Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
I've got a bit of an ongoing situation with a CC, and was surprised thay had taken so long to default- then I received this last week...
This is the first default notice I've received, but they clearly state that they've already informed the CRA's- which they do appear to have done.
I am also guessing that they must have terminated to be chasing the full balance of the account.
In my mind this is unlawful recision of contract (which they've failed to prove existed anyway..) and they're actually admitting to it in the first paragraph!?
I'm a bit confused by this one and would appreciate some help if poss.
Re: Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
Ok, I am not sure about this one.
They are saying it is a Default Notice. But it is asking for the whole balance.
You say you havent received a Default notice prior where they have asked for the arrears ?
How was this sent, 1st or 2nd class or UK Mail post ?
Unfortunately, even 2nd class mailing, unless you can prove that it was delivered later than 4 days from the date of the letter then the 14 clear days have been allowed.
I would think the only thing you could fight this on is the fact that you havent received the Default Notice asking for the arrears first.. they seem to have just gone straight in for the full balance.
Is paragraph 8f of the agreement correct (the payment clause) ?
1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -HERE
2: Take back control of your finances -Debt Diaries
3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?Read Here
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition, they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to have happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI Insurance has been sorted. Now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE
Re: Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
No idea about 8f. The only t&c's they've supplied, with CCA and SAR, are the ones that were alleged to be on the back of the application they're relying on as the CCA- and there's no 8f on there.
Re: Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
Hello SB100!
Thanks for the PM.
Hope you kept that UKMail Envelope, as that is indeed +4 Working Days for Service from date of posting!
But the Notice is a real pigs ear, almost as if it's written by someone new who also wanted to have a toot at you to vent their spleen!
Not exactly an example of how a DN should be written.
It's wrong on the Prescribed wording emphasis, i.e.:
HOT DARN, THEY GONE AND DONE IT LIKE THIS
WHEN IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER LIKE THIS.
But by the time the DN was issued, assuming they have not Terminated beforehand, and your balance before this DN did not equal the Arrears, then there must've been a split between Arrears and the remainder that was not then due?
If so, then this DN is therefore a Termination Notice wrapped around a defective DN.
Need to think about it some more, but it seems to be of more use to you than them!
Finally, if they have already Terminated, then this DN is no use to them in any event. It could just be that someone there thought it might look scary if they asked for full payment wrapped around what looked like an official letter quoting bits of Terms and bits of The Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Did their SAR show any signs of when they Charged Off the Account? Because MBNA have a habit of Charging Off the AC before they issue a DN. That is not necessarily Termination, because they could, in theory, sell to another true bank, and that other bank could pick up the batton, allow you to remedy a DN, and then carry on from there.
But if they Charged it Off without any plans in place to allow the Agreement to continue as it did, such that even a valid DN cannot be remedied, then I would argue that Charge Off can be regarded as Termination.
Remember that Charge Off is them logging the figures as a loss in their Accounts to claim the loss against Tax. The Charge Off will have a set Tax Point, that cannot be changed once entered. That's unless they want to explain all of this to HMRC.
Send another SAR if needed, to get a later picture of what they have been up to if the Charge Off is not covered by the last one.
Re: Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
Thanks BRW. I sent the original SAR at the start of my 'battle', as I'd received no response to the CCA request. I'll send another today.
They were chasing arrears for several months with the usual veiled threats of default if I didn't pay immediately. They then appear to have wrapped eveything up together.
The note on my credit file with Equifax shows 'Account closed on 30/05/2009 with an outstanding balance of [differs by 60p from the amount on the default shown above]
Looks like this is a new trick by MBNA, effectively one to try and duck their s87/s88 responsibilities!
IOW, they've added a Clause that appears to say that any default means they can ask for the whole balance back (i.e. including sums not yet due).
That may explain why they have added the whole balance to your DN.
I think this will be wide open to challenge as an Unfair Contract Term, and one that has been deliberately added to avoid their obligations within The Consumer Credit Act 1974.
In effect, they are saying that any breach means they can demand early payment of any future sum, despite the fact that s87/s88 says they need to issue a Default Notice to gain that right when a Consumer is already in default.
The CCA-1974 says one thing, MBNA think they can get around that by adding a NEW Clause that says they can duck s87/s88.
I somehow doubt that NEW Clause will stand up in Court. It's almost certainly an unfair term, and because it so clearly goes head to head with the Act, I think this one needs to be drawn to the attention of the OFT ASAP.
This is a blatent MBNA attempt to circumvent the Act and their need to issue a Default Notice (because they can't seem to get them right).
Defaulted before receiving default notice - any views on this?
Reply With Quote
