Message For Teaboy

[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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[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.

[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.

[Guest]

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

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.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Already answered several times TB.

D

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[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.

[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.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry teaboy, if you are addressing your points to me, which you plainly are, I think I have a right to respond, as long as i do it in an acceptable way, you wouldn't want to silence anyone who can disprove your ideas would you, course not.

So

"Wrong Davyb, the creditor has a statutory duty under the act to inform the debtor of on breach"

Really could you produce the section?

DNs are used to terminate agreements on breach, i don't need to copy and paste the relevant section do I? Fixed sum agreements that have run their course are terminated already.

"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 the it in general. You are now just simply not 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"

Hmm is this really a valid argument, there has been no testing of the case that more than one green M and M in a packet is illegal, i wouldn't say that this constitutes proof it is.

I would dispute that any law supports the proposition, in the absence of evidence either way it is safer to presume it doesn't work, i think.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry micheal, but considering Davyb has not back up his arguments, and is now clearly trying to harass and goad me into responding, by delibrately twisting what i said to make it look i i said something i have not, and is now clearly trying to stain my reputation and charater on these forums. Despite me making it clear that i have no desire to continue the argument. Then one i have not lost the plot and two it is clear he his now deliberately harassing me just to get me to respond and to defend my charater and reputation. Which in my opinion is unacceptable and yes there is legislation that makes it unlawful and an offence to harass people including if it is online such as such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - If you read the news, you will find the courts are cracking down on people that harass others online. I have made it clear that i deem his replying to my posts as harassing me. And given he openly admitted that he would be basically stalking my posts (see post 48), it is clear that hes intends to continue to harass and even stalk me on these forums.

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry teaboy, if you are addressing your points to me, which you plainly are, I think I have a right to respond, as long as i do it in an acceptable way, you wouldn't want to silence anyone who can disprove your ideas would you, course not. Point is you have not proved me wrong - I would also not call it acceptable to twist peoples words, deflect from the actual arguement neither would i call carrying on the argument when you refuse to provide case law or legislation to back up your statements as acceptable either. So if you can not provide case law or legislation to back up what you say then theirs no point conitnuing the arguement is their. As all you doing by continuing, is making a farce out of these forums and annoying myself and everyone else that may not agree with you. Which clearly is not acceptable.

So

"Wrong Davyb, the creditor has a statutory duty under the act to inform the debtor of on breach"

Really could you produce the section? Yeah its section 87(1)

DNs are used to terminate agreements on breach, i don't need to copy and paste the relevant section do I? Fixed sum agreements that have run their course are terminated already. Yes some DN are used to terminate but only if the breach is not remedied in the required statutory 14 days, but that does not mean a DN does not need to be issued on fixed term loan agreements. Tell me where in the act that it says a fixed term loan agreement does not need a default notice when the loan period has past - You can not, because it simply does not say that.

"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 the it in general. You are now just simply not 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"

Hmm is this really a valid argument, there has been no testing of the case that more than one green M and M in a packet is illegal, i wouldn't say that this constitutes proof it is. What part of it has not been tested and it is a legal theory do you not understand! Do you seriously expect me to not support my own legal theory 100%. Oh and just because there is no case law to support it doesn't mean its wrong or bound to fail does it, thats just purely your opinion it will. And last time i checked their was no case law saying it did fail, even you could not provide any when under your username Peterbard.

I would dispute that any law supports the proposition, in the absence of evidence either way it is safer to presume it doesn't work, i think. - And if we all just assume a new legal theory that is proposed didn't work, then we would not ever have any new case law or any new tools to use against creditors and would be stuck in the same status quo we were in back in the 90's prior to consumer forums.

D

Now am open to you responding to support your argument if you can provide proof to back up what you say such as case law and legislation. But you have not done so, so until you do then i see no point continuing nor do i see any point in you responding as by responding, all you doing is showing everyone two things - 1 - Your not backing up your assertions/statements and 2 - That your ego is so big, you can not accept that you maybe wrong, which when your not backing up what you say with hard proof, makes it clear to everyone that that is the case.