cool 8-) Sorry missed this update - have been a little busy elsewhere !!

The above still applies ....

Just feel a bit rubbish that now the arguments have been properly explained I can see the issues. (if only the POC or even the amended had contained the arguments!!) Still, I have a feeling that this is far from over I also DO see a way forward for the accepting termination argument - assuming Harrisons is interpreted as we believe it may i.e. DN can be reissued at any time prior to termination even after a claim is issued as that, in itself. is not enforcement. So, by accepting termination a debtor can bring an agreement to an end, get an early settlement refund to the date of termination and only pay 8% stat from that point onwards rather than contractual. (This is assuming an enforceable agreement and no other issues making the agreement irredeemably unenforceable) Would certainly reduce the amount owed. Possible claim for damages due to teh claimant's breach of contract - possibly shaky as the breach was accepted?? BUT, imho, there is a very clear unfair relationship, the initial termination notice and any demand are unfair as not permitted, nor would be any other demands DCAs or anything like that prior to termination be permitted.

I would guess this would be to recompense teh creditor for the (following non rectification of a valid DN) fundamental breach of contract by the debtor The CCA does not disallow the creditor to claim damages over and above arrears following missed payments. The DN gives details of S129 which is in place to help a debtor out in difficulties BTW, I really don't like having to argue from 'this side of the fence'

That claim would fail and PH would get her costs in that claim I would hate to think of the arrears at this point (no payments received since 09) A compliant DN is not difficult quite how the creditors mess it up as they do astounds me ... I doubt PH would be in a position to rectify a DN of 2+ years arrears There has never been any hint of discontinuing in this case. They did offer a stay in which to issue a new compliant DN if PH was to agree that the agreement was 'alive' (letter on thread)

I do accept that point, and have argued now both for and against. The alternative would be what? set aside the Judgment, throw the claim out and and rule that the agreement was never terminated. - That is a possible The PH would be in the position of waiting for a new compliant DN to drop through her letterbox (although she would still have an S140 claim imo ) The problem with a compliant DN, as I said earlier, is that failure to rectify teh breach would mean new claim for teh full amount WITHOUT early repayment refund

It's a good point, the acceptance was almost 'on condition that ...' Anyone know of a pro-bono DA Counsel who'd be willing to take it on?? PH hasn't found one yet, and it's NOT for lack of trying Appeals are risky, the costs implication could turn a £5k Judgment debt into one several times that amount An appeal would have to show exactly where the DJ misdirected themselves or erred in Law. We will have to wait for the transcript to see exactly what the DJ did rule and how IMHO, the arguments put forward on this thread are far more thorough than the claimant's own ones. (check their POC skelly and WS)

That is certainly what it seems to say ...... Shame the Claimant didn't use the argument properly in their POC or Skelly though .....

No flaw in that part. They attempted termination - the CCA prevented termination without a valid DN PH allowed them to terminate via S173(3) Now, had PH not allowed them to, they could have served a valid DN and then taken her to Court for the FULL BALANCE So, in effect, having the early payment rebate applied due to termination PH has benefited (albeit slightly at this point) However S140 is still there (as is a claim for damages from teh creditor's breach) and a claim issued would not carry the massive risk of appeal costs

It pains me to have to do it again, but again I will further the creditor's argument This is the section of the CCA, which allows termination. It was hinted at by PT amid the noise so credit obviously goes to him

Well, I would like you to back that up showing me how the behaviour of the creditor in removing PH's right to make repayments as per the agreement, was not a breach of the agreement I would also like you to show how issuing a termination notice, and demanding sums not yet due were also not breaches of the CCA (and possible the contract as the contract also states they cannot terminate or demand unless a 'proper notice' is served which one could take to be a notice complying with the relevant Law regulating the said agreement)

There is the trail. You WERE referring to creditor termination

Ok, I can see your argument. Thank you I suppose the CCA does include S129 for circumstances like this ... There may also be an S140 argument 'leading the debtor to believe they could pay it off by instalment and then 'calling it in' (enforcing a term of the agreement)

I agree with X20's post - the ONLY dispute are to the debtor's liabilities at the termination Does the breach by the creditor release the debtor from their future liabilities OR does does the breach have no consequences (other than to open teh creditor up to a S140 claim and/or damages for that breach) (I am swaying toward the latter)

Some may forget whilst trading insults - that this thread concerns what may be a life changing issue for the OP

so, if you take out a £10k loan, over say 7yrs £220 pcm, spend the money, paying monthly like a good person and 6 months down the line they can give you 7 days notice and demand 12 or 13k and when you can't pay up straight away get a CCJ and CO!! something doesn't seem quite right

It *hopefully* is going to appeal - especially in the light of Harrison but if the solicitors are the same forewarned is forearmed ....

Hypothetical situation Fixed term loan for £xk repayable over a fixed term Executed ok and debtor received money debtor repays on time and is a thoroughly good person (obviously not on CAG then ) Creditor then, after say 3 months out of a 10 year agreement, serves an S98 notice with proper warning and everything Terminates the agreement and demands repayment of loan i.e. loan + interest errrr ....

There is a case on CAG (Costa v Tesco) where the Judge ruled that the 14 days start from the day the creditor produces the Default Notice. On Costa's thread PT accepted the creditor's argument as good Full details are on teh thread of the arguments used

no one is asking for sanctions though ?? it purely comes down to whether the creditor earnt the entitlement (or become entitled) to accelerated payment? S87 makes it very clear as does S76 that the creditor does NOT have the automatic right to demand earlier payment of any sums, yet this is what the creditor has done in this case EDIT There were no sanctions against Woodchester were there?

First 10 pages contain everything needed. Then skip forward to the hearing Then skip forward to here. Lots of interesting arguments on here - BUT they don't seem to be the ones relied upon by the Claimants ...

and some info on rescission de futuro http://www.lawofcontract.co.uk/discharge/1003.php AND I am still interested in how the creditor became entitled to accelerated payment at termination? - just a simple question ....

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/CCAExcerpt.jpg Goode confirming that even though a creditor may not be able to terminate, they can rescind (and not just at inception)

The other aspect now is to also consider Is there an unfair relationship in respect of what the creditor has done whilst not entitled? Is there a claim for damages due to breach of contract (as PH was told by the DJ there may be)?

The 'problem' with this case as I see it is that it could put too much power in the hands of the debtor. The creditor makes a mistake and the debtor has found a way to hold the creditor to that mistake On the face of it. the debtor has suffered little prejudice from the DN (Until any of the actions are taken by the creditor which they are not entitled to take as that goes into Unfair territory) That is the argument as per Brandon Allowing the debtor to force the creditor to stand by their actions is that fair presuming the creditor was not malicious in their intent Should this case go to appeal it would be setting a massive precedent - 1 faulty DN and then any action by creditor to enforce and "bang, game over for creditor" very serious precedent ... just my thoughts