HI

I think I have just twigged the misconception that you have on here about entries on the credit file of a CRA.

There is talk of damages due because of ineffective DN I couldn’t really see what was meant.

I get it know, I think lot of you are under the false impression that the issuance of a default notice is something to do with a notice of default being put on your credit record

So you think that section 89 refers to remedying that as well as the breach of contract, it does not.

A creditor is entitled to enter information about your repayment record on your CRA, it is they who decide in line with ICO guidelines what constitutes a default nothing to do with the CCA,

They try to use the same criteria to all agreements even those that are not covered by the CA (Utilities phones etc)

They may send a notice of intent to issue a default on your file at the same time as a section87 notice

but they don’t have to, the two things a completely unrelated. If the breach under section 87 is cured it does not mean that the creditor has to remove anything from anywhere the payment history would not have changed, the ICO would say that it was the lenders obligation to give an accurate report of that fact that is all.

I know of many occasions where it was the case that the lender defaulted the credit file long before issuing a section 87 why shouldn’t they as long as they give notice before entering the record there is nothing to stop them.

Peter

But if you remedied the Default Notice you are not in default of the agreement are you? The lender should only show missed payments in those circumstances .

Hi middenmiss,

 

In answer to your post no.3179, I heartily agree. We took the decision a long time ago to seek and obtain legal representation. We are still at stalemate, we don't pay they won't go to court (yet). However by following proceedings here and elsewhere it was and is increasingly apparent that to defend yourself as a litigant in person is becoming much more difficult. Sure it can be done I do not deny that and sure any relationsship with any of these lawyers can be difficult and even they make mistakes, in particular you have to remember that these people representing you are exactly the same breed as those opposing you and have to get up to all the tricks in the book to provide you with an adequate defence. I think that even with representation it behoves anyone to remain in touch and do as much of the research as they can handle through out the duration. One of the additional side benefits is being able to rid yourselves of most of the harassment. Although there are foolish DCAs who ignore the law and the regulations hence stacking up further action and damages claims against themselves and their OC clients.

 

regards

oilyrag.

The problem you'll face with any DJ is the fact that you borrowed the money and don't want to pay it back.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/09/28/ldp-legal-liverpool-law-firm-msb-solicitors-wins-appeal-bid-to-handle-family-legal-aid-work-92534-27353900/

 

Hi All, Whilst looking for something else I came across the above reference (I hope the link works OK). It now begs the question to me as to the integrity and veracity of the whole Manchester issue, cases, court, judge the lot. If you read this article all the way through, you will find that a "Ms Emma Carey" is a qualified solicitor and head of the family department of the law firm which represented one Ms Emma Carey in the actual Carey v HSBC bit of the whole shebang. Of course it may just be a coincidence but was Manchester just a big "con"? Firstly "Carey" was brought against all of the advice given to us mere mortals about defending and not bringing proceedings in these circumstances and secondly if the coincidence is true why would someone in Ms Carey's position allow her case to be handled by someone who at the time (as far as I can ascertain from notes made during my search for a lawyer) was a trainee solicitor and not fully qualified. None of it bears logical analysis. Any thoughts anyone?

 

regards

oilyrag

I'd heard that MSB had received permission from the court of Appeal to appeal Waksmans ruling in the Teasdale High Court case - bet he wasn't happy with that

take the point middenmess. There are certainly two points I would fully agree with you.

First of all that the OCs and DCAs will do whatever they feel they have to - big up Waksman, extract from the OFT as necessary, invent the phenomenon that is the "relevant agreement" (see above) - in order to get us to pay up when the reality is that in terms of how the law stands their claim is far from sound (if that good).

Secondly, if you can afford it, a GOOD lawyer is well worth the cost. I completely agree, BUT one can win without one (the lady in the thread I referenced never had a lawyer), and there are some who know a good deal less than you would find on here. But a good lawyer, with a strong background to present a strong case is a big big asset. No question.

Also, its been a good debate, developing and illustrating some important issues/ points. Thanks Middenmess for your contribution to this.

Think the courts are becoming more pro creditor these days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/25/royal-bank-loan-debt

 

Try those guys.

 

M1

Thats an interesting story. Does anyone know what happened in the case?? x

Hi Guys. I hope I don’t come across as a totally helpless and useless damsel in distress, but I’m a complete newby to this forum (or any other for that matter) and I really would appreciate some help navigating these pages and dealing with a hostile creditor.

 

Background: I took out a Virgin (MBNA) Credit Card around 2005 and up until my husband was made redundant in May 2008 and became ill in September 2008 I was managing my minimum payments. However, as a result of our joint income being dramatically reduced I got into difficulties over time. In May 2009 the local CAB put me in touch with Payplan who have been managing my various debts since that time.

 

When I contacted Payplan my unsecured debts amounted to approx £55,000.

Since then, two major Creditors that account for £20,000 of this debt have agreed to the Payplan debt management offer. Two more have yet to make up their minds (while interest accrues) and one major creditor, Virgin MBNA, has turned hostile.

 

Virgin/MBNA belatedly suppressed the ongoing interest charges and overdue fees on my account; however, they rejected the Payplan debt management offer. They have continued to accept the pro-rata payments I make to all my creditors via Payplan, however, because I cannot afford to increase my monthly payments to MBNA and because I have not been able to take advantage of their ‘special offer’ to settle this debt at a much reduced figure, they issued a Default Notice under s.87(1) of the CC Act 1974 on 4th December 2009. Then, in the early part of January 2010 I received a letter from Restons Solicitors dated 5th January 2010 informing me that they had been instructed to claim the full amount from me. Unfortunately, despite providing Restons with the requested details of my income and expenditure and explaining my circumstances to them, they have issued proceedings in the County Court.

 

A County Court Claim Form was issued on 20th January 2010, the particulars of which refer to a Default Balance dated 4th January 2010. Interest has also been added to the claim from 4th January 2010 until 19th January 2010 (albeit in the wrong amount) and thereafter until judgment or sooner payment pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984? Is that allowed in Consume Credit Act 1974 contracts?

 

I should mention here that I am not seeking to avoid this or any other of my debts, but I do feel that MBNA are trying to bully me into paying them what I do not have. My husband and I are both becoming extremely stressed and we have considered selling our jointly-owned house, but in the current market it would only sell for about £140,000 (if at all) and approx £50,000 is owed on the mortgage. I have also considered an IVA, but because our mortgage is due to be settled within the next five years (God willing) I have been told this would not be a sensible option for me. Is that right?

 

Anyway, I’m sorry to go on, and thanks for listening. If there are any knowledgeable ‘Caggers’ out there that feel they can help this damsel in distress, then I would be extremely grateful.

If the Default Notice date is 4 December 2009 what date did it give for compliance?

Baggio leave Josie 8 alone. Why does this forum always try to rubbish anyone who offers a different view?

From what I have just read Josie8 appears to have read the judgment and you haven't. Miffing her off might explain why she hasn't posted it.

Can you get a copy from your barrister and post it up? It would seem that the judge issued it yesterday not today

He's already won. He's worried about what would happen for others if the banks were to win the Manchester cases

Liverpool Daily Post.co.uk - News - Liverpool News - LDP Legal: Businessman who had credit card debts made unenforceable wades into the consumer credit debate

hopefully this link is ok as its a link to Daily Post & Echo

No Kraken, the 30th November (Monday) is the end of this month; November.

 

AC

The hearing starts at 10.00 am Monday 30th November and goes on till Friday.

One of the solicitors involved with the cases up for a hearing in Manchester on the 8th Oct informed me that the case’s that started in the London Mercantile Court went ahead and where progressing favourably and where still ongoing.

The credit reference test case judgment is being handed down on 6th October

whose?

sub

Hi!

 

I have just received a copy of my Equifax credit file; I check it every 90 days.

 

Upon checking the information, I note that RBS has re-registered details about an old account. The original information was registered by RBS;

Start 08/04/1999

End 28/11/2002

Marked settled 28/11/2002.

 

The data has been held for 6 years and came off the file: 28/11/2008.

 

Then RBS re-registered the data is for the same account:

 

Start 08/04/1999

Default 29/09/2006

End 29/09/2006

 

File last updated :15/03/2009

 

Obviously, I am quite shocked by this, as I thought information only remained on the credit file for 6 years!?

 

The account was factually Defaulted in 2002 & 2003.

 

I believe that the re-registering the information re: the same account is a breach of the 1st & 4th Principles and will cause quantifiable damage.

 

Opinions please.

 

AC

Had you been making payments after the first default?

If so had you stopped or reduced the payments agreed around the time the second default was registered?

The thing is I never told her I was recording from the start, to make it admissible as evidence I did need to tell her from the start it was being recorded. I knew if I did this however the call would have gone differently.

The recording is admissible at discretion of court. You do not need to have warned them the conversation is being recorded.

It is likely the court would allow a recording in if it sheds light on the issues before them.

interesting

Are the cases due to be heard in Manchester in October the same as the cases referred by Chester County Court to the Commercial Court in London on 30 September?

I find it strange that two courts in the same circuit have apparently put together different sample numbers of test cases on broadly the same topic.

No they are different

_____________________________________________________________

 

Thank you for your reply.

Yes I did get a PCN and the appeal was rejected.

The £137.88 for the PCN and court costs, I do not dispute. The bailiff charges I do.

The bailiff texted me the breakdown -

£54.34 levy fee

£240.00 attendance/enforcement of warrant

£50.00 clamp fee

£175.00 tow truck fee

£30.00 vehicle hpi check

Plus vehicle storage and VAT

 

Yes I called the Ministry of Justice and he is certificated, to JBW and his certificate is still valid.

 

As there is a daily storage charge, the amount 'owed' is rising. It is advisable to pay and dispute later?

Extortionate!!

Issue a claim online for the cost order. Refer to case no and date |Order was made, court and name of Judge .

There's more to follow.

 

 

 

YouTube - Royal Bank Of Scotland part of DVD

go get 'em Sparkie x