it has basis in common sense granted , but if the creditor considers the contract to be ended on the conduct of the debtor and the debtor accepts the contract is ended, then he has used the provision of 173(3) hasnt he. The point is, The regulated regime is there to offer protection by information, it is not some large hammer to use to beat the creditor with, you only need to review the crowther report to see that , the penalties are explicitly set out by the Act where parliament felt they needed to be. There is also a case called R vs Kettering Magistrates Court which also confirmed the common law provisions in respect of contracts are not applicable unless the act provides them, by virtue of s170 I was took to appeal over a common law remedy we had sought and got judgment in the first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled that there could be no sanction for breach of the act unless the act provided it From my point of view, these arguments are not succeeding in court, we are getting enquires from people who are losing their cases on these arguments and i am struggling to find counsel who accept these arguments each time referring me back to the same points i raise here

This goes to the heart of the debate, who broke the contract? Why does a creditor issue a default notice in any event? lets stop and think about it, maybe its because the debtor fails to pay the amounts due under the contract. There is nothing in law that says a creditor is bound to accept lower amounts and thus no breach of contract occurs, and id suggest that failing to pay goes right to the heart of the contract.In fact there is case law that says payment of a smaller sum in consideration of a larger sum is not good consideration (see Re Select-move) One could argue that the payment clause of a CCA agreement is of utmost importance as can be seen by it being made a statutory prescribed term. So, you fail to pay you breach the contract, the creditor becomes entitled to sue for damages doesnt he? even the default regs refer to damages,so id say the creditor is entitled to consider the contract at an end if you miss two payments for example. I know i would if someone didnt pay me when they were under a contract to do so. So i cannot see how this repudiation argument can work, indeed i have heard of around 7 cases now and each time its failed

Then id say that it is utterly disproportionate to evict someone for such a low sum of arrears. Have you made payment offers to reduce the arrears?

There was a declaration pursuant to s142(1) that the agreement WAS IRREDEEMABLY UNENFORCEABLE By Judgment handed down by District Judge Walker, so they cant even seek leave as it would be an utter abuse of process

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0086_PressSummary.pdf Yes the Supreme court ruled in favour of Miss Powell, in an eviction proceedings, you may want to read the summary above

have you read the case of Harrison v Link Financial? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

Ok, The reason was that there was acceptance of termination You can step outside of the CCA by consent of the parties, This is clear from Lloyd & guest. So it seems to me the acceptance of the termination was the killer blow

and i could distinguish that case without too much difficulty, It was a Employment law case whereas the Kettering Magistrates court case dealt specifically with a CCA regulated matter, this is the difficulty its like the Manni case vs Harrison v Burke on assignments

lol oh dear,

The court ruled: On the evidence, the defendants' search for personal data disclosable to the claimant following his requests under the 1998 Act, had been reasonable and proportionate. In all the circumstances, it would not be reasonable for the defendants to conduct any further seaches. Furthermore, the material that had been disclosed was all the material that could be disclosable. Even if that was not the case, it would not be appropriate for the instant court to exercise its discretion to make an order for further disclosure. In relation to the failure to make timely disclosures, the defendants had been in breach of its obligation under the 1998 Act, however, as no damage or prejudice had been caused to the claimant, the instant claim had to fail.

Disclosure - Disclosure of documents - Personal data - Claimant surgeon requesting disclosure of documents to assist in proceedings against NHS trust for unfair dismissal - Trust failing to make 'appropriate and timely' disclosure - Employment appeal tribunal and Court of Appeal making substantive findings in favour of claimant - Whether declaration required in respect of trust's failure - Whether claimant entitled to damages - Whether order to be made requiring compliance with claimant's request for disclosure - Employment Rights Act 1996, s 103(1)(a) - Data Protection Act 1998, s 7(9).

CPUT regs arent open for a private individual to advance a case under though However, there is the OFT guidance on responsible lending which may help further an unfairness complaint

Ezias vs Welsh Ministers hasnt been mentioned

well considering its debating the issue which seems to go to the heart of the matter, id say it would, but then again, who knows,

however, now it is out, I did a thread where i pasted a link to the judgment and invited people to ask specific questions where i would answer them so as to impart the knowledge i have on this case to others

This case was not involved with the forum, for obvious reasons, namely Link have an account that is on here and there was no way on gods green earth i was giving them a tip off of my arguments

no no no no no it wasnt the 18 calls, that gave rise to torture it was the other calls not alluded to, that were the real problem

oh lordy, he did not just gloss over the issue, there was a large section of the judgment that deals with the default with his conclusion in para 75

This second claim becomes an abuse of the process and ought to be struck out. The authority for this is Buckland v Palmer [1984] 1 WLR 1109

huh? So what the hell happened to the previous claim,? is it still live?

lol what fantastic pleadings have they applied to amend? If so, you are entitled to your reasonable costs caused by those amendments, and at the hearing of their application you ought to seek those costs, if the application hasnt already been heard

Im not sure, having been in court through the trial, that your view is correct. The Judge was scathing of the Defendant, Link, and found numerous breaches of the Consumer Credit Act So id say this is a good case and one that really does show DCAs that if they misbehave they will suffer

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html The notice of enforcement The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.

LOL thanks I try to forget that its my birthday as much as possible as my kids tell me im old all the time lol

Unfortunate as appeals can become a costly matter Were there any other issues other than the default notice? or was that the only complaint