Message For Teaboy

[miliitant]

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a debt still exists with or without an agreement - Though with no valid agreement, or if such agreement is unlawfully rescinded, then the assignee can not enforce the debt via the court, to do so would not only be an abuse of the court process, but also itself unlawful.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

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Agreed we had both already agreed to withdraw so the argument was closed.

Re: Message For Teaboy

I have reported this thread because it is becoming silly. Normally when arguments get moved off of someone else's thread, they die down and slowly but surely vanish into the ether. This one has not and so I have asked admin if they could politely bang both your heads together and move on.

Ta muchly.

It had already closed as far as i was concerned.

Thanks anyway

D

[leclerc]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I have reported this thread because it is becoming silly. Normally when arguments get moved off of someone else's thread, they die down and slowly but surely vanish into the ether. This one has not and so I have asked admin if they could politely bang both your heads together and move on.

Ta muchly.

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Very childish behavior in my opinion

D

What exactly do you mean by that precisely? I hope your not referring to myself!

Re: Message For Teaboy

Very childish behavior in my opinion

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I am unsure what you mean by this, the supporting evidence is the legislation, and the way it has always been interpreted by those who understand it.

Do you want me to copy and paste chinks of the CCA on here for you. Much of what you argue is incorrect would not have case law evidence either for or against, it is "trite law" common knowledge. I don't see how trite law applies here when it is common knowledge that when a person in contract repudiates the contract they are not entitled to be placed back in the position they were in prior to the contract, as they have entered it but failed to honour their part of the contract. When a creditor sells the account to a third party of the back of an Invalid DN, they have not honoured their part of the contract (which as it is regulated under the act then they must honour and comply with said law) as they have done so in non complience with section 87(1) in default cases. Yes section 87(1) prevents them from terminating the agreement lawfully if the DN is invalid, but it does not prevent them unlawfully terminating which is what they have done when they sell it on off the back of an Invalid DN, as the creditor is no longer entitled to remedy the invalid DN by reissuing one that is valid, as they are no longer a party to the agreement and therefore do not have any rights under it. As you know, only the original creditor may issue a DN.

As i said, nothing the the CCA allows for creditors to not issue a DN under a fixed term agreement in default cases just because the loan duration period has passed. If it did, then all fixed term loan creditors would simply wait for the loan period to past rather than go through the expense of issue a DN to all those the Default not to mention the expense of storing copies of them, and employing people to manage their document librarys.

D

Responding to posts on internet is forums is not harassment. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment.

That depends of the nature of the response, which in my view was becoming harassing. Just because you did not deem it as such does not mean it is not.

You seem to think that merely by demanding that someone stop responding to your posts, that if they don't do so, that constitutes harassment.

But i also set out my reasoning as to why i viewed as harassing, such as twisting my words to make it look like i said something i had not. Not backing up your arguments with case law or legislation and deflecting from it instead in order to attempt to stain my character and repudation by changing to subject to what its my own legal theory when i am perfectly entitled to publish my theories whether you agree with it or not. So you merely used your disagreement of my theory, which i myself made clear had not been tested in high court, to open question my knowledge and understanding of the law, purely to undermine my character and repudation on this forum. I see no other reason as to why you would being my theory into the equation if it was not to deliberately undermine my character and repudation and divert from the real argument. Its also know as mental psychology tactics, as you clearly know others are reading your post as well as me and are trying to therefore undermine their own ability to come to their own opinion on the real subject of the argument, by questioning me on other issues not related to the actual arguement on whether their is a need for a DN on fixed term agreements where the loan period has passed, or not!

You can not claim its not harassment, just because you deem your actions to not be. As all that matters is whether i feel it has become harassment and if i feel i am being harassed - Your statement that you would be basically following my posts (e.g. stalking me on this forum) was unacceptable, as one its not your place to do so, as you are not site admin, and if the admin are not happy with my advice then it is for them to correct me not you. Not only that but it is a form of conduct that amounts to harassment itself.

As for assassinating your character and reputation, seems to me your doing a pretty good job all by yourself

I beg to differ - see what i put above.

I do not wish to be the cause of any trouble so I will withdraw from this discussion at this point

D

I also agree to withdraw too at this point. I also suggest we just just agree to disagree.

Re: Message For Teaboy

I do not wish to be the cause of any trouble so I will withdraw from this discussion at this point

D

[michael]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Responding to posts on internet is forums is not harassment. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment.

You seem to think that merely by demanding that someone stop responding to your posts, that if they don't do so, that constitutes harassment.

As for assassinating your character and reputation, seems to me your doing a pretty good job all by yourself

Re: Message For Teaboy

I am unsure what you mean by this, the supporting evidence is the legislation, and the way it has always been interpreted by those who understand it.

Do you want me to copy and paste chinks of the CCA on here for you. Much of what you argue is incorrect would not have case law evidence either for or against, it is "trite law" common knowledge.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Yes its for healthy debate Davyb, but how can we debate something if you don't back up what you state with case law and legislation in order for it to be debated properly, based on the case law and/or legislation you use to back up what you say. Am more than open to do that, but am not open to continue an arguement where all we do is go round and round in cicles repeating what has already been argued as that will have no ending (unless we just agree to disagree) due to the lack of supporting evidence from your side.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry if i am upsetting you teaboy all i am doing is contesting your views, i thought that this was what a forum like this was about(not your views in particular of course)

D

[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.

[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.

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