1st Credit / Default date

[CleverClogs]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Where are Paul and Celestine

In Brighton.

Together. :grin:

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

In Brighton.

Together. :grin:

So it's all just a cover. Gotcha!. All makes sense now.

[ODC]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Given the number of DCAs there are its amazing that NONE appear to have used this argument against Stat Barred Claims. When you look at the likes of The Leeds Losers, Westcrap, Crapbot et al and the so called lawyers they pay and the design of their threatomatics to intimidate alleged debtors I think speaks volumes in this matter.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Given the number of DCAs there are its amazing that NONE appear to have used this argument against Stat Barred Claims. When you look at the likes of The Leeds Losers, Westcrap, Crapbot et al and the so called lawyers they pay and the design of their threatomatics to intimidate alleged debtors I think speaks volumes in this matter.

Dca's are using this argument there are now three threads OTR where DCAs are quoting this judgment.

Someone should think of a counter argument IMO

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Dca's are using this argument there are now three threads OTR where DCAs are quoting this judgment.

They can quote whatever they like (and DCAs do), but only what they rely on in court matters.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

They can quote whatever they like (and DCAs do), but only what they rely on in court matters.

I think a viable argument against whatever they seek to rely on may matter a little.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

If or when a DCA dares try it in court, then I'm sure people here/OTR and other interested parties will argue their best.

Until then it is not a fait accomplis, no matter how superficially cogent the argument may seem.

[pt2537]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

Held - The council's cause of action to recover the expenses incurred by it accrued when the works were completed and
not when the demands for payment were served since on the true construction of s 10 of the 1957 Act the requirement to
serve a demand was a procedural condition precedent to the bringing of proceedings and was not an inherent element in
the cause of the action. It followed that the council's cause of action arose in September 1983 and March or April 1984
and was statute-barred when the summons seeking payment was issued. The appeal would therefore be dismissed

All England Law Reports/1992/Volume 2 /Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

The same principles apply to Consumer Credit, thus arguable that limitation runs from when the breach occurred not when the notice is served.

[pt2537]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, £35k was outside the remit of the CCA 1974 and this agreement was 1999 soooooo arguably not regulated

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, £35k was outside the remit of the CCA 1974 and this agreement was 1999 soooooo arguably not regulated

If I remember correctly the preceding £25K limit was removed in 2008, and prior to that one being put in place it was less (£15K?). In any event, £35K in 1999 would have been above any threshold in place at the time.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

All England Law Reports/1992/Volume 2 /Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

The same principles apply to Consumer Credit, thus arguable that limitation runs from when the breach occurred not when the notice is served.

This was a sum due in total on the completion of work.

When a payment is missed on an agreement, all that it is the cause of action for is that missing payment, all sums under the agreement are not due.

They do not become due until the agreement is terminated, this is why this case is not relevant in a contractual breach.

The regulation of the agreement in hart is not relevant either because the principle is being illustrated under contract law, which is just as relevant in regulated or unregulated agreements, in fact the presence of the DN requirement makes it more so.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

It is important to get this established because it has implications when it comes to open ended agreements.
It is bad enough in a fixed sum agreement , because it would mean that if the agreement was not terminated the cause of action could be postponed to the end of the agreement.
But what happens if there i no termination date on the agreement, as in a credit card.

[Nibbler]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

All England Law Reports/1992/Volume 2 /Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

The same principles apply to Consumer Credit, thus arguable that limitation runs from when the breach occurred not when the notice is served.

This was the summary I was always given.

A cause of action can still accrue (i.e. time starts to run) even though a claimant is prevented from suing by a statutory procedural requirement which precludes the issue of proceedings.

In Swansea City Council v Glass (1992) the local authority brought a claim against a landlord for reimbursement of the cost it had incurred in repairing a house in multiple occupation. The issue was whether the cause of action accrued when the work had been completed or or only when the local authority had served a written notice demanding payment as required by The Housing Act 1957. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirement for a written notice was a procedural matter and that time ran from the date that the costs were incurred and the work completed. If this were not the case the local authority could prevent time from running indefinitely simply by not serving the statutory notice.

In respect of an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, the question is whether the time runs from the date of actual default by the debtor or from the date of (or the date of expiry of) the default notice that must be served under s87 CCA1974.

The situation is analogous to the Swansea City Council case in that the requirement for the service of a the default notice is a procedural matter that does not form part of the cause of action. It does not affect the creditor's right to payment but only the procedure for enforcing it. If this were not the position, a creditor could delay the running of time indefinitely by not serving a default notice.

This view was supported by West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson (2005), where the House of Lords stated that it would be 'strange if a lender could stop time running by its own act'.

[Guest]

Re: 1st Credit / Default date

"The situation is analogous to the Swansea City Council case in that the requirement for the service of a the default notice is a procedural matter that does not form part of the cause of action. It does not affect the creditor's right to payment but only the procedure for enforcing it. If this were not the position, a creditor could delay the running of time indefinitely by not serving a default notice."

Yes i read this OTR as well it is entirely incorrect regarding a contract or CCA issue.

The service of a default notice under the CCA is not a "procedural mater" it is a notice required under statute before an agreement can be terminated.
If it were merely procedural there would be no DN issue regarding enforcement.
As said this case has absolutely no bearing in a contractual breach.