Paul I think we may have moved on from aeguments about repudiation. What we want to know, and keep asking is: What should happen at court when a creditor issues a claim on the back of a bad DN, and says the agreement is terminated.

Good thoughts, but I think that is exactly what the act as drafted intended. The creditor should get it right. No claim taken to court by a creditor/DCA should ever fail. The fact they do evidences that they got it wrong. Tough. Would the banks and DCAs extend an olive branch if it was the other way round?

Because as any sane thinking person knows the gloomy talk is guff and obfuscation. Cases have been lost that never should have, LIPs have jumped on bandwagons because they were so desperate and knew not where to turn. CMCs and Rankin muddied the water, and yes, regrettably some LIPs ended up com0letely out of their depth in court. (not suggesting that here). And then some pro creditor friendly posters have run us ragged when its really quite simple - has the creditor followed the procedure which enables him successfully to prosecute a claim? I think I read DD saying somewhere that he would like to take some of these supposedly settled issues back into court. I wish he would.

No we are saying that the creditor penalises himself for not CORRECTLY following the procedure itemised in the act. The crux of the issue is what happens after the creditor terminates following the issue of a defective DN, and then issues a claim in court. For me the defective DN precludes the creditor from raising the claim and it should therefore be struck out, and if any judgement has been made that alters that, that judgement was wrong. I have an open mind about whether the creditor can raise a further DN - I subscribe to the dead parrot view - if the creditor has terminated it, then its dead, and no further DN can be raised on it, but am open to being wrong on this. Again I'd like to know how the ACT treats this situation, as well as any modifying judgements. If we accept the creditor can reissue a DN and get it right, then I believe he has an uphill battle to get a court to let him reissue a claim. Its tough on the creditor, but they are the sophisticated institutions who have the resource to get it right. So who is going to give LEGAL argument against this position? Ands if this position is wrong who is going to state definitively what should happen in court in the scenario I gavce above? Vdr

Peter, please try again, this time read the post properly BEFORE you comment on it.

And is that not was relied on to bring proceedings in the first place? And the DN was defective. And the claimant lost their rights under the CCA. Therefore anything after that is meaningless. We need to get back to what I will call (probably wrongly) the cause of action - where did it start going wrong, and wind back to that, and address it.

You cant kill something twice, once its a dead parrot it's dead, terminated, shuffled its mortal coil etc. The claimant killed it. If anyone tries to effect further death on it they are bound to fail. Its not me who is complicating it. My point is very simple, and I believe supported by the judge in Harrison v Link. If the DN is bad, the claimant has no rights under the CCA. What part of that is: a) incorrect b) complicated Vdr

Well here we have a clear case of inarticulate drivel. Where are the moderators?

Quite what Peter? Which one of Caro's contentions do you subscribe to? Both perhaps?

Banker_rhymes_with created a DN days calculator - its definitive and may be worth looking for. Vdr

I'll raise my head up. There is a health warning, I'm not a lawyer, not legally trained, so dont know much. But I've been around a bit, and am fairly bright. I think most reasonable people know the answer. There have been judgements made which most folk on here knew were wrong. If we discount some of the more outrageous ones, then we go back to the CCA. The creditor issued a bad DN, they had not availed themselves of the right to take action, they illegally terminated. The OP was right, maybe used the wrong R - should have been repudiated, and the creditor was therefore not entitled to bring proceedings. The judge should have found against them. They cannot reapply as they cant bring the same case again. The OP owed the areas at the court date. See - its simple, everything else is legal guff and obfuscation which has no place in consumer legislation. I think the OP needs to try and find cousel to take it on at appeal, which could right a lot of the wrongs committed by DCA, solicitors, barristers and the judiciary in the name of keeping the masses down Vdr

TO ACCEPT YOUR UNLAWFUL RECISSION OF THE AGREEMENT is what was written

Peter You introduce enforcement, not me, or the original poster. If we are going to have an intelligent discussion, please dont try and confuse the issue,

No one said they could, the question was admitted as evidence. Yet again Peter you are just trying to confuse. I dont know what I bother to reply, you are wasting my time as usual with your errant nonsense. And mods, dont moderate that, its true!

DD I totally accept the thrust of this post. I do wonder about the above though - how can a debtor act unlawfully when they have responded in good faith, and after good advice? Surely the unlawfulness must rest solely with the prime transgressor, since after serving the invalid DN, any response by the debtor is meaningless under law. Not well put, I hope you understand the point.