funding corporation

[Bill-K]

Re: funding corporation

It says "Total amount payable under agreement" as opposed to something like "Balance Due" or Balance Owing."

As I mentioned previously, further interest or charges may perhaps be added to the account, but these are not part of the original agreed TAP as far as I understand, and have not been notified to the borrower.

I'm not sure on this, but I would have thought that any additional charges to the account should be notified to the borrower before being included in any DN, as the borrower must surely be given the opportunity to take action to remedy the cause(s) of the default ?

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

I am sure it is in one of the wilson judgements

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

it says "total amount payable under agreement" as opposed to something like "balance due" or balance owing."

as i mentioned previously, further interest or charges may perhaps be added to the account, but these are not part of the original agreed tap as far as i understand, and have not been notified to the borrower.

I'm not sure on this, but i would have thought that any additional charges to the account should be notified to the borrower before being included in any dn, as the borrower must surely be given the opportunity to take action to remedy the cause(s) of the default ?

86 (a) cca 1974 notice of default dums

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

Does CPR12 not cover this or am I getting ahead of myself?

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

CPR 12 IS FOR DEFAULT CCJ

ITS THE CCA 1974 THAT IS THE STATUTORY POWER IN THIS

TIME FOR BED ME THINKS

FRESH PAIR OF EYES IN THE MORNING

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

Bill - thank you, and Maggot apologies. I looked at the way in which the DN was presented, but if the figures are wrong, then I too suspect it makes it defective. I need to double check that as the really critical bit where most mess up is the time limit.

Been trawling the net all day phoned cab debtline and I cant get an answer to this.
My take on this is if the default is a legal doc and a major company gets it wrong it cant plead admin error as the figure being wrong will impact down the line as in termination of contract, if the default is not satisified all sums then become due.
Why have legal docs if you can say didnt really mean that,I meant this

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

if the account has been defaulted and terminated on a defective default notice, all the creditor can claim are any arreas up to the default date

if it gets taken to court and the default notice is confirmed as not in the perscribed form, the creditor would have to withdraw the claim, issue a fresh default notice, wait for the 14 days are up to clear the arrears, then issue a new claim

if the account has been assigned say to a DCA,all the dca would be able to claim again is any arrears up to the default date, then the assignment itself would be unlawful as the account terminated by the original creditor was defective

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

This makes very interesting reading:



I believe the author is also a member of LB

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

This makes very interesting reading:



I believe the author is also a member of LB

labman strikes again
paul gets around a bit , does he not, same as peter barred

its great having two schollars in the same place to bang heads together

[Bill-K]

Re: funding corporation

I'm sure Peter will also LOL - like me - at the 'typo,' Militant !!!

I've not even tried to find the CCA or CPR stuff you guys have mentioned. Goes over my head, mostly. But what Maggott says seems to be supported by Labman's link to Paul's post. If it's a legal document then it must be correctly drawn up - in both its format and its content. If it is drawn up incorrectly, it is not a legal document - and cannot be legally consered as such. OK., so maybe all that means is that it has to be re-drawn if challenged and found wanting, and the only thing this will achieve is extra time.

In this case, the DN was not immediately challenged - but was later used as a rather dodgy defence in what turns out to be a nasty case of alleged car-nicking. Had the DN been lawful - and lawfully served - then OK., I guess the repo may well have been. But no lawful DN had been served, and so no lawful repo took place. OK., I'm sure we can mitigate and call it an unlawful repo as opposed to intentional theft. But there seems to have at least been an unlawful deprivation, and an unlawful enrichment.

If they finally say "Sorry, you're right. The DN was wrong. Here's another one, which is correct." Then OK. You owe them either the money or the car. But until then, you don't owe them the car - that's for sure.

Just my unlearnéd take on this, though.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

B een jugglimg these figures all weekend and I `ve a nasty feeling they are correct, so please pull my reasoning apart.
The most payments we could have made is 25
25 x 273.73= £6,843.25
deposit £1,500.00
total £8,343.25
depenending on what month payments started and any charges added this is
to close to the figure on the dn