Elephant in the room

[ken100464]

Ok am sure many are thinking the same question but not willing to put their hands up so I will.

A sudden flurry of being referred to Pauls blog which is a good read.

However the very first thing that comes to mind and there will be a simple explanation to it I am sure is where does the stop paying on a CCA request from the templates fit in with the s78 non compliance isnt an excuse not to pay?

Obviously can understand if you have a duff agreement that becomes the dispute but what if they just refuse to give you anything?

(Both the 2 I have started and now stopped paying have not given me diddly squat so for me this is happening right now)

They are in non compliance of the s78 but I should be still paying?

How do you then force the issue if the judges dont see this as a reason not to pay. And if you refuse to pay does that damage a possible defence further down the line?

Surely they cant just sit there ignoring us asking for something they are supposed to give us but we cant use this as the dispute. All well and good if that then morphs into something more serious on the CCA itself.

A simple numpty speak version would be appreciated.

Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

You're crossing between Paul's way of thinking and mine - forgetting the legal point of view for a moment, we tend to stick with the attitude that no two cases are the same so do whatever is best in YOUR personal circumstances..

So, whether to keep paying or not? Why? Why would you? This is one huge game of poker so we would generally say why pay, you need to play the game and if they make serious threats then you cross that bridge when it comes to it. If however you're worried what a judge may say, assuming it ever gets through the doors of court, then you'd be playing a different game to that which our guys play, that have UE diaries.

In essence, unless you cease repayments what does it achieve? Ideally you're trying to cease repayments and get past the SB line before they take action. Some you win, some you lose.

[ken100464]

Re: Elephant in the room

Aha.

Thank you very much that is much clearer now and makes sense.

Thats what has confused me two different thoughts and then worrying I have misunderstood why I stop paying.

Will leave the big brains to continue to debate this and go back to blissful not thinking.

[vossy]

Re: Elephant in the room

I think a lot of people think like you as well, too many what if's, I was exactly the same as you until I found this site, glad I did too.

Cheers niddy

[vossy]

Re: Elephant in the room

Oh as a p.s.

I have not done a diary because there is bugger all to put in it - yet!

[fluffystuff]

Re: Elephant in the room

Also, in our experience, when you stop paying (and I'm not saying its right or wrong), its a sure fire way to get them to take notice of you!

[ken100464]

Re: Elephant in the room

Yep and that was where I was coming from. It gets you to a place where you are doing something different to the crowd.

And yes it is like Niddy says a game of Poker. But one if I was a Bank/DCA could play alot better hand than they do.

[ken100464]

Re: Elephant in the room

Oh as a p.s.

I have not done a diary because there is bugger all to put in it - yet!

Keep it that way mate. i truely hope one day to be saying "thats it folks"

[vossy]

Re: Elephant in the room

Keep it that way mate. i truely hope one day to be saying "thats it folks"

That's why we are her - niddy's words somewhere "fuck em"

[fluffystuff]

Re: Elephant in the room

Keep it that way mate. i truely hope one day to be saying "thats it folks"

..........and me!

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

I agree with all that has been said but just for clarity it should be said that if the case went to court the debtor would be liable for all missed payments.

He could not use section 77-79 to excuse payments not made within the period of none compliance.

But as said that is not the game that is being played.

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Elephant in the room

In reality, people on here are usually unable or struggling to pay, and for that reason send for the CCA in the hope that it will be unenforceable. They don't specifically state to the creditor that they refuse to pay purely because of a s77-79 request failure. Therefore the argument to the judge would be that they became unable to pay, together with any failures by the creditor, be it s77-79, default notices, missing prescribed terms, harrassment etc etc

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

In reality, people on here are usually unable or struggling to pay, and for that reason send for the CCA in the hope that it will be unenforceable. They don't specifically state to the creditor that they refuse to pay purely because of a s77-79 request failure. Therefore the argument to the judge would be that they became unable to pay, together with any failures by the creditor, be it s77-79, default notices, missing prescribed terms, harrassment etc etc

Agreed. Starting your UE journey in the belief that you'll end up in court is a mistake, in my opinion. I would never advise anyone to state that payments will be stopped; only that payments will be suspended until such times as the creditor/DCA are able to fully comply with the request.

It's all in the wordplay.....

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

Ok am sure many are thinking the same question but not willing to put their hands up so I will.

A sudden flurry of being referred to Pauls blog which is a good read.

However the very first thing that comes to mind and there will be a simple explanation to it I am sure is where does the stop paying on a CCA request from the templates fit in with the s78 non compliance isnt an excuse not to pay?

Obviously can understand if you have a duff agreement that becomes the dispute but what if they just refuse to give you anything?

(Both the 2 I have started and now stopped paying have not given me diddly squat so for me this is happening right now)

They are in non compliance of the s78 but I should be still paying?

How do you then force the issue if the judges dont see this as a reason not to pay. And if you refuse to pay does that damage a possible defence further down the line?

Surely they cant just sit there ignoring us asking for something they are supposed to give us but we cant use this as the dispute. All well and good if that then morphs into something more serious on the CCA itself.

A simple numpty speak version would be appreciated.

Thanks

Section 78 cannot even sustain in court an argument that the debt is in dispute, High Court, both commercial court in london and two district registries have said so.

S78 can bar judgment, that is a fact. So having points to fall back on helps. Not writing to the creditor denies you a paper trail, it has been proven in Court to be the case, im sorry to say

However, if the creditor can reconstitute the agreement and prove to the court with evidence that its honest and accurate, then your stopping paying gives Mr Creditor the same option as the proverbial convict in prison asking you to pick up the soap in the showers !!!

My blog is more about getting people to take head out of the sand and set their cases up better, so that when people do come to us, we can give them a better fighting chance.

It is part of a three post blog im doing, as if it helps people understand the view coming from the Courts currently, then its a good thing

[greymatter]

Re: Elephant in the room

Hi Paul
Its good to be kept up to date,many thanks.
May I ask a question re:

However, if the creditor can reconstitute the agreement and prove to the court with evidence that its honest and accurate, then your stopping paying gives Mr Creditor the same option as the proverbial convict in prison asking you to pick up the soap in the showers !!!

If there is no signature .because either they have lost/destroyed the original.or an agreement did not exist,and the account is pre 2007 ,what evidence therefore would the Judge be accepting?
Isnt it in their interest to say its an honest and accurate recon?Are we not then at the mercy of the Judges opinion rather than facts?
Thanks Paul
GM