Quick letter to HSBC recently about PPI on a loan I'd forgotten about - letter back, Dear Mr Hammy, £4253.00 into which account? No query, no argument - just paid out! So now to go after the insult they offered on the credit card they defaulted me on seeing as they paid over £4k back to the wife's CC recently too without complaint yet offered me less than £1600 on over £4500 owing PPI/Interest/8%.

Cheers B - not at the moment but was wondering if there was anything within the CCA that prevents them. As sec.90 prevents them taking the vehicle because it is "protected" - surely there is something about termination and rights, etc? TBH - I may just tell them to see me in court as there is already a DN on my file and the car is safe for now. If they want to come and take it then we're quids in again because of sec.90 - they would have to return everything we've paid to date which isn't far short of £20k Add to the fact that the DN on my file has been removed and replaced with a late payment marker! So they have seemingly re-started my agreement and are going to re-issue another default notice and default me again if they don't receive the alleged arrears within 7 days.

Right had several emails from their legal team acting on their behalf. Basically they can't add up!# Have one of them stating that the figures they have "from our client" showing us as being rather "in credit" and now another one of them is trying to ignore these figures and tell us that we have 7 days to cough up more money or "they will re-activate the agreement and re-issue another default notice"!! How the f*ck can they do this? I'm certain its not legal - anyone got an idea which section of the CCA might have a protection to this? The vehicle is protected under sec.90 so they can't have it without a court order but surely there is a section that stops a terminated account being re-activated without my consent just so they can issue another default notice??

So reply to my letter - basically "Bog Off". They claim delay in posting because of bank holidays is ok. They claim they allow 16 days as standard even though their DF was tosh. They claim that I didn't make the payment until 8 days after the deadline even though I have the faster payments receipt showing the funds in their accounts within 2hrs of making it. Will have to wait to see what their next move is I guess...........

They "could have" BUT didn't.

They didn't issue another one though - thats the whole point! Also there is this - Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but gives rise to a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

Well they terminated the agreement and have now placed a DEFAULT on my credit file. Solicitors letter asking for the "voluntary return" of the car too. Promptly told the Solicitor what they have done and they are "looking into it whilst the account is placed on hold". As far as I'm concerned - no agreement, dodgy DN and termination letter - they can go swing, no more money from me again. They didn't reply to my recorded delivery letter either in any way so I guess the "14 days or account settled" clause has kicked in.............

Look for Woolich v Koporah - you can claim for damages to reputation, costs in curred in extra charges/interest, etc. One of the site team will no doubt pop in and give you the exact case law, etc BUT go for the throat with them - no default notice = no default = big stum for the bank.

Thats my thought but they still sent the termination letter AFTER they received payment! They refuse to acknowledge it being incorrect and then "allowed" an "extension" to the 16th.

Hows this for a letter to them? HammyUK Blah de Blah Alphera Financial Services Europa House Bartley Way Hook Hampshire Date: 20th May 2011 Your Ref : DN/123456 Agreement number: 123456 With reference to your recent termination letter received today the 20/5/2011, I would like to outline certain points in error. Firstly, the monies legitimately due were paid unto you on the 18th May 2011 in line with the correct legislation and the requirements set out within for the prescribed timescales. Secondly, your default notice dated 21st April 2001, posted the 26th April 2011 was incorrectly drafted and as such invalid. I am sure an organisation such as yourselves is fully aware of the legislation in place pertaining to the issue of such a default notice and its prescribed terms and layout. For the avoidance of doubt – I would like to draw your attention to the legislation below. The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default 1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement. 2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states: Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 2. Practice Direction Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail. With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore. 1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:- (a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting; (b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday . 3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used. 4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process. 8th March 1985 J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master Queen's Bench Division 3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :- Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day. 4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August. 5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such a document is laid down in the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237). 6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119. 7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561). 8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states: Section 87. Need for Default Notice (1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement - (a) to terminate the Agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or © to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) to enforce any security. 9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below: Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice (1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form… 10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue. 11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence. 12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid. I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default. 13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully. 14. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87. 15. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on 18th May 2011. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future. Please advise me of your intentions to rectify this matter amicably within 14 days of the date of this letter. Failure to notify me within this period will be taken as acknowledgment of your intention to cease activity on this unlawfully terminated account and notice of your unconditional acceptance that no further debt is owed and the balance of the account is reduced to zero. Please take note: 1. that due to the monies owing being paid unto you in the correct manner and timescale. 2. The Default notice supplied by the youis dated Thursday 21st April 2011 yet was not franked for postage until the 26th April 2011. To allow service in line with the statutory requirements as mentioned above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage, which the franking does not state. Thus, assuming second class postage was used, the Rectify date must be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 4th April, namely Wednesday 18th May 2011 due to the bank holidays on the 29th April and the 2nd May 2011, NOT the 8th May 2011 as stated in the Default notice issued. 3. As such, your failure to correctly draft the required Default Notice as required by legislation renders your termintion notice dated the 18th May 2011 invalid and unlawful. 4. The breach was remedied correctly as per sec.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the legitimate due date and as such your actions on this account are unlawful and vexatious. I wiil not hesitate to recover any such damages due to me by your actions. I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days with your resoloution to this matter. Yours HammyUK

If we give the car back - I know damn well they will shift it on at a loss and come back for more. The wife definitely wants to keep the car though - will write them a "stern" letter pointing out their "mistake" and go from there.....

But thats the point - they didn't issue another! And why can it NOT be defective if it does not allow the REQUIRED timescale as set out in legislation? They let the defective one run and have now sent me a termination notice asking for "voluntary return of the vehicle" or they will apply for a court order. I can clearly show the defective DN allowing me less than a week to remedy AND the date it was remedied even though it was defective. [edit] we have paid way over half of the debt - the DN clearly states that "if you have paid over one third of the total amount payable then we may not take the goods back against your wishes". we have paid the outstanding amount on the defective DN by the LEGAL date - how can they terminate? There is no outstanding amount they updated my file on the 8-5 (the date of remedy on the defective DN) to show 2 late payments. No default showing.

Guys - received a default notice from Alphera Finanacial (BMW Finance) recently. The letter is dated the 21st April The Franking is dated the 26th April I received it the 28th April The Remedy date is the 8th May. Now this left me no time whatsoever to remedy the breach in time. I contacted them the day I received it and queried the remedy date. I didn't mention the DN being defective - purely the remedy date........ They told me over the phone that they would "allow" me until the 16th May to remedy as a "good will" gesture. With the bank holidays on the 29th and 2nd the 14 clear days allowed gave a remedy date of the 18th. Now this I met and the amount was paid however they sent a letter dated the 18th and received today stating that they have "ended the agreement and will apply for a court order to recover the vehicle unless I voluntarily return it". Now surely - if the DN is defective from the outset then they don't have a leg to stand on. If my reading of various threads here is correct then the money I have paid to correct the defective DN is all that I need to do and in reality they cannot come for more as by the DN being bad they are only entitled to claim the outstanding amount on the defective DN - nothing more. Anyone clarify this for me before I get on the phone to them?

Cheers Slick - they (via Lowell - last month) sent an application form that was done in branch but thats it - no T&C's or prescribed terms, etc. Now Lowells have "passed" it to Red yesterday so they have had both barrels via a recorded call - outlining all of the breaches, failures, etc and giving them 21 days notice to remedy it. I will be doing a LBA next week to them all, mentioning the call to them and the fact that they have X days left, etc. The PO was cashed back in 2009 by BC along with the £1 for the CCA which never materialised either.

Guys - received a default notice from Alphera Finanacial (BMW Finance) recently. The letter is dated the 21st April The Franking is dated the 26th April I received it the 28th April The Remedy date is the 8th May. Now this left me no time whatsoever to remedy the breach in time. I contacted them the day I received it and queried the remedy date. I didn't mention the DN being defective - purely the remedy date........ They told me over the phone that they would "allow" me until the 16th May to remedy as a "good will" gesture. With the bank holidays on the 29th and 2nd the 14 clear days allowed gave a remedy date of the 18th. Now this I met and the amount was paid however they sent a letter dated the 18th and received today stating that they have "ended the agreement and will apply for a court order to recover the vehicle unless I voluntarily return it". Now surely - if the DN is defective from the outset then they don't have a leg to stand on. If my reading of various threads here is correct then the money I have paid to correct the defective DN is all that I need to do and in reality they cannot come for more as by the DN being bad they are only entitled to claim the outstanding amount on the defective DN - nothing more. Anyone clarify this for me before I get on the phone to them?

Just a quick update B - made a mistake in regards to the default notice and who registered it.(confused with BC because of Lowells) Lowells are chasing this BUT its Egg's name on the report. This is where it gets daft as a report dated 2/03/10 clearly showing it as SETTLED on the 27/02/09 with the file updated on the 01/03/09. There are reports going back to 08/10/09 showing this as settled too! Jump forward to a report dated 08/12/10 and the account is now DEFAULT - with the default date of 04/08/09, updated on the 07/11/10. Is this even legal? I can't get my head round how they can do this? The settled appeared after the original PPI complaint went in in the January of 09, along with charges for the whole duration as well as the charges that make up about £1500 of the default amount (over limit, recovery, etc) - I got a "we are investigating your complaint" letter and then nothing afterwards for about 6 months other than an "alert" from Experian for an update on my file which turned out to be the Egg account showing as settled! Strangly the next letter from them came around the time of another alert where the "addition of an account" showed to be Egg back again????? I'm baffled by this one as Egg refuse to correspond in anyway shape or form, their legal dept won't take calls and letters go unsanswered. I haven't bothered to send anymore for quite sometime. I got a CCA eventually via the DCA which is utter rubbish, with an application, screen dump and pages of T&C's - none of which match. TBH - my file is trashed now anyway - BUT I want the PPI and charges back. IF it clears stuff then fine but I'd rather take it and use it elsewhere as other bills need paying rather than dead accounts with a red box on a file. I don't care IF they leave it there or remove it ( was nice to see "settled" for 6 months) as at the moment it isn't doing anymore harm than the ones from Crap1, Lowell(BC), Barclays(overdraft charges), HSBC(who have admitted mis-selling the PPI and made a prelim offer but not charges) and a default on an account from Clydesdale(BPF) that they have yet to provide proof of who ACTUALLY took the account out and what was supposedly purchased! ( 7 copies of a blurred CCA with a dubious sig but no evidence of the documents used to open the account and with whom).

Hey Slick - long time! As for compliance - Barclays have "technically" complied with a reconstituted blank photocopy back around june 09. Sent letter for non-compliance and got the usual "Sec... allows us and go away". Another letter to them politely reminding them that whilst Sec blah "MAY" allow them to do so, BUT 1. the account is in dispute for charges added, 2.the account has mis-sold PPI and as such any outstanding balances are incorrect and therefore in dispute. 3. the account then proceeded to have numerous collection activities on it over a 18 month period. 4. the account was the "sold" to Lowells BUT no assigment notice was sent to me, only a letter from Lowells stating to contact them to "discuss payment options". 5. Lowells have been reminded of ALL of the "problems" in letters and several recorded calls and a complaint gets opened which is then closed after Lowell have "spoken to BC and the information provided by BC has resolved the dispute". 6. nothing has been heard for quite a few months since the last call to them before xmas until todays letter stating that "BC and Lowells know of no reason for witholding payment so cough up now". 7. During the last contact with Lowells they were reminded of the failure of the CCA and SAR by BC and were rather apologetic and said they would "request the information from them on my behalf". 8. Stapled to the letter today is the first and only document from BC with any personal info or signature on it. An APPLICATION FORM with a BC slip attached, on one side only, shrunk slightly with NO prescribed terms, NO APR, NO Interest Rates, etc. It has the "usual" rubbish above the signature that "this is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" and a load of VERY SMALL print under that that is unreadable. This is definately off Microfiche as you can see the file number along the bottom away from the actual form area. Bearing in mind that this was taken out IN BRANCH - there is no signature from the Manager just a barcoded sticker across most of the section under the "This is a ....." section meaning that you can't read any of that anyway. 9. The killer is the fact that the section for PPI has a big fat X in the section that says "NO THANK YOU". Yet they applied it, took, it and then told me to bog off as I wasn't covered and never would of been either under employment (director - so T&C say self-emolyed although letter from HMRC says otherwise) and due to the injury I received being "Too similar" to a previous injury so not covered (detached neck muscles and damaged shoulder in 08 apparently the same as broken lumbar vertebrae 20yrs ago). Sooo............. what to put in the reply letter as talking to this lot is useless now. I'm considering that it may be time to head towards an LBA aimed at Lowells as they have purchased the debt from BC. What's your recommendation Slick? I haven't even started on the PPI calcs as haven't got the statements AND the default amount INCLUDES charges so technically its incorrect and illegal. If you think this is daft - you should see what Egg have managed to pull of................

Some one have an idea?

Right guys - update time. NOTHING for months and months until this morning's post. A letter from Lowells stating that neither they or BC know of any reason "why payment is being witheld" so cough up immeadiately. Stapled to the back is a copy of the APPLICATION FORM - not an agreement and what is also on there is a big fat X in the box that states "I do not want PPI". They have never ever complied despite multiple letters to them and Lowells for the SAR or CCA. I've given up complaining because BC never reply and Lowells just come back stating that BC say there is no issues as they have "complied" - which everyone dealing with them knows is b*llocks. So I will fire off a letter to Lowells as they "apparently" have assigment (which I have never seen) and politely mention the failure of the CCA and SAR, giving them a timescale in which to find their arse so they can remove their head from it and look for the missing paperwork seeing as the "application" they have provided clearly shows no PPI asked for to the point of the X being in the "Bog Off" box! So how long should I give them? and should I use the LBA template or another?

Will do - see what comes back from Lowell afternthe last letter a few weeks back. Cheers B

The SAR is older than 6 months so will have to spend yet more money on them. Their last letter stated the refusal to provide any of information requested in the SAR as I had " not provided sufficient reason for the supply of the information requested and that I would also have to verify my identity to them as I had not provided a signature". Funny as they had replied to the 11 other letters quite happily without one!

B- it's really odd. I complained to them way back after failure if the CCA and SAR requests. They then came back with the usual responses and then a final "bog off" letter. I then made the complaint for PPI and the following month I get an alert notice from Experian. So I logged in to find that the Egg account was suddenly showing as settled and the settlement date was fairly recent to the alert! Then a few DCA letters came and I politely pointed them to the fact that Egg had updated the account to settled. They all went away! I then had another alert about 3 months later with Lowell showing as a new account in default! Letter to Experian put a notice of correction on the account but no removal. At one point there was TWO accounts on there for the same debt! Pointed Lowell at the fact that the account is "settled" by Egg previously and if they have "purchased" the account then produce the assignment notice and other papers which I have NEVER had. They have never done this and still keep putting the account in and out of dispute. Egg are refusing to acknowledge any letters and Lowell won't entertain a PPI dispute as it's "Eggs problem". The PPI would if never ever paid out due to both "Self employment (even with a letter from HMRC stating I wasn't ) and an "existing medical condition which was unrelated to the injury but was refused because it was "too similar". It's utter crap and I've really had enough of it but trying to get info out of either of the idiots is harder than a quick fondle with Kate Middleton!

Bump - Anyone?

No one have any ideas then?

Anyone?