MACKENZIE

Re: MACKENZIE

I must admit i find some of your posts quite confusing, contract have core terms the repayment details are one of them, that is all. When a contract reaches the end of its term it is TERMinated.

Very basic stuff teaboy, now if you cannot understand that, what on earth is the use of me or anyone else trying to explain the relative complexity of case law to you.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi

In the normal course of events, if a debtor breaches an agreement and receives a default notice , he will be given the option of payng the arrears within 14 days or having his account terminated.

If he remedies, you are quite right, he is put back into the situation before the breach occurred, therefor the account will still be running he will be entitled to readopt the pay arrangement made under it, this is the whole point of a default notice under the act.

Of course any CRA markers or other record of account activity will remain.

If the account has already ended(as it would be in a pdl)he would be unable to do this.

D

I agree with the first bit, though the last sentence is laughable.

Under a PDL if the debtor pays within the statutory 14 days, then the loan is repaid in full and both parties are returned to the position they would have been in if the breach had not occured. So how you can say that a debtor can not do this is beyond me. The account does not end it continues untill the the loan is either repaid in full or terminated of the back of a VALID DN. If the agreement had already ended then the creditor would not be able to issue a default notice, which would also mean he would therefore not beable to enforce the agreement in court. As you simply can not issue a default notice on an agreement that ceased to exist prior to issuing the DN.

Now as i said in the other thread, i see no point in continuing this debate with you since you have in the other thread proven you unwillingness to back up your interpretation with any hard facts, particular in regards to the case law quoted in the other thread, which you alone claimed was inapproriate, but refused to tell us why it was. Therefore i see no point in dicussing what is just your own personal interpretation when your not willing to provide hard facts, legislation or case law to back up your interpretation.

Re: MACKENZIE

It doesn't restore any rights at all - The act itself states that if a debtor complies with the DN that the breach shall be deemed as not having occured. Therefore all it does is put both parties back to where they would have been if the debtor had not originally defaulted. It does nothing more than that.

As for "I suppose it gives time to remedy but so does a LBA" - whilst that is true, it still doesn't make an LBA a default notice required under section 87(1), you can not substitute a DN with a LBA.

Hi

In the normal course of events, if a debtor breaches an agreement and receives a default notice , he will be given the option of payng the arrears within 14 days or having his account terminated.

If he remedies, you are quite right, he is put back into the situation before the breach occurred, therefor the account will still be running he will be entitled to readopt the pay arrangement made under it, this is the whole point of a default notice under the act.

Of course any CRA markers or other record of account activity will remain.

If the account has already ended(as it would be in a pdl)he would be unable to do this.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: MACKENZIE

Afternoon all,

The important point (IMO) is that they [Mac Hall] just do not like being in the same position as the people they write to:

That is to say they [Mac Hall] are now being stopped from bullying....and will run away.

I was always told that if you stand up to a bully he/she will stop. I had my ex-wife arrested twice for assaulting me in the 14 years of our marriage, and I not ashamed to say that I did so - why? Because I do not believe in striking a female, and I knew she was breaking the Law!! She was a bully, but only in the last 3-4 years of our marriage...it seemed to grow once she had the smell of money....my dear departed Mum left me well provided for...need I say more?.

So my view is Mac Hall = Bullies. Me = standing up to the bullies with their own treatment of others being used against them. [Works every time!!]

PS: As an ex-PC I knew/know that those who intimidated others often 'got their doors put in' (by other PC's), just to show these low-life perpetrators that they were not going to get away with their behaviour. Saved a fortune for the Government and bought offenders to heel. 'Summary Justice', I think it's called!

Best wishes all


Dougal

The police is like an extended family and does look after its own. I can vouch for that when my father was killed in an RTC in 1987. What you say in the last few lines of your post is very true.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

I suppose it gives time to remedy but so does a LBA, It cannot do what a DN was designed to do, that is restore the debtors right to make payments as per an agreement, it can't because the agreement is over.

D

It doesn't restore any rights at all - The act itself states that if a debtor complies with the DN that the breach shall be deemed as not having occured. Therefore all it does is put both parties back to where they would have been if the debtor had not originally defaulted. It does nothing more than that.

As for "I suppose it gives time to remedy but so does a LBA" - whilst that is true, it still doesn't make an LBA a default notice required under section 87(1), you can not substitute a DN with a LBA.

Re: MACKENZIE

Ehh seriously Davyb, are you saying the a Default Notice performs none of the functions under the CCA Act 1974?? If you are then you have completely lost me there. As a Valid Default does perform the functions under the act. Its only when its invalid when it fails to perform. Or are you referring to the example i posted earlier today (which to be honest i can not remeber if it was valid or not now and i never checked it before i posted it as an example to proof PDL companies do issue DN's), if so then am not talking about that particular DN, am talking about DN's in general.

I suppose it gives time to remedy but so does a LBA, It cannot do what a DN was designed to do, that is restore the debtors right to make payments as per an agreement, it can't because the agreement is over.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

I can put a label on my dog saying,"i am a cat", it would still be a dog.

D

But your Dog is not a legal document regulated by legislation now, is it!!

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry a little facetious.

Point is that it performs none of the functions of a DN under the act, if it is wrong there is no sanction.

D

Ehh seriously Davyb, are you saying the a Default Notice performs none of the functions under the CCA Act 1974?? If you are then you have completely lost me there. As a Valid Default does perform the functions under the act. Its only when its invalid when it fails to perform. Or are you referring to the example i posted earlier today (which to be honest i can not remeber if it was valid or not now and i never checked it before i posted it as an example to proof PDL companies do issue DN's), if so then am not talking about that particular DN, am talking about DN's in general.

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry a little facetious.

Point is that it performs none of the functions of a DN under the act, if it is wrong there is no sanction.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

I can put a label on my dog saying,"i am a cat", it would still be a dog.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sory, i dont see what you are trying to get at here.

If a loan is defaulted within the loan period the notice will give the current default balance(the arrears) if these are not paid then the full amount(principle+interest} will be payable.

If the loan has already run its term all the above will be due, don'know how else i can put it.

D

Exactly, atleast we agree on that point. I admit i may have misread your post there, but i myself was only pointing out that if the arrears is the same as the total amount due then it is deemed arrears and can be put on the DN.

However as for it being a LBA, well thats laughable, as it is not a Formal Letter Before Action it is what it is stated to be, a Default Notice or Notice of Default (which if issued under section 87(1) is a default notice) issued under Section 87(1) act, it clearly states that and can not therefore be denied that it is not what it itself states it is.

Not only that you can not call a DN a letter before action as their are Civil Procedure Pre-Action Protocol that goven the content of an LBA. Below is what must be included in the Letter Before Action:

• A summary of the facts
• What you want from the party you are claiming from
• How you have calculated the sum you want to claim
• A list of the key documents that you will use to support your case
• A list of any documents you want from the party you are claiming from
• A reasonable deadline for a response (this must not be less than 14 days and it’s usually appropriate to allow 28 days)
• A reference to the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct and the fact that section II(4) of the direction gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction
• A warning that ignoring the letter before claim may result in court action being commenced
• Where appropriate a statement that you would be willing to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution

A Default Notice simply does not comply with what is required for a letter before action. Although i understand why you suggest a DN could be deemed a Letter Before Action, on the face of it, but the fact is it is not a Letter Before Action. It is what it is, a Default Notice!

Re: MACKENZIE

Sory, i dont see what you are trying to get at here.

If a loan is defaulted within the loan period the notice will give the current default balance(the arrears) if these are not paid then the full amount(principle+interest} will be payable.

If the loan has already run its term all the above will be due, don'know how else i can put it.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Yes its mostly because they lke to maintain the illusion tht they are regulated, when effectively they are not.

Ask yourself this, if this notice was none compliant what would be the remedy?

Look at Woodchester, or just the regs. They would be due the arrears on the account, which is the same sum.

We have had people try to challenge these on DN issues, it doesn't work, The only tenuous issue is that the creditor shouldn't enforce in 14 days, which isn't really a problem.(which is no different than a LBA)

The purpose of the DN is to offer protection and opportunity to remedy, this gives neither.

D

Really?? So why is it that when you miss the last payment or last few months payments on any loan you get a default notice for the Arrears, the Arrears obviously being the same as the total amount currently outstanding? So sorry Davyb, but just because the amount outstanding is the total remaining amount, which it obviously would be, it is still classed as arrears that are due. And therefore it can be used on a DN to recover such arrears.

As you said earlier and i agreed, PDL agreements are regulated by the Consumer Credit ACT 1974. As such, the act does not allow for the agreement to terminate when the debtor is in default just because the loan duration has expired, without the creditor issuing a default notice under section 87 (1). The debtor will have defaulted on the term that stipulates the loan duration, as such they are in breach of that term and the creditor can enact other terms of the agreement that allows them to issue a default notice, terminate and enforce the agreement in court. If the agreement terminated when the last repayment date past, then the creditor would be able to benefit from the terms of the agreement that entitles them to issue a DN, terminate, and enforce the agreement in court. Nowhere in the act does it state that a credit agreement terminates when the loan duration period has past. The agreement remains in place until either the arrears are paid or it is terminated by the creditor when a debtor fails to comply with a Default Notice issued under section 87(1).

As per my example in the other thread, if i employed a bulider to build an extension where the work must be completed within 56 days, and when on the 56 day the work is still not completed, the contract does not terminate, it remains in place until the work is completed no matter how long it takes to complete. The builder simply can not turn round and say the contract is no longer in place as it terminated on the 56th day, as the contract continues to be in place and their are terms that can be enacted as a result of the builders failure to comply with the term that states the work must be completed within 56 days. The builder must still turn up on the 57th and all over days required to finish the work, as the contract is for building an extension, not to do halve a job and leave. This is basic contract law and its the same for CCA's as the agreement does not terminate when money is still owed under it, other terms in the contract are enacted to enforce the debt, which includes termination and taking it to court.

If what you are saying was true, then what would be the point of the agreement being regulated under the CCA 1974, there would be no point at all. It would be like me lending money to a friend under the conditions that he pays it back in installments over a period of 12 months, only for him to miss the last payment. What your saying is that i could simply take the matter to court to reclaim the money that was not paid in the last installment. Bloody hell mate, why aren't creditors just waiting for the last day of the loan period (whether its a 1 month of 36 month period) and then just taking the debtor to court for to reclaim what was not paid? Oh wait i forgot loan agreements are regulated agreements therefore a creditor is not entitled to enforce the debt in court (at any time whether it be during the loan period or after) until thay have issued a VALID Default Notice and the debtor has not complied with it.

BY your logic the creditors would be better off waiting for the loan period to come to pass, and then have a free for all in court to reclaim outstanding amounts, it would certainly save a lot of trees due to them no longer having to issue default notices under section 87 (1), all because the loan period has past and the agreement terminated automatically. I wonder why on earth the creditors never thought about that themselves!!

Re: MACKENZIE

Yes its mostly because they lke to maintain the illusion tht they are regulated, when effectively they are not.

Ask yourself this, if this notice was none compliant what would be the remedy?

Look at Woodchester, or just the regs. They would be due the arrears on the account, which is the same sum.

We have had people try to challenge these on DN issues, it doesn't work, The only tenuous issue is that the creditor shouldn't enforce in 14 days, which isn't really a problem.(which is no different than a LBA)

The purpose of the DN is to offer protection and opportunity to remedy, this gives neither.

D

[Dougal16T]

Re: MACKENZIE

They probably all ran and hid in case PC Plod & Co. turned up and took their office door off its hinges, like they do. LOL!

Afternoon all,

The important point (IMO) is that they [Mac Hall] just do not like being in the same position as the people they write to:

That is to say they [Mac Hall] are now being stopped from bullying....and will run away.

I was always told that if you stand up to a bully he/she will stop. I had my ex-wife arrested twice for assaulting me in the 14 years of our marriage, and I not ashamed to say that I did so - why? Because I do not believe in striking a female, and I knew she was breaking the Law!! She was a bully, but only in the last 3-4 years of our marriage...it seemed to grow once she had the smell of money....my dear departed Mum left me well provided for...need I say more?.

So my view is Mac Hall = Bullies. Me = standing up to the bullies with their own treatment of others being used against them. [Works every time!!]

PS: As an ex-PC I knew/know that those who intimidated others often 'got their doors put in' (by other PC's), just to show these low-life perpetrators that they were not going to get away with their behaviour. Saved a fortune for the Government and bought offenders to heel. 'Summary Justice', I think it's called!

Best wishes all


Dougal