Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 20/05/09 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Before starting the never ending letter carousel, wouldn't this be a good time to consider ignoring them?? They do not have the correct docs in place to take you to court, or they would have done all the necessary searches for property ownership etc and just gone ahead - you can bet your rosy red backside on that. Why not just wait and get the court papers?? You've already done your bit. There are several possiblilities that need to be considered, before getting into a ping-pong match with a drone. 1) If it's CCA'74, you can be 95% sure they wont have an enforceable agreement. 2) It costs them money to issue court proceedings with absolutely no guarantee of success. 3) If it goes to court and you lose, you get a CCJ which you pay at a rate you can afford - not what the DCA wants. 4) If you go to court and you lose, it opens the door for an administration order et al, which can ditch your debts very quickly, you might be pleasantly surprised (subject to conditions) 5) By writing letters asking for agreements, information etc county court and district judges tend to wonder why, if it isn't your debt or you don't owe the money, wtf are you digging a hole by engaging with a DCA?? (They are human, and know the score) 6) Keeping in contact in writing, albeit in denial of liability, gives them more time to find the docs from an OC or previous 'owner'. There you go, a little bit of 'Devil's Advocacy' there. Is there really any point, in certain circumstances, getting into long winded pointless battles with these non-entities??
  2. 2 points
    Sorry to read you're not feeling 100%. Good luck for tomorrow though. One little gem to add that you may wish to use if the debt was in your name ( courtesy of FunkyFox ) - If it is and the house is in joint names the other parties can also object, stating why they would be prejudiced by any charging order or order for sale. Arguments such as they put all of the deposit down, you are separating, they pay all of the mortgage may all help. It is also worth noting that if it is a sole debt on a joint mortgage they can only enter a restriction, not a charge. You would see this on the detail from Land Registry where it says something like 'notice of intention to enter a restriction'. This makes the possibility of an Order for Sale VERY unlikely and means that (and not a lot of people know this!!) that you do not even have to pay them from the proceeds of the sale of you home, only notify them that the sale has taken place. Ultimately this is to protect those in situations where the other people on the deeds may be other friends, family or companies such as a Housing Association. In these cases your debt has nothing to do with them and they should not be caused detriment as a result of action taken against you. The paragraph below is from a senior Land Registry official. Quote: Restriction The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :- No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…). You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer. If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered. Orders for sale of the property The case of Midland Bank plc v Pike and another [1988] 2 All ER 434 is authority for the proposition that a person entitled to a charging order on the share of a co-owner was entitled to apply for an order for the sale of the land pursuant to section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 was repealed by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Sections 14 and 15 of that Act now cover the situation where an order for sale is applied for. The case of Mortgage Corporation v Shaire and others2001 4 All ER 364 discusses the factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether to grant such an order when application is made by a person who has a charge against the interest of one of joint owners. SO I hope this gives you some comfort especially if the debt is in sole names, with a joint mortgage.
  3. 2 points
    its all a bluff to try and scare you, but let me just deal with ONE point they say you admit the debt (as though that matters) it matters not a jot whether you previously did or did not admit the debt it matters not a jot that you have spent their money made repayments or whatever, the plain fact of the matter is that THEN you were blissfully unaware that you were repaying on a flawed or non existent agreement the CCA recognises that as a consumer you could not have had the finanancial or legal nous or knowledge that the creditor has - which is why all the onus was put on them within the act to cross the T's and dot the I's The act also makes clear that if they fail to do so then the agreement that YOU thought you had entered into does not exist and therefore the money that you may have admitted receiving and spending was in fact after all a gift and therefore there was no need for you to make repayments of it. now that you have become aware that this is the case you are entitled to make the challenge what you are challenging is not that you received money from them but that they have no right to claim it back- it was a gift. it does not hurt when repyling to creditors to "turn the tables" and remind them that if such an agreement exists , as they claim then they have signed it to say that they have accepted being bound by its terms and conditions! Teh major condition of the agreement being that is that the agreement has to be in accordance with the terms of the consumer credit act 1974
  4. 1 point
    Please note This guidance is only really relevent to accounts opened before 6th April 2007 Next Retail T/A Next Directory are notorious for failing to ensure that as a matter of procedure they obtain a signed credit agreement which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you never signed an agreement with Next, then you have a complete defence to any claim they may bring against you and in some cases you could sue them for declaratory relief. Interestingly, Next seem to be raising the "you dont deny having the goods" argument more and more, while on the face of it, it would seem like they are right and are entitled to recover their monies, actually it couldnt be further from the truth. What they are implying is that you have been unjustly enriched by having goods that you do not have to pay for. This cannot be so, the House of Lords declared such in the leading case of Wilson and First County Trust Para 46-49 of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead's Judgment Above is the paragraphs concerned with unjust enrichment So, me o'le mates at Next dont seem to have such a strong argument when you consider the above case Moving back to the issues of enforceability If you never signed an agreement with Next, then section 61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 was never complied with, as a result the agreement (if there actually was one) is improperly executed as defined within section 65(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 I always make a request for the agreement from Next, they normally write back saying "we cannot locate a copy of your agreement but heres a true copy of what you would have been sent" which in my view means we dont have one, but you will already know that anyway if you never signed one wont you. If there never was a signed agreement it is clear that s127(3) prevents enforcement and will provide a complete defence to any such claim that Next would seek to bring against you
  5. 1 point
    I'm looking into charges for credit, etc. on my thread at the moment, and you guessed it, it's with Blackhorse! Basically, they are not allowed to charge interest on a "charge for credit". IF they do, and it is in the agreement, then the charge effectively becomes credit. This means that they will have miss-stated the "Total charge for credit". Additionally, the agreement could arguably become a multiple agreement as the car would be Restricted Use Debtor-Creditor-Supplier and the acceptance fee credit would be Restricted Use Debtor-Creditor. This means both would require their own terms, so again there are prescribed terms missing. Hope this helps, H
  6. 1 point
    That is the usual situation although legally the PCN can be sent through the post thesedays most Councils do not allow CEOs to issue drive away PCNs as it is open to abuse if not carefully monitored.
  7. 1 point
    Hi, The reference number is new as it is a Lowlife ref No. not your other one. Follow the advice given so far and you will be ok. Before any debt is sold, you need to be given the chance to remedy a default. If you received no default notice, termination letter or Notice of assignment then no DCA should be collecting this debt. The leeds losers tried that with me and now they have abandoned their claim because they are a useless wunch of bankers (nice people really-not)
  8. 1 point
    your welcome:) like asda me always happy to help. not to mention the delight I get from another lowell loss:D SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER
  9. 1 point
    Hiya Chris, Having looked at those Letters and in particular the last one you can count that as a deadlock letter. So now you have two options open to you escalate to (1) Court or (2) FOS. Have you checked the Limitations act to see if what they are saying is correct ? A quote from limitations act 32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake (1) Subject to [F1subsection (3)][F1subsections (3) and (4A)] below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either— (a)the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b)any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or ©the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty. (3)Nothing in this section shall enable any action— (a)to recover, or recover the value of, any property; or (b)to enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property; to be brought against the purchaser of the property or any person claiming through him in any case where the property has been purchased for valuable consideration by an innocent third party since the fraud or concealment or (as the case may be) the transaction in which the mistake was made took place. (4)A purchaser is an innocent third party for the purposes of this section— (a)in the case of fraud or concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action, if he was not a party to the fraud or (as the case may be) to the concealment of that fact and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the fraud or concealment had taken place; and (b)in the case of mistake, if he did not at that time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the mistake had been made. So you see the limitation act does not start until you have discovered the mistake which in your case is mis-sold PPI. You can find all of the limitations act below Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58) Well worth a read. Regards PF
  10. 1 point
    If the 12 working days have passed you can send the 'In Dispute' letter; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/571-failiure-to-provide-a-copy-of-the-agreement-within-the-prescribed-timescale No doubt your next contact will be through Debitas, their in-house threat monkeys.
  11. 1 point
    If they're not sure of your current name or what you've paid then they shouldn't be demanding money from you in the first place. The onus is on them to prove you owe the debt. Cerberusalert is right (he always is LOL) ignore the idiots. Post up their next ridiculous request..maybe the family photo album?? Confirmation of your dog's name? Chin up, you're doing it right..it's them that have lost the plot. All the best, Elsa x
  12. 1 point
    Ok, so you must keep a record of all this, just don't put it on his record. Keep your own notes and keep those notes out of the office. What I suggest you do now, is join Unison straight away, if you are not already a member. But this will be for anything that happens from the time you join, not what has already happened. For what has already happened we will have to try and help you on here. I am no expert on employment issues, have a few issues myself, but there are some excellent experts in that field who help on here. But I can and do understand what you are suffering, and why. You need to go to your GP as well and get this on record. It is clearly making you ill. Are you a lady or a guy? Just wondering. Its a sad fact of life that there are those people who you cannot help, and here is one of them. He has been convicted of an assault on you and continues in this vein, he has upset other residents and staff. He will not stop. What to do? Eviction, or at the very least the threat of it, and a good ASBO wouldn't go amiss by the sounds of it. He's living on a sheltered site where the possibilities of further mayhem being caused are countless. I'm afraid I'd be looking at the overall welfare of all the other residents - if this man can assault you he is not a vulnerable person, if he were my tenant I'd tell him - you either start acting appropriately or you get out and I don't care very much which. I'm not suggesting you actually say anything of the sort to him, but next time he starts up try thinking it whilst blocking him out. Ask your HR Dept for copies of both the Lone Worker policy and the formal greivance procedure. You will also need to know what the policy is on rehousing you if you have to quit your job. Do you have children at home? Can the Council help with housing? You could request a transfer to the next available position at another site. Whatever you do, if it were me, I'd begin right now with my notes, mentioning witnesses where necessary and then keep it updated daily. Then I'd put in a grievance. You just reminded me, a colleague of mine had a staffie, it was her little girls pet. One of the male residents absolutely hated my colleague and complained bitterly about the dog. He got nowhere because there was no proof. Then a resident's cat was bitten very badly and need emergency treatment, this guy blamed it on the staffie and even stated he had seen it clear an 8ft fence to get the cat! I went to the hearing with her, and I know I wasn't supposed to say a lot, but they got me so riled - they just wanted the dog to go whether guilty or not! My colleague was being given the choice of break her daughters heart or lose her home and job of 20 years! In the end I just said, who saw the dog do this? No-one. Did the vet state this dog bit that cat? No! Is the dog capable of clearing 8ft when he's only 2ft of the ground himself? Most probably not! Has the complainant got good eyesight? No he had cataracts! Did the cat owner have a problem with the dog? No, she loved him and couldn't believe it had done such a thing - she hadn't seen it - only this nasty old man. Game over, dog stayed, no disciplinary, and the following year the old boy popped his clogs, so game really was over! I know this demoralises you and makes you feel low, but do stick up for yourself in this, you too have rights, perhaps the most important is the right to a safe working environment. And people threatening you with hacksaws is just not on. Also, I know its sometimes very difficult, but if you are genuinely afraid of this guy, do whatever you can not to let him see it - it'll just make him worse. Goodluck and I expect some of the employment experts will post up here tonight.
  13. 1 point
    Just drop them a short missive along the lines Dear cretins, (JOKE) Re: Account number ******** Please be advised that I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY THAT YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT. Your client, 3 mobile, have records of me making an overpayment on the account for approximately 10 months which means that the alleged account is in dispute. Please contact your clients and ask them for a breakdown of sums paid, owing and due monthly under the alleged contract. You are reminded that your company cannot put on a collection fee as this against OFT guidlines. You have also breached OFT guidlines by not dealing with my representative, CCCS ref: **** I am not obliged to provide you with a breakdon of my income and expenditure, however, your clients 3 already have this information. I expect a reply within 14 days and would also draw your attention to the fact that this letter is also a formal complaint. Yours faifully, Amend to suit, send recorded keeping a copy with your postal receipt, PRINT do NOT sign you name.
  14. 1 point
    send the letter PGH kindly provided in post # 10 ida x
  15. 1 point
    if they have sent you that thing above then that is all they have probably, It is entirley down to you what letter to send next I can only advise, in my opinion I would stop all payments and send the letter posted earlier
  16. 1 point
    This case is stayed at the moment – waiting for LTSB to decide whether they want to take it further.
  17. 1 point
    Well it was the third and final hearing yesterday..... Different judge with different views on the case. At the last hearing the judge pulled them up as the scan of the agreement did not have the heading on it. They produced someone else's agreement (details removed) to show that it was a bad scan and that the header was actually there. This was accepted by the judge, although we wanted to argue about 'true copies', but we kept quiet. We were there for two hours... We had a defence which used everything and he went through each one. Charges which had been added while they were in default of CCA request were kicked out. Some of them were so ridiculous - 2 x £50 in a month, then a random £102 etc etc. That was about £400. Then we got into the multiple agreements discussion. The solicitor for the other side was totally unprepared for this - I think he thought he was walking in to get a judgement against Big Al - end of story! Anyway BigAl told the judge all about the saleswoman who had told him the roof stuff would cost £525 but the minimum they could get a loan for was £1000. She then said that they would get a cheque for the balance which they could use to part pay the loan (or not). The other side said that Big Al was lying (!!!!) and also said he had committed fraud by signing a loan agreement that showed the full amount was for the roof stuff. The judge pointed out that the original creditor was equally fraudulent and made it quite clear that he believed Big Al's account of how the loan was arranged. The other side's submission about multiple agreements was somewhat confusing and the judge concluded that it was indeed a multiple agreement covering three different types of credit as discussed earlier in this thread. He decided that the multiple agreement failure meant that the £475 cash top up was not covered by the agreement and therefore the original loan amount was £525 (plus the PPI which he agreed was dodgy but we weren't too worried about that). He then did a quick calculation of how much BigAl would have to repay if the loan was halved and concluded that he had overpaid by around £500. As we had not put in a counterclaim properly he wouldn't award it back to BigAl. So this is a WIN! The other side's solicitor was furious. In the defence I had quoted all the legislation we referred to and the judge made the comment that this had helped him a lot as it was difficult to get hold of consumer law books at the county court. He had obviously had a look around the web and made comments about these 'consumer websites' - not all bad but he was saying he had read quite a lot of bad advice being given to people. He also said that the claim relating to the assignment of the debt was wrong and that the Law of Property Act does NOT say the assignment has to come from the assignor. It certainly reads that way to me, but he was adamant that the assignee has the legal right to notify the debtor once the debt has been sold.
  18. 1 point
    Really sorry to hear that you have suffered that way,its disgusting that Barclays are seeking to be able to still issue defaults to people even if they successfully have their agreements confirmed as being unenforceable.It is just enforcement by another name. However on the bright side if they are making such an issue of it it means that effectively they have accepted that they will not be able to defend the vast majority of claims and they are now grasping at straws to try and scare people away from making claims. The legal teams for the CMC's are very confident that the process of trials and appeals will close this door to them in the end also.
  19. 1 point
    Watchdog had a report on this Maybe this applies to you. Have a look. BBC - Watchdog Under the 'Energy Price Update'.
  20. 1 point
    Wait for them to get in touch. It's unenforceable as there are no prescribed terms within the four corners of the document courtesy of Uncle Fayed. As above. Did you send the telephone letter? Dear Sirs I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing. I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary) I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only. You are reminded of the following under The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she: (a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; (b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it; © falsely represent themselves to be authorized in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; (d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not. I am of the view that your harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine. Further to this all calls from your Doorstep Collectors must also cease unconditionally and with immediate effect. I note that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Take note, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or any of your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless. Any trespassers you attempt to send therefore will be dealt with accordingly. Be further advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. Yours faithfully, Print name do not sign Send the pseudo solicitor this; Dear Sirs I refer to your letter of XXXXX 2009 which was received today. Frankly, I am surprised of the need to advise a firm of solicitors about the terms and conditions surrounding my Consumer Credit Agreement request (Consumer Credit Act, 1974); dated XXXX 2009 for which I have proof of receipt . I can only assume therefore that they failed to inform you of their non compliance. Your client had until (date - 12+2 working days from date of sending CCA request) to comply with a legal request. Should your client persist with threats of legal action as stated in your letter, I will welcome the opportunity for a judge to look at several defaults committed by xxxx under The Consumer Credit Act, 1974, as well as your client’s non-compliance with and total disregard for, both the banking code and OFT guidelines. Also please note that I will ONLY communicate in writing, any calls made to me will be classed as harrassment and treated as such. Yours faithfully Print name do not sign I cant read it.
  21. 1 point
    Sorry I'm late responding but have had some poop of my own to sort out. But..WELL DONE...WELL DONE...WELL DONE!!!! What you need to do now is still work on those statements and the true arrears figures. Your arrears figure should just be the payments missed, nothing else. You can complain to the FSA but they won't act on individual complaints or give you compensation. Make a complaint online to the Ombudsman (FOS) and at this stage you only have to give a brief outline of your complaint and what resolution you seek. So in your case it would be unfair charges and statements you can't make head or tail of plus their general attitude when you have done your best to sort this out. As a resolution, you want a refund of your charges and fees unfairly applied and your account to be conducted properly with clear statements issued (plus anything else you may want to add). Kepp it brief as it's just an intitial outline at this stage and you can always add things later when the FOS gets in touch with you. You're not subject to court action now so don't be put off if you read that on their website. Then you just have to wait for them to get in touch and then you'll have to provide anything you have to support your claim. Most of which you have and it's a walk in the park compared to going to court and they will give you a contact name and number if you have any questions. Once you have complained the company should suspend all legal action and not send you threatening letters and you'll probably find they will stop applying the fees until it's sorted out. It took me 2 years for a final decision from the FOS but it does give some breathing space and puts pressure on the company to sort themselves out. If you aren't satisfied with the final decision you still have the right to take them to court to get your charges back. By the time your case gets to that stage we should have some legal clarity on if the fees and charges are lawful or not and by what degree. We have to remember that these 'lawyers' are just para-legals and rely on either the defendant not showing up or is not aware of the law. Unlike us they have a case load to deal with day in and day out but we can dedicate all our time to OUR cases and to protect our OWN interest by turning up far better prepared they they are. Again WELL DONE and you've made my day!
  22. 1 point
    Well i was lucky to get the summary! After i sent the above letter i recieved the following Attempt at resonding to my CCA You will find its probably the same rubbish you have recieved. If it is. then just reword the letter to match what you have recieved. You will probably then go on to receve a blank credit aggreement form and a copy of the terms and conditions. They are hoping that you are stupid and niave to think its a properly executed document. Just replace that paragraph with the following text: To be honest im quiet amazed that despite you receiving my request for a copy of the agreement over a year ago, all you have sent me in the year is a photocopy of my name and address details, Surely i do not need to remind a firm of solicitors, the requirements of a CCA request. But if your unsure please continue reading. That should get them to either a: send you the correctly executed CCA, (Very doubtful) B: Return the account back to LW As for postmarks and offices, if you have not already done so have a look for Brian carter, He has various companies which he goes by, some buy the debt whilst others chase it on behalf of the company that brought it. and they include the follow: Brian Carter & Co Solicitors, CAM (Credit Account Management) Pheonix Recovories (Mainly buying Shop Direct accounts) Crellins Carter Solicitors. His main offices are in Weybridge and you will probably find that the letter was printed and sent by Pheonix Another company associated with them is Frederikson International, and if im correct they are a Belguim company. Im sure others will give you an even bigger insight into his world! Best of luck
  23. 1 point
    Personally I would now ignore the Leeds Losers as obviously they dont know their rear entrance from their elbows
  24. 1 point
    In the main yes they are claims brought by CMC s against lenders and I can confirm the following from the conference today. 1.The judge condemned the media coverage about his letter of May 1st as being totally inaccurate.Surprisingly given the coverage afforded to the story in the media last week there were no representatives from the media in court or at least they did not declare themselves when asked to by the judge.Look out for a report about this Case Conference in the media-I don't think! The following banks were represented; HSBC, MBNA, Barclays, Natwest, RBS, Lloyds 2.There is definately no stay being imposed on any case in the Chester County Court and it was emphasised that anything being considered applied to that court only although other courts may decide to follow the lead. 3.The purpose of the conference was to said to be to discuss with interested parties how the court system could benefit from having trials of cases which have specific points of law to clearly establish these points where there may be some doubt.A total of 52 cases were being considered at this time which is how many CCC had dealing with unenforceabilty at this time. The assembled QC's Barristers etc were quite clear in agreeing that as far as they were concerned the law had already been clearly established in the House of Lords and elsewhere(even most of the representatives of the lenders agreed upon that) and did not need any further cases to clarify it. However there were representations from one solicitor who asked that a case be selected to highlight a possible obscure point about the definition of interest rate as stated under the 1974 act so a case was selected which had the necessary point and will be allocated to Justice Smith in London as soon as possible. What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable. They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency. What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report. Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships. Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap. A total of 4 cases were identified as being treated this way to highlight one issue or another but they were all minor points and the rest of the 52 are being dealt with at Chester in the normal way. So,NO STAYS NO CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CASE LAW just one very small storm in a teacup. Except that the original estimate given to Judge Halbert of 100,000 cases of this type being expected is more than the total number of Fast Track and Multi Track cases which were dealt with by all the courts in the UK last year. However only about 15,000 of those came to trial and I believe this is the point -if all the contentious poits are cleared up or at least as far as possible then claimants will know when they are on a winner and so will the lenders so the vast majority of cases will be settled before trial and so will help to avoid clogging up the courts . I think that the judiciary know which way this is going and want to avoid a debacle in the court system. I witnessed the banter and body language of the claimants legal teams and the lenders legal teams and there is no doubt that the banks are on the run now and are just putting on a brave face whilst the CMC's are scenting blood as they are desperate for as many cases as possible to go to trial as soon as possible to achieve some victories. The way I see it time is running out for the banks and they will not be able to hide behind the media for much longer.
  25. 1 point
    Maybe we should close this thread for a while... I see nothing to be gained for the forseeable future while Dave deals with his loss. I think a bit of respect is due, both on a personal level, and for the enormous personal risks he's taken very much with the benefit of CAG and its members in mind.
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    Hello Z! The trip to the Solicitor has done more harm than good in terms of establishing the tactics you need to be sure of. That Solicitor is clearly destined to be a duffer Judge one day, as their lack of understanding of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is suitably dire to ensure they are over qualified to be a duffer Judge. Right, the Default Notice is your Ace, and still is. Ignore everything the idiot Solicitor has said, and re-focus on the key issues. Default Notice (1) Amex stated that you had 14 calendar days to remedy the default from the Date of the Notice. That makes the Notice defective almost as soon as it popped out of their Printer. About the only chance of that Notice being valid was if they raced to your home and handed the Notice to you in person. (2) They didn't, so they rendered the Notice defective the moment an Amex tongue elected to lick that Envelope. The Notice went from being potentially defective to defective the instant they sent it via Post. (3) The 18th March 2007 is, as you are aware, a Sunday. There are no Postal Collections down in Sunny Brighton on a Sunday, so the Envelope could not have been Posted until Monday 19th March 2007. If you kept the Envelope, it may have Barcodes that one day I may be able to read and tell you if the Date of Postage is revealed, but for now, I can't read those Barcodes (but always keep any Envelopes, as one day I hope to be able to read what any Orange Barcodes say). (4) The Interpretation Act 1978 applies, as this is a routine letter that another Act requires is served in paper format, as opposed to a Court document where delivery is now covered by CPR. This is the key section: By any standards, that clearly means putting the Envelope into a postbox, and waiting for it to arrive in the ordinary course of post. Everyone knows that 1st Class is not always next day, and 2nd Class Post can take several days so, again, by any reasonable understanding of the above, the Act assumes that if a letter was posted, and, if sent via 1st Class Post, then it can be assumed to have taken 2 Working Days to get to the destination from Date of effective Posting. Posting on a day when there are no Postal Collections won't speed the delivery up, because Royal Mail won't collect the letter until a Working Day. Thus, I would argue that Date of Posting is the day when the envelope finds itself in a Postbox and is capable of being collected on that same day. That means posting on a Sunday is pointless, as is posting after collections have been made on a working day. This is just my opinion, but it has merit when reading what the Interpretation Act 1978 says above. However, as the above Act was perhaps not explicit enough, as it did not specifically mention Working Days or time scales for 1st/2nd Class Post, the Senior Master issued a Queen's Bench Practice Direction on 8th March 1985 to clarify the time scales for 1st Class and 2nd Class Post: The above arguably lets people off the hook who post on, say, a Sunday, but it still means that it takes two Working Days from when posted. Thus, they can post on a Saturday or Sunday, but the delivery time scale does not start ticking until midnight on the last non-working day, so posting on a Sunday means it will take 2 Working Days from then, producing a Date of Service on a Tuesday. In your case, I make the Date of Service Tuesday 20th March 2007. By then the Notice was defective, because Amex had given you an effective Deadline of Sunday 1st April 2007. Unfortunately for Amex, Parliament requires that you be given 14 clear days after service, so if you were not Served until Tuesday 20th March 2007, then your Statutory Deadline should've been no earlier than Tuesday 3rd April 2007. Amex short-changed you by at least 2 whole days, so the Notice is defective. Just in case anyone says the above Queens Bench Practice direction has no relevance, please read this Case in the Court of Appeal, where it is clearly mentioned and accepted: The Court Service - Court of Appeal - Civil - Judgment In answer to your first question: None whatsoever in terms of having any effect on the Default Notice. The key issue to get your head around is the Default Notice is a document that has to be valid and compliant. Once printed, the Notice is either valid or it is defective, a bit like a Birth Certificate. If the date on the Birth Certificate is wrong, it will always be wrong, no matter what is said or what happens later. Amex printed a Default Notice that was rendered defective when they elected to send it via Post. Once posted, it was defective from that point, and nothing they can do thereafter will change the defective state of that Notice. Amex may as well say they waited 20 days before jumping through a hoop wearing a pink wig for all the good it will do them. Nothing they can do after the event can alter the defectiveness of the Notice, with the sole exception of issuing a 2nd valid Default Notice before Terminaton. Amex did not do that, so have denied themselves the benefits of s87. The one thing the Solicitior did get right was to accept that the Statutory Deadline based on the Date of Service, should've been Tuesday 3rd April 2007, i.e. not Sunday 1st April 2007 that Amex allowed you. But, after that, the Solicitor was straight off on another planet handing out duff advice when he went on to ramble the following: Amex could wait as long as they liked before Terminating, but that has naff all to do with the Statutory Time that a valid Default Notice must give you within the Notice itself. IOW, what they do after printing the Notice does not matter, it is what they state within the Notice that matters. It is the paper Notice that has to be valid...just like a Birth Certificate has to state the correct date of birth. Finally, this may cheer you up, it is a recent Hearing when a Cagger swayed the Court on the question of a defective Default Notice: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/163425-re-me-mbna-court-3.html#post2176392 I hope this helps. Cheers, BRW
  28. 1 point
    The Information Commissioner put out a Notice this week that an unenforceable agreement won't mean a default entry will be removed from a file if the creditor has other proof of monies owed. When there is no agreement it means the debt cannot be enforced in court but you still owe the money and if the creditor has proof of that then a default won't be removed.
  29. 1 point
    Well done IFTL GK BTW do you know that you can tickle scales over there )
×
×
  • Create New...