MACKENZIE

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Steady on chaps.
Of course the CCA applies to fixed sum loans, never said it didn't, if you read section 87 though it says that in order to claim early repayment, all amounts due on a fixed sum loan which has run its course are in arrears(past due), see the difference.
You cannot offer a remedy because the remedy is to pay the full balance due. But you forget that it also says under section 87(1) to enforce any security (are you saying money or repayment of monies is not a security) you also forget that they can not enforce a debt in court without a vaild default notice, nor can they inact any term of the contract as per schedule 2 6f of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, that would allow them to enforce the debt/agreement. off course they can not demand earlier repayment of any sum as the arrears is the full balance left owed. Therefore they can only enforce, which requires a Valid DN before they are entitled to enforce

Yes BB everyone forgets that underneath the statute there is the contract, and the contract is governed by contract/common law.

If statue were not there the agreement would be enforced upon termination, however terminated, either by default, or because it had run its course and the sums under it had not been repaid.

All the DN(and statute) do is delay the proceedure where remedy is possible, when the asagreement is run its course, there is no remedy other than to pay the ballance due. So there is a remedy then when the agreement has run it course. Do you realise how your last state contradicts itself - you say "there is no remedy", then say "other than paying the outstanding balance" straight after, is that not the same as paying out standing arrears due! err yeah its exactly the same. Make your mind up there is either a remedy or there is not. Section 87(1) is there specifically to allow the debtor the chance to remedy a breach whether its missin the first payment, or last payment.

Simple

D

see above

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

I could understand this bit, just.

"Oh i see, so section 87(1) does not apply to fixed term credit agreements? Funny, i never saw it say that anywhere in the CCA act 1974, nor is a fixed term aggreement for a PDL or Bank Loan classed as an exempt agreement. So where does it state that section 87(1) does not apply to a PDL or other fixed term loans our what case law backs that up? Or are you simply basing your view on cases you have lost in county court that do not set precendents and could have been lost for various reasons?"

Yes a few people have been foolish enough to rely on the DN thing when challenging this type of agreement, fortunately the judge wouldn't lrt the creditor have the full amount claimed, just the principle plus one month, they can do that you know, section 127(!), dn issue thrown out all cases.

D

Right and case law is? Ohh i see, you just expect us to believe your word for it. You know it amazes me how you make these assertions as Facts yet fail to provide any supporting evidence. Not to mention there could well be many other factors that resulted in the debtor losing in.. county court was it? Such as admitting they took out the loan or owe the debt, or the judges lack of legal knowledge on the credit act as it has been known to happen.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

I think there are one or two on CAG.

But it doesn't really matter, anyone who understands the legislation would tell you the same.

Any way i don't know why you wouldn't believe me, i believe you when you say you work with contracts all day

D

[bluebottle]

Re: MACKENZIE

If the creditor commits an act of default or breach of its obligations under an agreement/contract, then, depending on the nature and gravity of the default or breach of obligations, the other party, the debtor, has a right to seek redress for that default or breach of obligations. Irrespective of any rights the creditor may have, nothing shall negate or deprive the debtor, who is regarded as the weaker party in the agreement/contract, of their right to seek redress, whatever form that redress may take, for breach of contract/obligation.

An extreme example of this would be where a person enters into a loan agreement over a two-year repayment period and, part way through the term, the creditor decides to pull the rug out from under the debtor's feet by ending the agreement, without good reason, and demands the debtor pay the outstanding balance immediately, knowing full-well the debtor cannot. Only a judge who was two steps away from being classed as bent would side with the creditor, unless, of course, the creditor lies through their teeth to the court.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Had to comment on this it is so funny

But you forget that it also says under section 87(1) to enforce any security (are you saying money or repayment of monies is not a security)

Yes i am security on a loan is usually property or goods


you also forget that they can not enforce a debt in court without a vaild default notice, nor can they inact any term of the contract as per schedule 2 6f of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement,Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, that would allow them to enforce the debt/agreement.off course they can not demand earlier repayment of any sum as the arrears is the full balance left owed.Therefore they can only enforce, which requires a Valid DN before they are entitled to enforce

See highlighted

I think perhaps you need to read a bit more

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Teaboy

Sorry shouldn't laugh, would you like me to tell you the difference between principle and security on a contract.

C

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

So there is a remedy then when the agreement has run it course. Do you realise how your last state contradicts itself - you say "there is no remedy", then say "other than paying the outstanding balance" straight after, is that not the same as paying out standing arrears due! err yeah its exactly the same. Make your mind up there is either a remedy or there is not. Section 87(1) is there specifically to allow the debtor the chance to remedy a breach whether its missin the first payment, or last payment

Now your geting it, well done

No Point of a dn because the remedy is ths same as the balance due.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Had to comment on this it is so funny

But you forget that it also says under section 87(1) to enforce any security (are you saying money or repayment of monies is not a security)

Yes i am security on a loan is usually property or goods

Is money not deemed an asset, is not an asset deemed goods/property/finances - Also Don't forget not all fixed term loans are unsecured and when they are unsecured they take you to court in order to secure it against goods (warrant of execution) or property (charging order) or your finances (deductions from wages), therefore making money a security. IN other words taking the matter to court is enforcing a security, so the CCA is not purely referring to enforcing a security under the agreement itself but going to court to get judgement where they can seek to enforce a security on your goods, property or finances that were not original a security on a unsecured loan. The key is in the wording of "to enforce any security) Therefore it is not just referring to security secured under a secured agreement but any form of security, be it under the agreement or security secured by a court judgement/order if it said "to enforce a secuirty under the agreement" then i would have to agree with you, but it does not say that.

you also forget that they can not enforce a debt in court without a vaild default notice, nor can they inact any term of the contract as per schedule 2 6f of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement,Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, that would allow them to enforce the debt/agreement.off course they can not demand earlier repayment of any sum as the arrears is the full balance left owed.Therefore they can only enforce, which requires a Valid DN before they are entitled to enforce

See highlighted

I think perhaps you need to read a bit more - I have red enough case law to know a debt can not be enforced without a Valid DN being issued first. You however have not provided any case law to the contrary or any legislation to the contrary.

D

Teaboy

Sorry shouldn't laugh, would you like me to tell you the difference between principle and security on a contract. - Why not laughing at your own ability to not see how taking an unsecured debt to court means that a creditor is trying enforce a security by getting a court judgement that would allow them to secure the debt on things such as on goods, property, or finances, is pretty funny. Obviously they can not get such security as they would not be entitled to enforce such security via the courts without first issue a valid DN - In a sense their is no such thing as an unsecured debt, as a court can grant the creditor security on assets, or finances if they have followed the CCA to the Letter.

C

So there is a remedy then when the agreement has run it course. Do you realise how your last state contradicts itself - you say "there is no remedy", then say "other than paying the outstanding balance" straight after, is that not the same as paying out standing arrears due! err yeah its exactly the same. Make your mind up there is either a remedy or there is not. Section 87(1) is there specifically to allow the debtor the chance to remedy a breach whether its missin the first payment, or last payment

Now your geting it, well done

No Point of a dn because the remedy is ths same as the balance due.

But they can no enforce it court without a DN. No matter which way you look at it the Debtor has the right under the act to be given the oppurtunity to remedy a default. Only way they can do that is if they are told exactly what the breach was and when it occured, hence the need for a DN notice and the need for it to be accurate, the Judge in the woodchester V Swayne & Co case stated as such. That is regardless as to when the default occured, whether it was at the start of at the end of the loan periodD

In blue

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Why not laughing at your own ability to not see how taking an unsecured debt to court means that a creditor is trying enforce a security by getting a court judgement that would allow them to secure the debt on things such as on goods, property, or finances, is pretty funny. Obviously they can not get such security as they would not be entitled to enforce such security via the courts without first issue a valid DN - In a sense their is no such thing as an unsecured debt, as a court can grant the creditor security on assets, or finances if they have followed the CCA to the Letter.

PLease please i cant stand it my sides

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

I have red enough case law to know a debt can not be enforced without a Valid DN being issued first. You however have not provided any case law to the contrary or any legislation to the contrary.

SHOW me FIXED SUM LOAN THAT HAS GONE PAST IT TERM THAT HAS FAILED ON A DN ISSUE

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

"But they can no enforce it court without a DN. No matter which way you look at it the Debtor has the right under the act to be given the oppurtunity to remedy a default. Only way they can do that is if they are told exactly what the breach was and when it occured, hence the need for a DN notice and the need for it to be accurate, the Judge in the woodchester V Swayne & Co case stated as such. That is regardless as to when the default occured, whether it was at the start of at the end of the loan perioiod
}
Yes swain proves that a DN can work if it is within an agreement

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Why not laughing at your own ability to not see how taking an unsecured debt to court means that a creditor is trying enforce a security by getting a court judgement that would allow them to secure the debt on things such as on goods, property, or finances, is pretty funny. Obviously they can not get such security as they would not be entitled to enforce such security via the courts without first issue a valid DN - In a sense their is no such thing as an unsecured debt, as a court can grant the creditor security on assets, or finances if they have followed the CCA to the Letter.

PLease please i cant stand it my sides

So according to you davyb. A creditor is not enforcing a security against a Debtors assets, goods, or finances, by enforcing or securing a debt at court!! Shocking Davyb truelly shocking. I quess all those people that have charging orders had creditors that did not enforce such a security via court either.

I have red enough case law to know a debt can not be enforced without a Valid DN being issued first. You however have not provided any case law to the contrary or any legislation to the contrary.

SHOW me FIXED SUM LOAN THAT HAS GONE PAST IT TERM THAT HAS FAILED ON A DN ISSUE

D

Show me one that hasn't, since your the one thats stating different to what everyone else on every other consumer forum has been stating for the past few years regarding fixed term loans. but then we both know these are settled in county court so set know precedent and that PDL hardly end up in court as the companies do not what their interest and charges scrutinized in court. Show me legislation that stated section 87(1) does not apply to fixed term agreements where loan period has passed or legislation that states a loan agreement ends when its loan duration has passed when the debtor is in default, therefore putting the agreement in default.

"But they can no enforce it court without a DN. No matter which way you look at it the Debtor has the right under the act to be given the oppurtunity to remedy a default. Only way they can do that is if they are told exactly what the breach was and when it occured, hence the need for a DN notice and the need for it to be accurate, the Judge in the woodchester V Swayne & Co case stated as such. That is regardless as to when the default occured, whether it was at the start of at the end of the loan perioiod
}
Yes swain proves that a DN can work if it is within an agreement

The judge never said it had to be within the duration of a loan period in the swayne case. he did however say this:

"
In my judgment, Mr Hodgkinson is right for the reasons which he has given. This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals. When contracting with a large financial organisation they are at a disadvantage. The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If the hirer is said to have broken its terms, the hirer needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as "the next step".



That, as it seems to me, is the scheme of the legislation. It

would be frustrated if the notice could claim that in order to put matters right the hirer must pay a sum far in excess of the amount in fact owing and yet constitute a valid notice. It is all very well to say that a hirer can seek advice on receipt of a notice but a hirer has very little time in which to do so. It may be as little as seven days. (See Section 88 (2)). He may not at first appreciate that the large sum set out in the notice is inaccurately calculated and plain wrong. It may be,

perhaps because of earlier defaults on his part or the incidence of interest, not at all easy to calculate what in fact is owing and the hirer may, thus, be misled into believing that the sum set out in the notice is right. He may even be frightened by that belief." Full judgement here - http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Now the bits underline make it clear that the judge is emphasing on the importance of the need for the creditor to inform the debtor of any breach and that what they state to remedy said breach must be accurate and in the DN most comply with legislation. Your saying the opposite to the judge, as your saying the creditor does not have to notify the debtor or their breach or how to remedy as the only way the creditor can do that is by a VALID DN under section 87(1). He doesn't say anything about the need for the DN to be issued within the duration of the loan period, that is just youselve making your own assertion without any proof to back it up, as the swayne case does not back it up at all.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Gone ever all this before TB you are talking about live accounts here, not accounts that have gone past there term.

Just been looking on CAG the position that these people do not need to use a compliant notice is well accepted over there.

The notice you showed by the way was not compliant, perhaps the op should contest and just pay the arrears, oh just a minute.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Gone ever all this before TB you are talking about live accounts here, not accounts that have gone past there term. The same applies for both the account remains live as long as the debt remains, regardless of whether the loan has gone past its loan duration period.

Just been looking on CAG the position that these people do not need to use a compliant notice is well accepted over there. Yet just one of your other assertions, that you expect people to take your word on. Theres no denying that others may agree with you, but that does not make you right.

The notice you showed by the way was not compliant, perhaps the op should contest and just pay the arrears, oh just a minute. - Yes i know it was not complaint, oh and quess what we won. So perhaps the OP should just pay the arrears, oh but wait, theres still unlawful charges on the balance and we still do not know if the OP is being chased for the same loan of £206 of someone elses. Yet you still want the OP to admit liability by expressing willingness to pay before we even know if its their debt.

D

NOw what part of "stop replaying to my posts as i deemed it as nothing more than an attempt to harass me in to responding" Do you not comprehend.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry i was always taught that it was rude not to respond when addressed.

I understand fully what you say teaboy, unfortunately you are incorrect in almost every instance.

Your first belief is that a fixed term account has a term that is somehow variable upon the whim of the creditor.
This is wrong, when a fixed sum loanis made a great deal of legislation prescribes its form and content, the repayment times and frequency are an integral part of all these requirements(a core term).

When a creditor and debtor decides to rollover an agreement, it is done on the basis of a modifying agreement(see the act), sometimes the creditor used to treat the post termination payments as default interest payments but we put a stop to that practice at an early point.

You say i expect people to just take my word for it, i don't, i expect them to raise sensible questions if they disagree.

Bit unsure what your last point is about. But i can say that our argument with the PDL companies revolves around the fact that the contract only permits one months interest, because it is then terminated, you are suggesting that it continues until the creditor sees fit to send a DN, i think the PDL's would love it if you were right fortunately you are not

D