Lender has terminated my loan in error, where do I stand

DCFC79

gill5blue wrote: »

Hi
see consumer action group for proper advice and not opinions.
Cheers
gill5blue

I bet we would still have the thread if he had gone to CAG ?

somethingcorporate

No breach of contract allows one party to get off completely scott-free - never going to happen.

The two options I see are you are returned to the position of no breach occurring which mean you still owe the money; or that the contract never occurred which means you still owe the money to put you both back in the starting position.

Despite your continued posts I still do not understand which of these two outcomes you think results in you getting your loan "written off".

As I posted back in post 58 I have no doubt you'll be back to tell us you were right and we were all wrong and that you have had a personal apology from god and he will grind the terrible bank into the dust on your behalf. In reality, you'll get nowhere near where you currently think. You may get an apology, correction on your credit files and £100 apology.

If you put half as much effort into fixing it as you did being an @ss on the internet you'd have sorted this on day one. Still, you did entertain a few of us regulars. Keep the jokes coming!

ILW

Conrad2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I told you so.

Google unlawful rescission of contract.

You didn't want to hear news that you didn't want to hear, but you did, you lost now move on. Please take the time to listen to me and what I have to say, as I generally speak common sense. For the sake of a little effort, my debt will be written off and the lender will be obliged to remove any negative reporting to credit agencies.

I really am signing off on this one now...

In youir dreams maybe.

Angry_Bear

DCFC79 wrote: »

Keep us updated on how you get on Conrad.

Seconded. I kind of doubt that you'll get the result you're hoping for but I'd be happy to be wrong!

molerat

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Seconded. I kind of doubt that you'll get the result you're hoping for but I'd be happy to be wrong!

Don't worry, you won't be

tell_it_how_it_is

DCFC79 wrote: »

Keep us updated on how you get on Conrad.

I guess there's a good chance he'll be back online with his beer goggles come 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.

Conrad2

Guys, I've just sent my lender another letter suggesting they hire you lot to prosecute me. Apparently they can't get anyone with legal experience to do it.

And it's beer goggles all the way this weekend. I'm definitely celebrating, because UK law is a fine thing. You should read about it some time...

somethingcorporate

Why would you be prosecuted for a civil issue? (prosecution = criminal law).

I am not as confident in your legal understanding as you are.

redpete

Can we just agree that Conrad has a better understanding of the law than the Lord Chief Justice and a better grasp of finance than Warren Buffet - then he might be quiet.

Conrad2

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Why would you be prosecuted for a civil issue? (prosecution = criminal law).

I am not as confident in your legal understanding as you are.

Prosecute
1. Law a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against.
b. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.

Found here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prosecute

Good start!

somethingcorporate wrote: »

No breach of contract allows one party to get off completely scott-free - never going to happen.

The two options I see are you are returned to the position of no breach occurring which mean you still owe the money; or that the contract never occurred which means you still owe the money to put you both back in the starting position.

Despite your continued posts I still do not understand which of these two outcomes you think results in you getting your loan "written off".

As I posted back in post 58 I have no doubt you'll be back to tell us you were right and we were all wrong and that you have had a personal apology from god and he will grind the terrible bank into the dust on your behalf. In reality, you'll get nowhere near where you currently think. You may get an apology, correction on your credit files and £100 apology.

If you put half as much effort into fixing it as you did being an @ss on the internet you'd have sorted this on day one. Still, you did entertain a few of us regulars. Keep the jokes coming!

Don't worry, it's sorted. See my previous posts. You are in denial.

And as yoose don't want follow no link...

Rescission
By Agreement
Mutual rescission, or rescission by agreement, is a discharge of both parties from the obligations of a contract by a new agreement made after the execution of the original contract but prior to its performance (That is, after is started but before it finished). Rescission by mutual assent is separate from the right of one of the parties to rescind (meaning that if I had repudiated, that is rejected the agreement, I would have to discharge the debt) or cancel the contract for cause, or pursuant to a provision in the contract (this relates to what Simon the Poet was talking about, where people genuinely were trying to use loopholes to avoid paying off debts by claiming that errors in DNs etc. invalidated terminations and therefore invited rescission).

Assent Although a breach of contract by one party (my lender, and oh yes they have breached) is not an offer to rescind (that is, it was not intended by the lender to be and invitation), the other party can treat the repudiation as an offer to rescind that he or she can accept, leading to rescission of the contract by mutual assent (And boy, did I assent mutually, oh happy day! Because the lender willfully breached the contract illegally, I can accept that as an offer to rescind. I can even claim damages as an innocent party to a criminal act). Rescission must be clearly expressed (done it, by return), however, and the conduct of the parties must be inconsistent with the existence of the contract (they asked for me money back without justification, and I cancelled my DD and told them I would make no further payments to an agreement they have terminated). The fact that some of the materials that form part of the subject matter of the contract have been returned is not conclusive as to whether rescission has occurred (that means that just because I have made previous payments, they can't use that to say that I have not rescinded because I have honored the contract).

Found here http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...on+of+contract thanks coz.

I am not scared of my lender. He has no power to collect from me now, and every liability to satisfy my complaints. If you treat your banks as untouchable gods that are exempts from UK law, they will walk all over you, and you will lay down in front of them to accommodate.

Don't matter what you say, dats da troof.