VG - Vs Northen Rock - Charging Order

[Von Greenbach]

My guess is they'll be after a Charging Order for the full balance.

I've just re read "Judgement for the claimant" (After determination) and yes, they are claiming the whole amount.

[Von Greenbach]

I've checked on the POC and it states

 

"The account is regulated by the CCA 1974 and a DN has been served in accordance with s87 of the act and has not been complied with"

 

Gotya (I think)

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello VG!

 

I've checked on the POC and it states

 

"The account is regulated by the CCA 1974 and a DN has been served in accordance with s87 of the act and has not been complied with"

 

Gotya (I think)

 

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

 

The DN is issued under s87 and must be compliant with s88 if they want to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

s88 is now 14 Days, by the way, not 7. That they have not allowed, making the DN invalid.

 

If the Claim is asking for the Full Balance, then they regard the Agreement as ended/Terminated, because they know they can only ask for the whole lot if they have ended the Agreement lawfully.

 

What they have yet to find out is they have ended the Agreement unlawfully. But don't tell them just yet, they can find that out when you file your Defence (and Counter-Claim, see below).

 

Indeed, you may be entitled to compensation for Unlawful Rescission of Contract, see below for example:

 

112. Furthermore, the failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court from enforcing any alleged debt that was otherwise only payable in the future, but would give me a right to Counter-Claim for damages, see Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

113. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4 All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth substantially more.

 

 

What that means in Plain English: the Agreement was a two sided issue, a two sided Contract that was Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. That Agreement binds them every bit as much as it binds you.

 

If they elect to pull out of the Agreement without following the clear steps outlined in s87/s88, then they have done so unlawfully. It's a breach of the Regulated Agreement or Contract in other words. That they are not allowed to do, and they are big enough, old enough and ugly enough to know better.

 

That's one to add to the end of your Defence as a Counter-Claim!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited December 7, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity.

[Von Greenbach]

I cannot put into words the stress and anxiety those bas***ds have put me through with the action they've taken, no one, not even CCCS were helpful in relieving that stress

That's one to add to the end of your Defence as a Counter-Claim!

However, the tables have turned, and I'm now starting to enjoy this, and looking forward to the day.

[Von Greenbach]

Adding for future reference:

 

I've checked on the POC and it states

 

"The account is regulated by the CCA 1974 and a DN has been served in accordance with s87 of the act and has not been complied with"

 

Gotya (I think)

 

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

 

The DN is issued under s87 and must be compliant with s88 if they want to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

s88 is now 14 Days, by the way, not 7. That they have not allowed, making the DN invalid.

 

If the Claim is asking for the Full Balance, then they regard the Agreement as ended/Terminated, because they know they can only ask for the whole lot if they have ended the Agreement lawfully.

 

What they have yet to find out is they have ended the Agreement unlawfully. But don't tell them just yet, they can find that out when you file your Defence (and Counter-Claim, see below).

 

Indeed, you may be entitled to compensation for Unlawful Rescission of Contract, see below for example:

 

 

 

 

What that means in Plain English: the Agreement was a two sided issue, a two sided Contract that was Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. That Agreement binds them every bit as much as it binds you.

 

If they elect to pull out of the Agreement without following the clear steps outlined in s87/s88, then they have done so unlawfully. It's a breach of the Regulated Agreement or Contract in other words. That they are not allowed to do, and they are big enough, old enough and ugly enough to know better.

 

That's one to add to the end of your Defence as a Counter-Claim!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Von Greenbach]

One question, as they have now terminated the agreement by requesting the full amount, albeit under a dodgy DN, can they still issue a correct DN?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello VG!

 

One question, as they have now terminated the agreement by requesting the full amount, albeit under a dodgy DN, can they still issue a correct DN?

 

No, that's the key issue about Termination, as by ending the Agreement, they cannot then issue a fresh Default Notice.

 

The quote below from Surfaceagentx20 put's it very nicely indeed, in far fewer words than I could manage:

 

An ineffective default notice will prohibit the Claimant recovering all those things on which the service of an effective default notice is dependant. In short, the claim will be reduced to just the arrears, See Woodchester v Swayne.

 

By when proceedings have commenced the Claimant will have terminated the agreement. The language of a default notice is framed on the basis there is a current agreement. That language is prescribed. If the Claimant terminated the agreement, to deliver an effective defalt notice will involve the fiction the agreement is current and never terminated. It would also involve the Claimant reinstating unilaterally. The debtor would be unlikely to agree to reinstatement if to do so would cure the Claimant's difficulties.

 

x20

Once the Agreement has ended, the only way they can go back and issue a new Default Notice would be to re-activate the Agreement.

 

They can't do that by themselves, they'd need you to Agree to this, i.e. an Agreement.

 

Unless you wanted to help them fix the mess they have made for themselves, I somehow doubt you would be too keen to Agree to that!

 

However, the tables have turned, and I'm now starting to enjoy this, and looking forward to the day.

Excellent, that's what CAG is all about.

 

If you get the chance, please pass on your own understanding of these issues when you see someone else on CAG struggling with the same problems.

 

People helped me when I needed help, I then helped you in turn and, all being well, you can now help others too.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Von Greenbach]

If you get the chance, please pass on your own understanding of these issues when you see someone else on CAG struggling with the same problems.

 

People helped me when I needed help, I then helped you in turn and, all being well, you can now help others too.

I've learnt more in the last few days than I have since being a member of this site.

 

This site is daunting to understand at first, takes some time to get ones head round it, however, once someone is pointed in the right direction, it's not so difficult to follow.

 

Any new members reading this, the answer to your problem is starring at you, problem was, I was to blind to see it, but I've learnt from it.

 

USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM, AND ENTER WORDS RELATING TO YOU PROBLEM.

 

(Didn't mean to shout)

[Von Greenbach]

Update for self

 

CPR request sent.

[Von Greenbach]

I've had a few CCAs come through, should I do a seperate thread for each or post them all here?

 

Here's 2 pages of the 1st one http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/WhatsUp_bucket/NR-CCA.jpg

 

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/WhatsUp_bucket/CCA-NRTC.jpg

[noomill060]

it appears to have the prescribed terms, but is that PPI I see?

[twofoot]

The 2 scans are obviously not from the same document. Tell us when it came about etc and you'll get more advice. Use a new thread for each CCA. Looks like they have matched the 2 together as the 1st doc refers to sections that are not in the 2nd doc i.e. they refer to the section 'interest & exspenses' and it isn't there.

Edited December 10, 2008 by twofoot

[Von Greenbach]

Thanks for helping me, this is my OH CCA, I think I'll deal with this one, then post the next one up.

 

noomill, it's loan protection "Bronze" my OH has signed that box.

 

Two, the documents came together with a covering letter and a statement showing all payments.

[Von Greenbach]

The 2 scans are obviously not from the same document.

I didn't even notice that, I just assumed the 2nd document was a bad photocopy.

[Von Greenbach]

Bump for any further advice

[Von Greenbach]

Anyone able to give me advice what action to take if any regarding this CCA?

 

Thanks

[Von Greenbach]

Update and further advice required please.

 

NR trying to obtain CO, case transferred to my local CC.

 

Today, I've received "Certificate of Satisfaction Cancellation of Judgement debt"

 

This is what the letter says:

 

"This debt, including any interest, is satisfied.

 

A notiication will be issued to the Keeper of the register of Judgements, Orders and Fines for the entry to be REMOVED (as payment has been made if full within one month)"

 

I called the issuing court who confirm the debt has been paid.

 

"I" have not paid the debt due to being on a DMP, so called my local court who state they've had no notification case has been settled, and is still ongoing.

 

Any advice please?

[Von Greenbach]

Stil looking for some guidence if it's possible please,

[Fred Bassett]

Just hang on in there - somebody with knowledge will be along soon. If it's enforceable the PPI might be your saviour - especially in light of this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/172220-millions-may-sue-over.html

 

Do the monthly loan payments x the 114 months equate to the total debt? I ask because that's an odd period of time to have a loan over. 9.5 years?

 

Fred

[Von Greenbach]

Do the monthly loan payments x the 114 months equate to the total debt? I ask because that's an odd period of time to have a loan over. 9.5 years?

 

Hello Fred

 

Thanks for answering, I don't understand any of this business, what it says is

 

Loan protect = £22-00

Cash loan = £240.00

 

Total monthly payment £262.00 for 114 months

[Fred Bassett]

Hello Fred

 

Thanks for answering, I don't understand any of this business, what it says is

 

Loan protect = £22-00

Cash loan = £240.00

 

Total monthly payment £262.00 for 114 months

 

Hi VG, there's something I don't understand here. Your agreement states "This includes Insurance Premium Tax at 5%. The amount of the loan protect equates to this price."

 

5% of £240 equates to £12. Where does the £22 come from? - or have I missed something?

 

Fred

[Von Greenbach]

Hi Fred

 

On the breakdown of the monthly payments it says £22+

 

This is what it says for "Loanprotect loan"

 

Loan amount £1.667.52

 

Total amount payable £2.538.78

 

Monthly payments £22.27

[Fred Bassett]

Hi Fred

 

On the breakdown of the monthly payments it says £22+

 

This is what it says for "Loanprotect loan"

 

Loan amount £1.667.52

 

Total amount payable £2.538.78

 

Monthly payments £22.27

 

Hi VG, How much was the total loan? if the Insurance Premium Tax = 5% of the total loan, then this means that the amount of the loan would be £33,350. Is this correct?

 

Fred

[Von Greenbach]

Hi VG, How much was the total loan? if the Insurance Premium Tax = 5% of the total loan, then this means that the amount of the loan would be £33,350. Is this correct?

 

Fred

Hi Fred

 

It says

 

Cash loan £18.000 Total loan - Total loan £19.667.52

 

Total amount payable £27.412.44 - £29.951.52

 

Sorry if I'm going round the houses trying to explain it

[Fred Bassett]

Hi Fred

 

It says

 

Cash loan £18.000 Total loan - Total loan £19.667.52

 

Total amount payable £27.412.44 - £29.951.52

 

Sorry if I'm going round the houses trying to explain it

 

Hi VG - any chance you could post this agreement up again with the figures still on it?

 

None of this makes sense to me. If the Insurance Premium was 5% of the total loan, then the amount should have been £900. Something seems odd.

 

Regards.

 

Fred