Should we apply again?

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

I'm glad you find it entertaining

I would welcome all constructive comments, i know my 'legal' position is quite clear, and frankly that's all I'm concerned about. Fortunately I'm able to put any moral views i might have/had to one side in this situation.

There are 2 separate legal issues. You only know the legal position on the CCA and legal recovery of the money. On which you are correct.

On the recording of the defaults, you are entirely ignorant of the fact that this is a legally separate matter - and that if there had been no technical errors in the process, you would be stuck with the defaults on your record fair and square.

There are no constructive views which allow you to argue that because the money is not legally recoverable, then the defaults should not be recorded.

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Stop grizzling.

You have not made out the case for the credit referencing agencies recording data illegally.

I turn left out of the bottom of my road every day into a one way street. I have not gained points or been convicted, I have no fines to pay. I do it on foot, so it is perfectly legal. I cannot complain if anyone records the fact that i turned left out of the bottom of my road into a one way street.

The facts of the matter are that you borrowed the money and you did not pay it back. Perfectly legal to record. It is a matter of fact that you defaulted. If there had been no technical errors in applying the defaults it would have been unarguable.

Don't conflate the 2 entirely separate processes of registering a default against you and legal recovery of the money. It is entirely possible to recover money legally without recording defaults. In the majority of cases this is what happens - if someone owes you or me money, we cannot record defaults against them, but we could take it to court and win.

Be careful what you wish for - if you press the point too hard and win so that procedures are changed, you can be certain that your debts will be marked 'settled -CCA'

I'm not "grizzling"

Like I said, its "black & white" its either legal and can be record as a default or its not. I'm in the process of providing the ICO with all the details for them to consider the matter, but given that there are two main defects with the default I the post i posted up previously i can not see the ICO going against the consumer credit act.

It seems like i have strung a cord with so called traditionalist on the forum

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

There are 2 separate legal issues. You only know the legal position on the CCA and legal recovery of the money. On which you are correct.

On the recording of the defaults, you are entirely ignorant of the fact that this is a legally separate matter - and that if there had been no technical errors in the process, you would be stuck with the defaults on your record fair and square.

There are no constructive views which allow you to argue that because the money is not legally recoverable, then the defaults should not be recorded.

I'm fully aware of both.

Alleged debts can only been enforced through provisions of a VAILD Credit Card Agreement, a copy of the original can be requested to view at said court hearing and must be provided if requested, if not case will be thrown out.

Defaults are separate issues. There is strict guidelines to follow when issuing one.

This one proved by Mercers is defective on the following issues;

http://i32.tinypic.com/whjxww.jpg

Full legislation here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VII

Part VII Default and Termination Default notices CCA 1974

88 Contents and effect of default notice.

2)A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than [F214] days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those [F214] days have elapsed.

The time to rectify is not sufficient, 2 days short due to bank holiday (there is no post on bank holidays, you would have thought banks would know that)

It also lacks the original creditors address, defaults should be issued by the original creditor unless the alleged debt had been sold, unfortunately for Barclaycard they instructed 'Mercers' to issue a default on this Barclaycard account on there behalf before alleged debt had been sold. No 'Notice of assignment' was provided till July 2011.

I hope this makes clear my legal point of view for having this removed, all guidelines have been followed from OFT this is not a loop hole, its law and i will be providing the relevant bodies needed to ensure this is removed from my credit profile as it clearly not been issued legally.

Further to that no further defaults can be issued on this account as a Notice of Assignment has been received in July 2011 from Lowells;

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

Idiophreak

rizel23 wrote: »

...i do not see anyone questioning why i was not provided with these documents just posts saying i have stolen money,

...

I shall pass on your comments to HSBC when i next go into my bank, as strangely they were the people who advised me to apply for mortgage with them as i bank, credit and save with them.

You've not really made it clear why you'd rather dig your heels in over this paperwork than pay your debts.

And OF COURSE HSBC wanted you to apply with them...do you always let salesmen tell you what to buy? :wall:

rizel23

Idiophreak wrote: »

You've not really made it clear why you'd rather dig your heels in over this paperwork than pay your debts.

And OF COURSE HSBC wanted you to apply with them...do you always let salesmen tell you what to buy? :wall:

I bank with HSBC, they have been good to me so why would i not apply with them? I talked with them about considering buying somewhere and they took the time to go through all the mortgage options available.

I think your post highlights what's wrong with people in this county, it was my legal right to request said documents, if they had been supplied i would have gladly paid, but they were not, and that's on 3 occasions with different lenders.

What does that say about the responsibility of lenders that they can not be bothered to keep documents that they know can be requested at any time?

Dave_Ham

rizel23 wrote: »

I bank with HSBC, they have been good to me so why would i not apply with them? I talked with them about considering buying somewhere and they took the time to go through all the mortgage options available.

I think your post highlights what's wrong with people in this county, it was my legal right to request said documents, if they had been supplied i would have gladly paid, but they were not, and that's on 3 occasions with different lenders.

What does that say about the responsibility of lenders that they can not be bothered to keep documents that they know can be requested at any time?

Sounds like you have convinced yourself this is right, proper and correct and have the scruples to question what's wrong with people in this country??.

I'm out

rizel23

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Sounds like you have convinced yourself this is right, proper and correct and have the scruples to question what's wrong with people in this country??.

I'm out

Its not a case of right or wrong, its a case of case law (thats which CRA rely on), that which is in black and white and can not be argued with. I presume people thought i was just "not wanting" to pay, i think my post clearly so that's not correct and the information i have provided legally backs that's up. If that upsets some people I'm sorry for that.

Thanks for your comments

The_J

I've read up a bit on this and Dvardy is right. They can't chase the debt but they certainly can register it with credit referencing agencies who are under no right to remove it.

You have seriously messed up. But hey, at least you're 2k better off :rotfl:

rizel23

The_J wrote: »

I've read up a bit on this and Dvardy is right. They can't chase the debt but they certainly can register it with credit referencing agencies who are under no right to remove it.

You have seriously messed up.

Please do elaborate how they will not remove it if its proved its been registered illegally due to not been issued correctly?

GMS

At which point did you decide to challenge the legality of the agreement?

Did you apply for the credit with the intention of using it then finding a loopohole?