Default removed, but then...

[mgfboy]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I can see both sides of this argument, I have used UE but I do sometimes feel guilty for doing it. But if they lenders had played fair when I had a financial hiccup I would have never used UE.

So I say do what you have to do to get by, but be aware their is no solution that is totally trouble free, we are lucky that most lenders and DCA don't really want to throw to much money at each case, but as I found out with HSBC the deepest pockets sometime will win and it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong.

Just as with anything , just get the facts and make your own mind up and remember most of us have allot of baggage in this area and some times don't have the most balanced of opinions

[alangee]

Re: Default removed, but then...

ca

As I said in my previous post, I believe that if the agreement has been terminated, then, Sainsbury's in this case, cannot reinstate it without you or the courts permission. Once you are given a CCJ, the terms in that judgement become the new agreement, because the original was terminated.

It may be that an acceptance by you of their offer to repay the charges may be a tacit acceptance to reopen the agreement.

As I said in my previous post, we did not accept their offer of compensation, and as far as I am concerned, the account remains terminated on the back of a defective DN.

I must point out that this is only an opinion, not fact, which Paul will probably shoot me down on.


Alan

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Well the first, and only time the OC mentioned buying back the whole account /agreement, and removing the CRA file entry was in the last letter they sent. The fees refund I had never agreed to being sent to the DCA, I'd insisted on a cheque to me, but they point blank refused.

Previously the OC had talked of a partial buy back.

if the agreement was terminated when sold, it was done on the back of a defective DN..so is it terminated or not ?

I get confused between an account..an .agreement and a contract..the agreement can be terminated but a contract still exists by which the debt remains to be paid..is that it ?

I'm not sure if I need to write to them and specifically reject any or all of these things...or just wait until they write to me..

I am assuming their removal of the DN and CRA entry doesn't extend the end date from the original default date...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

firstly, thanks to Niddy for the e-mail, perhaps I was a little hasty.
For the record, I have no moral standpoint regarding debt, whatever works for the individual is absolutely fine by me.

Regarding the above enquiry, my understanding is.

An agreement is not enforceable in law and a contract is( basically an enforceable agreement)

There are common law requirements that must be met for an agreement to become a contract.

As far as consumer credit agreements are concerned the requirements are laid down within the statute.(CCA 1974)
It says that the agreement must be "reduced to writing"( not verbal)
Contain all the terms prescribed by the statute.
be signed .

An "account" is simply the identity of the transaction.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

if the agreement was terminated when sold, it was done on the back of a defective DN..so is it terminated or not ?

Forgot this bit.

Again my understanding is that the agreement cannot be terminated if the default notice(section 87) is defective, so it remains legally a live account.

(Added), More correctly the agreement cannot be terminated on the breach of the debtor without a compliant default notice issued under section 87 of the act.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Thanks GT...(and welcome back)..

So the T and C's of a contract basically cover all eventualities that may arise..which means the contract is always live until such time as it is 'satisfied' ?

..and when an OC 'terminates', he's not terminating the contract as such, but terminating one aspect of the agreement..and invoking another (recovery) ?

I think the terminology confuses me...and I'm easily confused..

[Spent2much]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I love healthy discussion and varying viewpoints but saying to someone to pay 25p is nuts. As cardiac spotted, he could pay that for 50 years then at that point the OC could try and enforce. Technically interest will keep the debt increasing so your £5k debt will be £25k at retirement.

Best to draw their hand long before that. If they take action so be it. It happens and in some cases it's for the best as the OC can't make silly threats like they do prior to court.

Others blag out 6yrs and get SB.

In this case the OP doesn't have his back to the wall so UE is deffo the way to go!

thank God you said this niddy , i was getting really scared in case we had done the wrong thing UE, but now i have seen your view i am back on track

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Yes you and me both.

The terms of the agreement state what is expected from both parties if they are to participate in the bargain.

It sets out the rights and duties under the contract. For instance it may say that the debtor must repay the debt by paying a certain amount for a certain time, they may detail the way the creditor must supply the credit etc, these are the T and Cs(terms).

When an agreement is terminated it means the terms no longer apply(term-inated).

It does not mean that any liabilities(sums) due under the agreement disappear of course, merely that the methods for discharging those debts itemized within the agreement no longer apply.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I should perhaps just mention, after back reading my file notes, that I never said to the OC that they had sent the DN to a wrong address, nor that I didn't receive it. I did say I never received a Notification of Assignment however...but the OC has twisted this round to mean the DN...and that was their justification for the proposed removal of the CRA entry and the DN.

I did, somehow, receive the DN...although not by recorded or registered mail.

If the OC has just got it wrong, maybe I should tell them...unless of course this was deliberately misconstrued as part of another strategy to apply interest to the account and recover the £1300 they have deducted ? In reality though, having already written off the full account some years ago (upon sale) the £1300 'adjustment' to the balance has no cash impact at all on the OC..

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I don't know how relevant this is, but there is a school of thought which says that if an agreement is assigned to a third party and then a refund is due on the account, the refund should go directly to the debtor and not be debited to the account.

As far as I know this is a theory based on an analysis of the Jones judgement and I do not know how accurate it is, but for the sake of discussion it would explain why the OC were anxious to show the account had not been terminated and sold.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I don't know how relevant this is, but there is a school of thought which says that if an agreement is assigned to a third party and then a refund is due on the account, the refund should go directly to the debtor and not be debited to the account.

As far as I know this is a theory based on an analysis of the Jones judgement and I do not know how accurate it is, but for the sake of discussion it would explain why the OC were anxious to show the account had not been terminated and sold.

Interesting. To all intents and purposes though, the account had been terminated and sold. The misinterpretation of what i said doesn't change that. The OC doesn't know (I believe) that the DN was defective, and even that could easily be rectified. They did sell it, I have a copy of the NoA..and the DCA has/had it's name on my CRA file..

The OC used as an excuse for not refunding me the fact I had not been making the payments (I was on a reduced payment plan)...that's what they put in their letter to me, inferring that I hadn't actually paid for any of the charges/fees...(although i will have paid some of it).

What a tangled web..

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

They dont half make simple things difficult by being deceitful and greedy.

You would think it would be simple for a lawyer to go over all this documents before they issue them and do stuff for correct reasons.

But by doing stuff half cocked and always with an eye to the bottom line they keep getting stuff sooooooo wrong.

[oscar]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I don't know how relevant this is, but there is a school of thought which says that if an agreement is assigned to a third party and then a refund is due on the account, the refund should go directly to the debtor and not be debited to the account.

As far as I know this is a theory based on an analysis of the Jones judgement and I do not know how accurate it is, but for the sake of discussion it would explain why the OC were anxious to show the account had not been terminated and sold.

This would be the case if the account had been assigned in absolute - ie sold rather than the creditor asking a DCA to collect for them. When a account is sold in absolute, all rights and responsibilities are sold too - that includes the right to offset refunds / gestures of goodwill against any debt that has been sold.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Yes the Jones ruling illustrated that rights under a contract and the duties under the statute were transferred,(thus enabling the asignee to be the creditor as defined by the act) not duties under the contract, as I see it.

It is generally held that duties under a contract cannot be assigned.
The refund of charges would be a duty of the creditor and therefore repayable to the other party of the agreement, the debtor not the assignee.
This is how the argument goes.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

They dont half make simple things difficult by being deceitful and greedy.

You would think it would be simple for a lawyer to go over all this documents before they issue them and do stuff for correct reasons.

But by doing stuff half cocked and always with an eye to the bottom line they keep getting stuff sooooooo wrong.

Trouble is, they don't care..at the end of the day, if they get 'bored' with it...they sell it on...and on....and on...so years down the line the debtor is still fighting their corner with DCA no. 7 and the OC has forgotten all about it... Banks are more interested in fiddling LIBOR and selling PPI...paying themselves fat bonuses along the way..well, some of them.

I still can't see how it is 'right' for a DCA to buy a debt for £100 and demand £1000....backed 100% by the law...

must go to bed...