Elephant in the room

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

Well it may well be a good point there.

It would be good to explore every angle rather than just has there been non compliance with s78 and of course the opinion of others may well shed light on things too.

Lest not forget that there are many issues, such as

Is the agreement cancellable? were cancellation rights served and if not then that may render the agreement unenforceable forever and a day

Did the agreement that was signed contain the prescribed terms

Did the debtor sign an agreement?

Did the account get opened online? if so was it before 1st Jan 2005

Has there been any estoppal issues,

Has there been unfairness?

If one just looks at s78 one loses those points

I had trawled a few sites before finding this one, but one of them (you'll know who I mean) had a process , with template letters, for getting OC's and DCA's in tacit agreement and then sending an estoppal notice. I never understood all this and quickly moved on, but you've mentioned that word again.

What does it mean, and can people simply write and get a tacit agreement..and follow up with the estoppel a month or so later ?

A bit off topic, but clarification of what estoppel is in the context you used above might add to the 'knowledge database' ?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

^^^ there's always one

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

^^^ there's always one

aye...

[SXGuy]

Re: Elephant in the room

estoppel by acquiescence is what the "other site" rely on.

Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...y+acquiescence

They rely on your name being trade marked, and informing the DCA's a number of times not to use it, or fees will be incurred, obviously DCA's take no notice, and continue to use the trademarked name, therefore a bill is raised. There idea is, you create a counterclaim bigger than the sum being asked for.

Whether thats what Paul means though is another matter.

[Still Waving]

Re: Elephant in the room

I think possibly this is what Paul was referring to:-

Estoppel (English law) - encyclopedia article about Estoppel (English law). (Link)

Estoppel (English law) Estoppel is a legal doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (eg. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.
Estoppel could arise in a situation where a creditor informs a debtor that a debt is forgiven, but then later insists upon repayment. In a case such as this, the creditor may be estopped from relying on their legal right to repayment, as the creditor has represented that he no longer treats the debt as extant. A landlord may tell his tenant that he is not required to pay rent for a period of time ("you don't need to pay rent until the war is over"). After the war is over, the landlord would be "estopped" from claiming rents during the war period. Estoppel is often important in insurance law, where some actions by the insurer or the agent estop the insurer from denying a claim.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

Glad I asked, thanks guys....

I don't think anyone could ever succeeded in 'estopping' a credit agreement..it all seemed like a sort of black magic to me.....but I didn't go into it much.

You can come back now Niddy

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

Promissory estoppal too lest not forget. High Trees case

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

Estoppel is confusing but my understanding is that if an agreement be it verbal or written is made this can not therefore be changed. I think an example would be if a DCA accepted a payment plan of £x but did not specify time limits they would be estopped from then changing it.

As for the other site (nice cup of tea I believe) I could never get my head around it

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

The case mentioned is usually the one used to illustrate promissory estopell.

Basically it occurs when one party promises an action and the other party bases his subsequent actions on that promise.

The first party is estopped from denying his promises at the cost of the second party.

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

The case mentioned is usually the one used to illustrate promissory estopell.

Basically it occurs when one party promises an action and the other party bases his subsequent actions on that promise.

The first party is estopped from denying his promises at the cost of the second party.

but that promise to do or not to do something can of course be brought to an end by notice that the party does not intend to be bound any longer moving forward

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

From what I recall, the other site went down a road that you wrote (3 times I think) to the OC/DCA stating something like..'if you do not respond to to my letter you will be in tacit agreement to it's contents '..and if a month or so after the 3rd letter there had been no response then an estoppel 'notice' was sent...which basically said you are now estopped from doing anything (like chasing a debt) because you have agreed to what I wrote in my letters .....



Like I said, black magic to me......bit I'm not sure I understood any of it either..

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

From what I recall, the other site went down a road that you wrote (3 times I think) to the OC/DCA stating something like..'if you do not respond to to my letter you will be in tacit agreement to it's contents '..and if a month or so after the 3rd letter there had been no response then an estoppel 'notice' was sent...which basically said you are now estopped from doing anything (like chasing a debt) because you have agreed to what I wrote in my letters .....



Like I said, black magic to me......bit I'm not sure I understood any of it either..

Sounds like Ballocks to me

the promissor has to make a "gratuitous promise", this cannot be inferred any more than any other core contractual promise can be.

[SXGuy]

Re: Elephant in the room

Sounds like Ballocks to me

the promissor has to make a "gratuitous promise", this cannot be inferred any more than any other core contractual promise can be.

While i dont agree with what the "other site" do, i do believe it can be inffered, simply because there is an estoppel by acquiescence which is exactly what that term means.

But getting a DJ to notice this estoppel when dealing with CCA matters i think would be like convincing a dentist to leave a rotten tooth in.

They seem to rely on the Bills of exchange act, and disregard any CCA statue. Reason being i believe that they work on the "common law" aspect which we all know, statutory courts have no time for, unless you are absolutely certain you know what you are talking about.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

While i dont agree with what the "other site" do, i do believe it can be inffered, simply because there is an estoppel by acquiescence which is exactly what that term means.

But getting a DJ to notice this estoppel when dealing with CCA matters i think would be like convincing a dentist to leave a rotten tooth in.

They seem to rely on the Bills of exchange act, and disregard any CCA statue. Reason being i believe that they work on the "common law" aspect which we all know, statutory courts have no time for, unless you are absolutely certain you know what you are talking about.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of contract law here, not the first I have seen on that forum, it will probably run and run.

Nothing to do with the CCA.

P E still applies in regulated or any other agreement.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Elephant in the room

but that promise to do or not to do something can of course be brought to an end by notice that the party does not intend to be bound any longer moving forward

Were it not for the words I have highlighted - which I believe to be a most deplorable and largely meaningless idiom of modern English - I'd have clicked on the "thanks" button.