MACKENZIE

Re: MACKENZIE

Thinking about the default notice issue,it is a bit of a no brainer really.
Say a DN was required, now say that the DN was none compliant for some reason, so the creditor would only be able to claim the arrears, which would be the same as the claim.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

Actually, Militant, it is a lot more powerful than Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 contains a provision that allows a court to impose a penalty on those breaching an injunction granted under Section 3 of an unlimited fine, or up to five years' imprisonment, or both. Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1997 comes nowhere near that, nor does it contain a provision allowing a bailiff, company, creditor or DCA to be legally-restrained from harassing an individual.

Correct it does not come any where near, it does not apply.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

i believe we had this debate davyb

and we agreed to differ

Yes i thought it had come up before, the problem is that the courts tend to agree with me.

The legislation is quite clear.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: MACKENZIE

and protection from harassment act 1997 is just as powerful as section 40 AOJ is.

fergusson v british gas is testament to that statement

Actually, Militant, it is a lot more powerful than Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 contains a provision that allows a court to impose a penalty on those breaching an injunction granted under Section 3 of an unlimited fine, or up to five years' imprisonment, or both. Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1997 comes nowhere near that, nor does it contain a provision allowing a bailiff, company, creditor or DCA to be legally-restrained from harassing an individual.

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

will do! THANK YOU ALL FOR HELP will keep u posted x

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry teaboy but this is incorrect. This is a fixed sum agreement that has gone beyond it's term. There is no need for a default notice under section 87 as all amounts due under the contract will be arrears and the agreement would have been terminated. Sometimes they send a DN but there is no requirement , they just need a letter before action as required under CPR.

The main defense on these is unfairness of charges and the application of default interest at the exorbitant contractual rate.
D

i believe we had this debate davyb

and we agreed to differ

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi Lid

If their was no default notice then the debt is unenforceable in law. In otherwords they can not enforce in court, should they take it that far, which Mucky hall, never do as they themselves know it is unenforceable hence why they have it since they specialize in such debts. If it did though, all we would have to do would strict them to proof that the default notice was served and received by you, which would be impossible to prove if you did not receive it. Plus with all the unfair charges, they would likely get their arses kicked out of court by a judge.

Sorry teaboy but this is incorrect. This is a fixed sum agreement that has gone beyond it's term. There is no need for a default notice under section 87 as all amounts due under the contract will be arrears and the agreement would have been terminated. Sometimes they send a DN but there is no requirement , they just need a letter before action as required under CPR.

The main defense on these is unfairness of charges and the application of default interest at the exorbitant contractual rate.
D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

but davy

they can do diddly quat unless you acknowledge the debt, that then gives you a better barganing power to go back to the oc and set the terms

the assignment in 95 % of the time is equitable so the dca will just send it back to the oc anyway

THEY CAN HAVE YOUR LIFE STORY FROM BIRTH

BUT UNLESS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT, IT MEANS NOTHING (DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998)

IF A DCA IS TRYING TO SCREW YOU OUT OF AN ACCOUNT WITH £1000 IN UNLAWFUL CHARGES, (UNFAIR CONTRACTS) THEN I DO NOT CALL IT DEBT AVOIDANCE, I CALL IT FRAUD ON BEHALF OF A DCA

I could also be deemed blackmail, given they make threats of legal action etc, if you do not pay within the timescale given - Blackmail under the theft act 1968. It may also be classed as false accounting under the theft act 1968 too.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

teaboy2 thank you too
husband applayed 4 a loan on the internet... we didn't got any default notice thru the post or via email....wonga kept quiet for a year till the mh got in touch...x

Hi Lid

If their was no default notice then the debt is unenforceable in law. In otherwords they can not enforce in court, should they take it that far, which Mucky hall, never do as they themselves know it is unenforceable hence why they have it since they specialize in such debts. If it did though, all we would have to do would strict them to proof that the default notice was served and received by you, which would be impossible to prove if you did not receive it. Plus with all the unfair charges, they would likely get their arses kicked out of court by a judge.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x

Hi Lid

Am glad you have decided to not show willingness to pay until you have it all in black and white and have first disputed any unfair charges and interests. Also you still need to send the telephone harassment letter, regardless of the section 40 part (as i said it doesn't matter whether it still applies or not as the Protection from harassment act 1997 is the main legislation). Let us know what you get back in response to the prove it letter that militant provided.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry i find it better to reply to your posts in parts

Regarding the "prove it letter", I don't know what it really accomplishes in the case of a PDL. Yes i know they have been used for a long time, and when a bill drops on the mat that you know nothing about they can be very useful.
But people are using them to deny legitimate debts, apart from anything else it doesn't work. The PDL will have all your bank details , your work details your address etc, sending them a letter saying you have never heard of them, well it's frankly absurd.

D

but davy

they can do diddly quat unless you acknowledge the debt, that then gives you a better barganing power to go back to the oc and set the terms

the assignment in 95 % of the time is equitable so the dca will just send it back to the oc anyway

THEY CAN HAVE YOUR LIFE STORY FROM BIRTH

BUT UNLESS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT, IT MEANS NOTHING (DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998)

IF A DCA IS TRYING TO SCREW YOU OUT OF AN ACCOUNT WITH £1000 IN UNLAWFUL CHARGES, (UNFAIR CONTRACTS) THEN I DO NOT CALL IT DEBT AVOIDANCE, I CALL IT FRAUD ON BEHALF OF A DCA

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

teaboy2 thank you too
husband applayed 4 a loan on the internet... we didn't got any default notice thru the post or via email....wonga kept quiet for a year till the mh got in touch...x

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Not a pointless argument teaboy, just stating a fact, the AOJ section 40 no longer is applicable to charges of harassment against a consumer, therefore should not have been included in your letter, if anything it should have said CPUTRs.
As the act says the AOJ is no longer applicable.
Now, no matter how you try and wander off the point and seek to obscure your error the fact remains.

D

As i said Davyb - How is demanding money, making threats of legal action and using frequent phone calls and using abusive language, an act of promotion, sale or supply of goods under the definition of commercial practice under the CUPTR 2008?

In Fact let me answer that for you. It is not, as the DCA is not selling anything, they are not promoting anything, and they are not supplying anything under a consumer contract as for a start in all debt cases, the consumer has not had any business with the DCA and has not had any coonsumer contract with the DCA proir to the account being assigned to the DCA. Demanding money under threat of legal action or by abusive language does not fall under the definition of commercial practice as they are not selling, promoting or supplying goods, they are simply demanding money, making threats and in many cases being abusive and using frequent phone calls to intimidate, harass and bully people into paying up.

Also as i said my company operates a call centre in sales, so i think i have a dam sight better understanding as to when something is deemed a commercial practice and when something is not. Especially when i have had compliants made under section 40 from a PCT's solicitors and another solicitor acting for a government body about the nature of calls made by certain former employee who stepped out of line and lost their job as a result, where they had been abusive down the phone purely because the customer wanted to return some goods that the employee had sold to them, which they no longer needed due to mistakenly ordering to many (which yes it would have effected the employees commission as a result of the goods being returned) - Fortunately the customers are happy to continue to trade with my company, but only as a result of my quick action in dealing with the former employee, so my dismissing the employee was enough to statisfy the customers along with flowers, chocolates, a personally writting card containing an apology and a guaranteed discount on future orders - So, so much for the section 40 not applying. off course i can not provide proof of this due to privacy, confidentiality, security and data protection reasons. But if i had 2 solicitors acting on behalf of 2 seperate customers in one week threating court action under section 40 as well as other related legislation, then am more inclined to agree that section 40 still does very much apply.

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x

Yes when you get the reply, you can dispute anything that you should not have to pay.

As Teaboy says the general rule is the principle under any agreement plus one months interest, but if you let us know what they come back with we will advise.

Good luck

D

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x