Hello All41! It may seem obvious to you, but doom and gloom comments in complete isolation are not helpful. The key is to help and support people. That can also be via constrictive criticism, such as by telling people when they are heading off in the wrong direction. But, in that case, it's then vital to qualify any negative comments and, if at all possible, strive to offer some better advice. Otherwise it's just negative for no purpose, a bit like the morbid crowds of old crones that gather to heckle the condemned at executions! That, I am sure you will agree, is best avoided. Isolated negative comments can have an immense adverse impact upon people who are already having a hard time struggling to find a solution to complex issues. Cheers, BRW

Hello Alan! Well done for keeping at it, I will try and catch up with this, because it's still an interesting issue. Planning something similar myself, so was pleased to stumble upon this. Cheers, BRW

CAG is a big place. I thought I'd seen a lot of it, but I seldom came into contact with Rooster. So, it just shows how little I have seen, and how much more there is yet to find. When I did have the honour of bumping into Rooster, it was all good. My thoughts go out to his family. Both to his real one at home, and to his virtual one here on CAG. Cheers, BRW

Hello Netwarriors! I've just had a quick look over this, and it would seem that NastyWest have more or less screwed the pooch all the way. To get your head around all of this, you need to bone up on the following key sections of The Consumer Credit Act 1974: s76 s98 s87 s88 s140 s185 So, following the above link and read each Section in detail. When you reclaimed the bank Charges in 2007, their ending of the Overdraft straight after that was just retaliation, and the FSA, OFT and FOS take a very dim view of that (or should do once reminded). I gather this was also a Joint Account with an Overdraft. Now, Overdrafts are Credit, so are consequently at least partly Regulated...i.e. whilst the facility is within the agreed Fixed Term. That may well be the key to all of this, so trawl back through your papers, and see if you can find any letters that advised when the Overdraft was due for review or renewal. That will pin-point the end of the Fixed Term. Now, if NastyWest dumped you out within that Fixed Term, then they are required to follow the steps outlined in the Act under s76 and s98 and s185. Whilst Overdrafts are traditionally repayable on demand, they are nevertheless covered by the Act when still within the agreed Fixed Term. What this means is Overdrafts are only repayable on demand if the bank follows the Act's requirements. Thus, if they want to call in any funds early, then they must issue a s76(1) Enforcement Notice on paper, in the prescribed form, and allowing the Consumer the required 7 days after Service before taking any steps outlined in s76(1). Likewise, if they want to Terminate the Overdraft early, then they must issue a s98(1) Termination Notice on paper, in the prescribed form, and allowing the Consumer the required 7 days after Service before taking any steps outlined in s98(1). Most banks tend to want to do both together, so they are allowed by Statute [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 SI 1983-1561] to issue a Combined s76(1)/s98(1) Termination Notice. If they fail to do the above when Enforcing or Terminating or both, then the effect is the same as if they failed to issue, say, a s87(1) Default Notice. If they Terminate, then they are guilty of unilaterally ending the Agreement, and cannot go back to issue an effective Notice. Without the benefits of s76(1), they lose the entitlement to demand Early Payment. And without s98(1) they also lose the entitlement to lawfully Terminate. The next problem is 185(1)(a), because that makes it clear that where there are two Debtors to an Agreement, then both must be Served with any required Notices. If they only Served a Notice upon one, and not the other, then it has the same effect as if they had failed to Serve either. Thus, a single s76(1)/s98(1) Notice sent to your Wife alone, was not good enough, especially as it did not sound like it was even an effective Notice in any event in view of the failure to allow 7 days after Service. They needed to Serve an identical Notice upon you both. I'm pretty sure that means two Notices, not one in the joint names, because both Debtors have to be Served individually. If the Overdraft was reinstated by NastyWest without your Agreement, then there is no Agreement, and whatever NastyWest elected to do thereafter, was their problem. A later 2009 Termination Notice was issued on a non-Agreement, so is worthless to them and has no effect on you. Finally, they may well have also shot themselves in both feet by referring to the Termination Notice as a Default Notice. See s76(6) and s98(6), which confirms that neither Section can be used in a default situation. That should invalidate anything they send if they were trying to use those Sections in any way that suggested they were relying upon some default on your part. I've mentioned s87 and s88, because you need to read and understand those Sections too, so that you get the bigger picture of how true Default Notices operate. The daft thing is, NastyWest did not in any event need to rely upon any default on your part when it came to an Overdraft, because Overdrafts are repayable on demand, but subject to s76 and s98. However, having said that, if the ending of the Overdraft was in any way seen as an unfair or retaliatory act, then you may wish to read up on s140 Unfair Relationships! That area was expanded in s19-22 of the 2006 Amendments, so have a read about that below: The Consumer Credit Act 2006 I hope this helps. Cheers, BRW

Hello Goodie000! I regret I do not know the best way to tackle this, but I think a letter to the Court asking for the default Judgment to be Set-Aside, if backed up by a very comprehensive letter of explanation, might work. I would also try and obtain some form of confirmation from the Police that the issues did happen at that time, because that will go a long way towards the Court taking any Set-Aside request seriously. Say that you did have a reasonable prospect of defending yourself, but events beyond your control denied you that opportunity. In the interests of fairness and justice, the default Judgment should be Set-Aside to allow you to address the Claim. Others may join in and help you with better advice, but that is how I would tackle it. I hope this helps. Cheers, BRW

Hello Cerberusalert! It does indeed. I particularly liked this bit: The Theorem may well be flawed, but I suspect a small group of Monkeys would get a lot further writing the complete works of William Shakespeare than a comparable number of DCA Drones. The DCAs would generate a lot more poo for a start. Cheers, BRW

Hello! Most of what I can say about the Appeal has been kindly copied over to this Thread already by CitizenB, please take a good look at the following Post: Post #452 That should get you started and may help to point you in the right direction. Cheers, BRW

Appeal! Cheers, BRW

Hello LA! Their chubby grasping hands are tied when it comes to s87(1) Default and s76(1)/s98(1) Termination Notices, because of... Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) Cheers, BRW

Hello LL81! First step I think would be to post up what they have sent, so others can take a good look at it. The more eyes the better, because you never know what someone here might spot that you might have overlooked, or considered to be otherwise OK. Hide your key personal details, but try to leave the meat of the material showing. Next step is to get the papers relating to this in order, i.e. dig out all paperwork that you can find, and all Statements. Pull the house apart if needed, and find everything, because something will be useful I am sure. I would also send them a full s7 Data Subject Access Request, that costs £10 and they have 40 calendar days to respond starting from the day after they get the request, your main details sufficient to identify that you are who you say you are, and the fee. Allow them +2 Working Days beyond that for Postage. Any later, and chase them immediately. The S-A-R is important, do not overlook it, because it will provide other useful things. Then come back here to discuss what's cooking! Cheers, BRW

Not all Lawyers are bad. But, if you do see a good one.... ...shoot him! ...quick! ...before he turns bad! Amazingly, some even have a sense of humour! Cheers, BRW

Hello M73! Yes. Read up about compound interest and restitution, and this Case: Sempra Metals Ltd v. Revenue & Anor [2007] UKHL 34 (18 July 2007) There's also a good Thread by CAG ID Dad on a High Court Appeal case he lost, and why, and why Sempra would've helped him no end had it only come up in time for him to revise his Claim. The key is Unjust Enrichment, and you will be wanting that back. That being the money they made, on your money, while they Unlawfully kept their sticky fingers on it and lent it out to others to make pots of money from doing so. Cheers, BRW

I'm sure they just adore my CAG ID! Cheers, BRW

Hello KraigO! I'd cancel the Sale for now, and negotiate with them. Try and pay them off and dump the Charge if at all possible, and then Sell. Or find a way to fight the Charge and have it taken off. They will sink their fangs into the largest sum they can get. Cheers, BRW

Peter needs to take charge of himself. Moaning about PT on here is one thing, but to do so on a Debt Industry Forum is just plain madness. Talk about an own goal. Of course, this assumes it was Peter, and not some DCA trying to stir things up? Cheers, BRW

What planet is this banker on? Pumping the big banking fairy story up via Securitisation, and other invisible (until caught) banking gambling games, is at the very heart of this latest bank induced global financial bollock drop. It is affecting everyone, and to suggest we'd all somehow not notice the economy and our lives going down the U-Bend, is just the slightest bit insulting. These cretins cannot make money in a business that makes money, we know this because we are now paying for their abject failure to do the very thing they say they can do. The last laugh is on us, however, because the bailout funds to rescue the bankers from their own immense stupidity, has gone straight into their trousers. I'm sure they are delighted. Cheers, BRW

It is of course sadly ironic that the first MP caught with his hand stuck firmly in the honey pot, is a former banker. Repeat after me, bankers... ...are not to be trusted! Cheers, BRW

I rest my case. Cheers, BRW

Hello Mrwheeler! Just to save me typing a load of bumf again, if you could please take a look at this Thread, some of your issues may be answered. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/260084-im4347-hsbc-business-account.html#post2950714 I've covered s76 and s98 there in a little detail. Once you've seen that, then if you need more help, please just ask away here. I hope this helps. Cheers, BRW

Hello Cosalt! I forgot to say, yes, Appeal. It looks to be the only way ahead. It is not that daunting if you follow what I have said above, but the you have a need, and the need is for speed! You've got to crack on ASAP and get the Appeal in before the 21 days are up, or else it gets a lot harder. Cheers, BRW

Hello Cosalt! This may help: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/167970-locked-car-park-45.html#post2927407 Usually, as far as I am aware, Form N460 is only issued when at the end of a Hearing permission to Appeal is requested, and is then refused by the Judge. The Judge must then automatically fill out an N460 there and then, but many don't. Some know they should, and don't, knowing it will cause time problems getting the Appeal pulled together within the 21 day deadline from the Judgment. Follow the links to CPR, and also Google Appeals, and visit any Web Sites that cover this, especially HMCS. Cheers, BRW

Hello Leedoe! It sounds like it! But do double check all of the issues, was the full demand asking for sums not yet due, did they Terminate/Cancel the Agreement via letter, did the Claim effectively Terminate the Agreement (almost certainly IMHO, but do read up and be as sure yourself) etc. The thing to realise is Courts and the legal process is a bit fluffy, and if they can slide out of it, they will. Your best way to nail them is to pin-point all of the key stages you need until you have as many ticks in the right boxes as possible so that you can stand up in front of a Judge and explain what they have done, and what it all means in relation to the Act and/or Statute. You can't just say they cannot do this, or cannot do that without knowing why, and explaining why. What you need to do is explain what s87 means, explain what they did and when, explain what the implications of that are in relation to s87, understand what is enforcement and what is not enforcement, what is Termination and what probably isn't Termination etc... ...and then present a conclusion to the Judge that you feel they have about as much chance of getting this off the ground, Your Honour, as a gaseous poop does in a Whirlwind. Cheers, BRW

Hello SFU! Sorry, use PM by all means, but my advice was to avoid trying to get advice that way directly. By all means use PMs to alert people. HTH = Hope This Help! HTH! Cheers, BRW

Hello Folks! Please don't ever assume what I say is correct, always question everything! The points I was making, were that they cannot issue a Default Notice served under s76(1) and s98(1), because those two Sections are specifically excluded from being used in default situations, by virtue of s76(6) and s98(6). The re-issue of a s87(1) Default Notice will not be valid if they have Terminated the Agreement before the re-issue. From what I gathered from Leedoe, that seemed to be the case But please all check, and see if Termination did take place, and when. HTH Cheers, BRW

Hello Colin! The letter looks OK from a quick speed read, but I'm a bit flat out to digest it fully. One issue is the damages claim, and I think I saw you mention £1,000. I assume that was from Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119? If so, I'd re-read that and read any Posts on CAG, because I'm pretty sure the actual amount is more like £5.500.00 and at Today's values, a lot more than that. I believe the £1,000 is a general misconception. I regret I don't have the argument behind that to hand, but did understand it once, and the £5,500 figure made more sense. One comment, always write these letters, as I think you are indeed doing, with a mind to quoting them in Court if it comes to that. Always think about how useful they will be then, and draft them with that in mind, without necessarily making them aware that is what you are doing. Often these DCAs and their tame Lawyers will not listen to you anyway, but they soon sharpen up when the poop hits the fan as they head towards Court and find your arguments and pleadings are painfully tight and well structured. Avoid Court if you can, but always plan things ready for Court. Cheers, BRW