Should we apply again?

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

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).

Blah de blah de blah.

Yes, you might get these defaults lifted or you might not. Based on whether the default procedure was correctly applied

But

rizel23 wrote: »

yes all 3 are still in dispute over valid or lack of CCA.

no chance.

The_J

rizel23 wrote: »

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

It looks like it's not illegal. It's unenforceable, everyone knows you owe the money but it's collection cannot be enforced (which actually, is true of all unsecured debt). Debt is trust.

The credit reference agencies are just providing a history. You stopped paying a credit agreement so that is reflected on the history. That's just what I get from the Banking Code.

I just really don't get it. We could all stop paying our debts and it's not the middle ages, we won't get put in jail, we could declare bankruptcy and get out of even secured debts. Just why? Do you not have family, friends, hobbies? Anything else to do? This cannot be fun.

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Blah de blah de blah.

Yes, you might get these defaults lifted or you might not. Based on whether the default procedure was correctly applied

But



no chance.

If you read my previous post please advise me why this default is faulty and not enforceable by law and issued illegally, and again will be proceeding with having it removed;

http://i33.tinypic.com/16ay1xl.jpg

so that's 2/3 and i haven't got to the last one yet,

its not a point of right or wrong, anything better to do or as such, this was a point i made and stood up to a while back because the way banks and the creditors thought they could dictate and bend any laws they like to suit them with no quality control, so i just decided to return the favour.

rizel23

If you read my previous post please advise me why this default is faulty and not enforceable by law and issued illegally and again will be proceeding with having it removed;

http://i33.tinypic.com/16ay1xl.jpg

so that's 2/3 and i haven't got to the last one yet,

its not a point of right or wrong, anything better to do or as such, this was a point i made and stood up to a while back because the way banks and the creditors thought they could dictate and bend any laws they like to suit them with no quality control, so i just decided to return the favour.

The_J wrote: »

It looks like it's not illegal. It's unenforceable, everyone knows you owe the money but it's collection cannot be enforced (which actually, is true of all unsecured debt). Debt is trust.

your confusing yourself now, the default is a statutory notice, it has nothing to do with the enforceability of an alleged debt in regards to a CCA. Defaults can be issued illegally due to lack of prescribed terms, that makes them invalid and can warrant removal due to lack of prescribed terms which ALL have to be followed, thats the point of law, you don't just pick the bits that suit you.

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

If you read my previous post please advise me why this default is faulty and not enforceable by law and issued illegally and again will be proceeding with having it removed;

http://i33.tinypic.com/16ay1xl.jpg

so that's 2/3 and i haven't got to the last one yet,

its not a point of right or wrong, anything better to do or as such, this was a point i made and stood up to a while back because the way banks and the creditors thought they could dictate and bend any laws they like to suit them with no quality control, so i just decided to return the favour.

Would I help a bank do a customer down? No I would not. And for the same reasons, I don't want to engage with your attempts to get out of the consequences of you getting your own back on the banks.

You are on your own on this one - what you want is outwith the scope of money saving. Take care not to adopt the morals of what you despise.

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Would I help a bank do a customer down? No I would not. And for the same reasons, I don't want to engage with your attempts to get out of the consequences of you getting your own back on the banks.

You are on your own on this one - what you want is outwith the scope of money saving. Take care not to adopt the morals of what you despise.

I have clearly stated my morals were set aside with these disputes a long time ago.

I'm all for legal constructive argument, but so far all that seems to be posted recently is personal opinions despite legal facts being quoted.

I thank you for any advise you might have posted in regards to the original topic.

Idiophreak

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?

Why would you not apply with them? Maybe you'd shop around, take impartial advice, make an informed decision, something like that?

...and what does it say about borrowers that they'd rather request documents to prevent having to pay than just settle their debts?

You've still not really answered...why was it so important that *all three* places sent these documents to you? Be honest with yourself...you were hoping they'd stuff up - and they did...well done! Go you! You got what you wanted - £2k for completely trashing your credit record. Worth it!

rizel23

Idiophreak wrote: »

Why would you not apply with them? Maybe you'd shop around, take impartial advice, make an informed decision, something like that?

...and what does it say about borrowers that they'd rather request documents to prevent having to pay than just settle their debts?

You've still not really answered...why was it so important that *all three* places sent these documents to you? Be honest with yourself...you were hoping they'd stuff up - and they did...well done! Go you! You got what you wanted - £2k for completely trashing your credit record. Worth it!

I have answered your question numerous times, i was sick of banks and credit providers playing god that on the off chance that no-one would challenge them, well in this occasion they did.

My credit file is not ruined, its 'Good' at the moment and once these defaults get removed it will be perfect again, so that's really not an issue for me, i built my argument on legal facts, not loop holes or opinions, and you can not argue with legal facts. I state again, if these providers had issued the documents i requested through the correct channels and methods i would have had no issue, but they did not, and unfortunately for them I can read and apply the appropriate consumer law needed to have these defaults removed unless someone can point flaws in my argument from a legal point of view? I did not make them issue invalid default notices, these people are paid a lot of money if I can check and follow the law why can't they?

Idiophreak

rizel23 wrote: »

I have answered your question numerous times, i was sick of banks and credit providers playing god that on the off chance that no-one would challenge them, well in this occasion they did.

I'm out, too.

Thrugelmir

rizel23 wrote: »

I guess its ultimately the lenders decision of what they look at and for and the reasons why.

Lenders won't be interested in the reasons why. Finance houses are no obligation to ever deal with you ever again. Something worth remembering. In years gone by it was called black marking. Basically meant that the individual(s) concerned were untrustworthy and that no business should be conducted. No reports kept on file just a permanent black mark. Lenders require protection too.

So you need to weigh up whether its worth the risk for such a small sum.