UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[rumpelstilzchen]

Oh please

look at the thread. I've provided a valid legal argument that would be hard to defeat in a courtroom.

How many times have you actually presented that argument in a courtroom?

I can add numerous case laws to it if needs be.

Yes please

[Bones]

I can feel his google search box heating up from here

[Tuco]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back. Surely you accept that a breach of the T&C by failing to protect my data is good enough on its own though? If a party contracts to do something (for example, safeguard a persons data) then even a 10 year old should be able to work out that once a party breaches that term, the contract becomes voidable?

The cases don't have to specifically relate to credit agreements if the argument is breach of contract-You do realize that don't you?

[Henti]

Regardless of whether I would have still borrowed the money, they voided the contract.

Please expand. Exactly how did they "void the contract"?

The question is hypothetical. At the point that they sold on the agreement, there was no contract and nothing was enforceable.

Please cite the relevant case law that you believe supports your argument.

Firstly, the relationship between myself and the bank was that of a fiduciary relationship. As such, there was a duty placed upon the bank of full disclosure. Furthermore, the CCA places a duty on the bank to ensure full disclosure.

It was not disclosed to me that:

a) The agreement that I was signing would become an instrument of value.
b) It was my signature that was guaranteeing the instrument.
c) The instrument that I was guaranteeing would be traded and others would profit from it.
d) The lender would end up having no idea where this instrument ended up or how many people ha, had access to it. The instrument contained all of my private, personal data.
e) That I would have no say in whether the instrument was traded or not, nor would I be informed if and when it was traded.

Furthermore, within the T&Cs of the agreement, the lender pledged to safeguard my private data, pursuant to the DPA. The lender clearly had no intention of doing so as it was always the intention to trade the agreement. The lender cannot tell me how many people have had access to my private data because they don't know. Nor do they care.

Case law does not have to be specific to credit agreements. These breaches were breaches of contract.

A No a credit agreement is not an instrument, it has zero value to a third party. A ten pound note is however.

B No a signature on an agreements signifies that you are willing to engage ln a contract and be bound by its terms


C No see above.

D yes the agreement contains some personal data. You would have agreed to share this in cases of assignment sale or for credit reporting.

E You have no say in sale or transfer of the agreement as long as the contractual obligations between the parties which it contains are uneffected.

The CCA says noting about full disclosure. There are copy regulations.

Your misunderstanding the relationship between agreement and contract are well documented.

[Bones]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back.

a.k.a I need to google and ask other people

[Tuco]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back.

a.k.a I need to google and ask other people

aka I hope Bones can provide evidence that agreements are "accidently" lost.

[Bones]

aka I hope Bones can provide evidence that agreements are "accidently" lost.

Why when I actually said :

Copies (not photocopy but scanned copies) are provided as when a bank receives a signed credit agreement is scanned and printed off when required. The original credit agreement is not sent to some third party, it is sometimes destroyed after it has been scanned or boxed up and sent to storage on an external site with a nice little destruction date written on the box.

Keep deflecting and ducking Tuco - Enjoy your lunch

[Henti]

Just a point regarding regulated agreements and the facility to request copies.

These are created under section 180 of the act which enables the copy regulations.

"True copies" are defined in those regulations.

True copies do not have to be photo copies of the orriginal, they do not have to contain signature, they are for a information only and cannot be used to challenge proceedings for breach of contract.

However copies must be supplied with 12days of a request, if they are not the agreement befcomes unenforceable until they are. Sections 77_79 CCA.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back. Surely you accept that a breach of the T&C by failing to protect my data is good enough on its own though? If a party contracts to do something (for example, safeguard a persons data) then even a 10 year old should be able to work out that once a party breaches that term, the contract becomes voidable?

The cases don't have to specifically relate to credit agreements if the argument is breach of contract-You do realize that don't you?

Let us try not to run before we can walk, eh?
Your first task is to cite case law that supports your argument that when the lender sells to a third party the type of loan agreement you had with your lender it would be a breach of the DPA.

Perhaps you would post up a copy of that agreement, suitably washed of course, so that we can all read what you actually signed up to?

[Henti]

I think Tuco forgets where he is. He is used to countering any difficult argument, by just posting taunting smilies.

[Bones]

Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) (22 August 2012)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2402.html

30. Where, however, there is a legal assignment the debtor's liability will be owed to the assignee and it is the assignee who will have to perform the statutory duties relating to enforcement. This is not because he becomes under a contractual obligation to perform those duties, but rather because he cannot assert his rights under the regulated credit agreement without accepting the statutory obligation to perform duties under the 1974 Act relating to enforcement of those rights.

41. The legal assignee has a substantive right to the debt by virtue of the assignment to him. If section 141 does not apply to the assignee he is entitled to enforce his substantive right by bringing legal proceedings in the ordinary way. The consequence would simply be that he does not do so pursuant or subject to section 141 of the 1974 Act.

Mulkerrins (formerly Woodward) (FC) (Appellant) v . Pricewaterhouse Coopers (a firm) (formerly trading as Coopers & Lybrand (a firm)) (Respondents)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... lkrn-1.htm

13. The general rule is that the benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. There is nothing objectionable in this; a party is entitled to insist that he deal only with the particular party with whom he has contracted: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, 105, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But unless he takes the precaution of including in the contract a prohibition of assignment, he has no right to object to it. A debt is freely assignable both at law and in equity without the debtor's consent. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires notice of the assignment to be given to the debtor if it is to be effective at law; it does not require his consent.

15. The reason that the debtor's consent is not required to an assignment of a debt is that the assignment cannot prejudice him. The assignment is subject to equities, which means that any set-off which the debtor may have against the assignor can be asserted against the assignee. On bankruptcy the trustee is in no better position than his bankrupt; a creditor's right to sue his debtor vests in his trustee subject to equities. It would have been inappropriate to allow PwC to take any part in the proceedings in the bankruptcy court. They were brought to resolve a dispute between Ms Mulkerrins on the one hand and her creditors, represented by the trustee, on the other. PwC were debtors with an adverse interest to Ms Mulkerrins and her estate. They could not be prejudiced by the vesting of Ms Mulkerrins' claim vesting in her trustee; and a fortiori they could not be prejudiced if it remained in her. They had no legitimate interest in the question to be decided.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/136

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

(c)the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

The asset DCA's buy is the debt - the clue is in the name Debt Collection Agency

[Tuco]

For the love of God can someone please put Bones out of her misery.

She still doesn't seem able to grasp that this has nothing to do with the assigning of debts.

[Henti]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back. Surely you accept that a breach of the T&C by failing to protect my data is good enough on its own though? If a party contracts to do something (for example, safeguard a persons data) then even a 10 year old should be able to work out that once a party breaches that term, the contract becomes voidable?

The cases don't have to specifically relate to credit agreements if the argument is breach of contract-You do realize that don't you?

Tuco. There are only a few things be that will render s contract void, I think you should ask an 11year old for clarification on the difference between void and unenforceable.

Credit agreements are contracts of coursee Tuco, even regulated ones.

[Bones]

https://bank.marksandspencer.com/pdf/CCTC.pdf

9.
Can we transfer our rights and obligations under this
agreement?

We may transfer our rights and our obligations under this
agreement to a third party, including information about you
and how you have managed your account which the third
party needs to know. We will tell you if we do this.

[Bones]

For the love of God can someone please put Bones out of her misery.

She still doesn't seem able to grasp that this has nothing to do with the assigning of debts.

Had a nice lunch ?

Where are the cases to support your personal claims and opinions

Don't confuse what it is actually about with what you think it is about

[Tuco]

Cite those "dozens of cases" Tuco

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back. Surely you accept that a breach of the T&C by failing to protect my data is good enough on its own though? If a party contracts to do something (for example, safeguard a persons data) then even a 10 year old should be able to work out that once a party breaches that term, the contract becomes voidable?

The cases don't have to specifically relate to credit agreements if the argument is breach of contract-You do realize that don't you?

Let us try not to run before we can walk, eh?
Your first task is to cite case law that supports your argument that when the lender sells to a third party the type of loan agreement you had with your lender it would be a breach of the DPA.

Perhaps you would post up a copy of that agreement, suitably washed of course, so that we can all read what you actually signed up to?

Whoa whoa whoa sonny. Who do you think you're talking to?

I don't have to post anything up. I have nothing to prove to the likes of you. Besides, what exactly have you posted up other than opinions (skewed opinions at that)

Last time I posted proof up on this board (of councils shafting debtors over Liability Orders) Arthur deleted the evidence and banned me.

You lot are like little kids in the playground, the minute you start loosing an argument, you all start bleating "proof", "proof", "proof".

My proof is the fact that the DCA bottled it when invited to take me to court. Do you think I crave acceptance from you? I suspect that deep down, you know I'm right and it eats at you doesn't it?

A 10 year old could see that there's a breach of contract if full disclosure is not made and/or (both in mu case) a failure to fulfil the conditions of the contract by the other side. If you don't know this then there is little point me posting relevant case laws up.

[rumpelstilzchen]

:

[Bones]

I don't have to post anything up. I have nothing to prove to the likes of you.

aka has nothing but his own imagination

[rumpelstilzchen]

Sadly for Tuco ten-year-olds don't decide court cases.

[Bones]

We went from

I'm off out for a spot of lunch. I'll cite some when I get back.

to

I don't have to post anything up. I have nothing to prove to the likes of you.

I guess when he phoned a friend, no one answered - Next time, try asking the audience... Talk about the weakest link