreted as "Yes they can"? As i think you will find that i quite clearly and undeniably said that "NO they can not add more interest that what the contract allows". Therefore if the total charge for credit (interest) was £25 pound on a 1 month loan, then that is all they can charge as interest (if it was a 3 month loan, then the Total Charge for Credit would be £150 and no more), no matter how long they wait before issuing a DN. The only other interest they can claim is 8% interest as per their entitlement to do so when they issue a claim in court to enforce the debt.


No there is all sorts of other interest, post termination interest, post judgment intereest, default interest, it depends on what it says in the T and Cs.

As for it being a long post, well its pretty clear that some people need to be given long posts in order to explain things to them clearly and fully. Though with yourself that is clearly a futile battle as your simply are not willing to listen nor provide proof to back up your argument, and prefer to instead avoid backing up what you state, and attempt to use mental psychology tactics to try and win an argument - But then from someone whom previously said hes is always right, that is not in the slightest

Pointless

surprising, as there is clearly no way of convincing you over that of your own ego. That is off course if my assumption is right and you and PeterBard are one and the same. Which given your chosen tactics and charateristics of your posts and nature of your advise, its a pretty dam close match to that of Peterbards. I should know more than most, given the previous arguments i have had with Peterbard.

I doubt peterbard would have been so patient with you

Ok I have decided to look at your post bit by bit, not that it will do one iota of good but here goes.

See above

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

There you go again Davyb, making out i said something i had not. I merely said they can only charge for the contractual interest which is also know as the TOTAL Charge For Credit e.g.

First mistake, The total charge for credit is all the amounts paid for obtaing the loan not just interest(see 1980 TCC regs) Sorry, but what the hell is your point exactly, considering we are arguing about monthly contractual interest and none of the above forms of interest? Not only that on some agreements the Total Charge for Credit is the same as the total interest amount due to no charge for credit being applied and in case their is a charge then the interest is added on top and included in the total charge, therefore the creditor can not charge more that the amount under the total charge for credit by adding more monthly interest each month the debtor is in default after the duration of the loan period has past. Bringing up these other forms of interest, when we're merely arguing about whether they can continue to charge monthly interest beyond that of the actualy loan duration period before issuing a DN, is nothing but an attempt to deflect from the argument and complicate the arguement even more. In fact the only reason where arguing other the monthly contractual interest issue is due to you saying i said they could charge monthly interest up to when they issue a DN, when i did not say anything of the sought but had in fact agreed with you that they can not charge monthly contractual interest beyond that of the duration of the loan period itself.

the amount of Interest due on the original amount loaned, as per the stated duration of the loan in the contract itself, so if its 1 month, then only 1 months interest can be charged, if its 12 months then only 12 months interest can be charged.

What you are talking about here is an open ended credit agreement this is a fixed period as per contract - Sorry but how is a 1 month contract different to a 12 month one, they are both for fixed term. An open ended one is where their is no fixed term. What i said above was merely and example, that regardless of the duration of the fixed term loan, they can only charge interest for the duration of that term, so if its 1 month then its 1 months interest, if its 12 months then its 12 months interest. You yet again further misinterpret what i said and try to make out i said something i had not.


I never mentioned anything about default charges, which for payday loan companies is £12 for every failed attempt they make at taking payment from your card/bank, which often amount to daily attempts or 2-3 on a daily basis each of which they add a charge for.

Default charges are anything that are charged on default of the agreement, on PDL there are a variety, letter charges admin charges refused payment charges and so on. Yes i know, but on PDL it is common for their to be only charges for failed attempts to take payment from the debtors card/bank, which they usually charge £12 for each attempt. So your point their is mute.

Nor did i say they can charge interest for each month the debtor is in default off repayments. To say i was saying anything about such charges, or that the creditor can charge interest on a monthly basis for each month the debtor is in default, in my last post is nothing but a pathetic attempt at trying make others believe i had said something when i had not. It also is another way for you to deflect from the arguement by attempting to change the subject just because you have not been able to counter me and prove your own interpretation.

Not with you - More like you can not dispute your own attempt to say i had said that they can add interest each month debtor was in default until the DN is served - Let me remind you of precisely what you stated in post 35 "We have been fighting PDL companies for the last four years for charging contractual interest on default, so please don't tell us we have been getting it wrong all this time." Which to me you were clearly implying that i had said or suggested that the Creditor can charge monthly interest until the debt is satisfied or a DN is issued, which i never said or suggested at all. In fact i said the opposite, which would therefore imply that no the creditor can not continue to add contractul interest beyond what the contract allowed. therefore on a 1 month contract they can only apply 1 months contractual interest, even if it takes them 12 months to issue a DN, they still can not add any more interest on top of the 1 month contract interest, accept for the 8% interest they are entitled to claim when enforcing in court.

Now what part of "No they can not add more interest than what the contract allows regardless of how long they wait before issuing a DN" did you misinterpret, was it "No they can not" that you misintrepreted as "Yes they can"? As i think you will find that i quite clearly and undeniably said that "NO they can not add more interest that what the contract allows". Therefore if the total charge for credit (interest) was £25 pound on a 1 month loan, then that is all they can charge as interest (if it was a 3 month loan, then the Total Charge for Credit would be £150 and no more), no matter how long they wait before issuing a DN. The only other interest they can claim is 8% interest as per their entitlement to do so when they issue a claim in court to enforce the debt.


No there is all sorts of other interest, post termination interest, post judgment intereest, default interest, it depends on what it says in the T and Cs. - Yes but that is not what we have been debating, we have been only debating whether the creditor can continue to add monthly contractual interest for each month the debtor remains in default prior to the creditor issuing the Default Noitce. Please keep to the argument itself as your point is mute, as in must PDL such other interests are not mentioned in the T&C's so therefore would not apply with the acception of Post Judgement Interest (though if they failt o notify the debtor of this then that would not apply either - section 130A). Not only that by bringing in these other types of interest, all you are doing is deflecting from the arguement on monthly contractual interest. Infact i do not see why we continue to argue about whether the creditor can or can not continue to add monthly contractual interest as we are both saying they can not - But then you seem to not crasp that i have been agreeing with you on the monthly contractual interest and have been misinterpretating what have said to the point where your trying to make i look like i had said that the creditor can add contractaul interest for each month until a DN is issued when i have not said that at all. Just to make it look like you have won the argument when you have not, as we both agree they can not continue to add contractual monthly interest until a DN is issued.

As for it being a long post, well its pretty clear that some people need to be given long posts in order to explain things to them clearly and fully. Though with yourself that is clearly a futile battle as your simply are not willing to listen nor provide proof to back up your argument, and prefer to instead avoid backing up what you state, and attempt to use mental psychology tactics to try and win an argument - But then from someone whom previously said hes is always right, that is not in the slightest

Pointless - Not at all, its the second time you made mention as to the lengh of my posts - Why is that one must wonder, why you so concerned about the lengh of my posts? Why even feel the need to mention anything about the lengh of my posts?

surprising, as there is clearly no way of convincing you over that of your own ego. That is off course if my assumption is right and you and PeterBard are one and the same. Which given your chosen tactics and charateristics of your posts and nature of your advise, its a pretty dam close match to that of Peterbards. I should know more than most, given the previous arguments i have had with Peterbard.

I doubt peterbard would have been so patient with you - Maybe he learnt his lesson to not throw childish tantrums and insult, perhaps hes trying his best to keep calm.

see above.

Now please stop responding to my posts, as i do not have time to waste on someone that is not willing to back up his arguments and whom clearly likes to twist others words and make it look like they said something they had never actually said.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Just trying to be helpful, rate of interest is not the same s TCC, you said it was, i corrected you, no biggy.

Calm down

D

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry just thought i would comment on this

a 1 month contract different to a 12 month one, they are both for fixed term. An open ended one is where their is no fixed term. What i said above was merely and example, that regardless of the duration of the fixed term loan, they can only charge interest for the duration of that term, so if its 1 month then its 1 months interest, if its 12 months then its 12 months interest. You yet again further misinterpret what i said and try to make out i said something i had not.

So if i get you right the contract continues until someone terminates it or it is paid up however the bit of the contract that says the creditor can charge interest doesn't, does this sound logical to you?

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Davyb your missing the point. If its a 2 month loan period then they can only charge monthly interest for 2 months which is the total interest amount stated in the contract, if they charged monthly interest for the months after the loan period, where the debtor was in default prior to issue a DN, then not only would they be in breach of the interest term of the contract, but the DN would be invalid as it would be inaccurate amounts, therefore making the debt unenforceable if they try to claim more than 2 months monthly interest. And yes the agreement in default cases does not terminate until the creditor terminates after issuing a Valid DN, because you can not issue a DN on an agreement that has already terminated and therefore ceased to exist - Law simply does not permit it.

Put it this way Davyb - Have you ever heard of a PDL company or any creditor argue in court that they did not need to issue a DN as the original loan period had already past and the agreement naturally terminated, as an legal arguement for there failure to issue a DN under section 87(1)? No you won't have done, because it would be laughed out of court as the CCA 1974 makes it clear they are not entitled to enforce the debt until a Valid DN is issued under section 87(1) and past case law makes it clear that you can not issue a DN under an agreement that ceased to exist before the DN was served. i Had the same argument with MBNA who sold the account prior to a DN being served a few years back, they sold the account 1 day before i received the DN, therefore amounting to unlawful rescission/repudation. They haven't dared to take the matter to court, not even the new owners acktiva kapital, that bought the debt this year dare to test it in court. Says alot really considering they're taking on everyone else in court who had MBNA cards.

[Guest]

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)

[Guest]

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

[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.

[Guest]

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