As an aside, why do creditors continually issue faulty DN's? Why not just stick a few days on top to make sure there is time to remedy? Can they allow too much time? I've just had a DN which doesn't even give 14 days from the issue date to the remedy date - why on earth would they do that?

this is the back of the dn:

The date is actaully on the back of the DN, on the picture here I have only blanked my name & address. I have asked for DN and proof of postage under CPR 18 - is that good enough or should I SAR too?

Thanks for the help guys, it really is appreciated! I've done a bit of a miss-mash of the above letters but I'm now fairly happy with what I've sent them. That said, I think it's pretty irrelevant in any case as they'll carry on as they see fit whatever I do! Ho hum, I'll keep the forum posted of any further developments.

I've got another post running re the court case, I have defended and written to the under CPR 18 for info. AOS sent and will file an embaressed defence early next week if I get nothing back. I was just interested if there were any issues that the DN says they will take court action to persue the net amount and then the POC claims the gross amount?

Can't you just do that anyway, even if you live in Slough!! ;-) Thanks for the info though, very interesting. Are there any countries where they can legitimately persue you through the local courts?

Sorry, it was dated 1st August. Don't know about the internal use only bit - just as it came. Is this relevant?

anyone?

would the person being abroad and un-contactable not be a good enough reason?

would this also apply within banking groups? eg you had an o/d with LTSB but in credit at the Halifax?

I thought that once a CCJ was obtained then the debt could never be statue barred?

is this better? I refer to your letter of 12th November. Once again I do not agree that my complaint is settled and I still consider the account to be in serious dispute. I am surprised that you consider the term “approved limit” being a recognised prescribed term to be a “well established point of law” and would be interested in your references of when this has shown to be the case. An “approved limit” does in no way imply “credit limit” and as such is not a prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You may also wish to consider the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger as both these binding judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are mis-stated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. Coming on to your comment about default charges and your comment as quoted “With regard to the allegation that the agreement fails to correctly detail the default charges which may be payable by your client….” I would be grateful if you would explain who my client is? I have only dealt with matter personally and have had no legal representation. Please clarify. Your comment that the charges are clearly set out in clause 17 and that these are referenced in the agreement is interesting, however I have to inform you IT CANNOT BE! The reasons for this is that Regulation 2 (4) Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (SI1983/1553) requires that the statutory information set out within Para 3-19 of schedule 1 and 2 SI1983/1553 should be shown as a whole and not interspersed with other information if the agreement is to be properly executed and compliant with section 61 CCA 1974 Finally, please note that I will deal with matter only in writing and I would be grateful if you would also advise Credit Collections Agencies of this point. I trust this letter makes my position perfectly clear and I look forward to hearing that you will not be perusing this matter further. May I also respectfully remind you of the restrictions placed upon Egg being as this account is still in serious dispute

Any part(s) in particular? The only point I thought about not including was mentioning the high court case? I honestly can't see anything else which could disadvantage me though always happy to learn and see another point of view.

No problem at all, feel free. (in fact there is an element of this in my letter!) Anyone else have any thoughts before I send it?

They are going for the total amount payable through the whole term of the loan rather then the settlement figure the DN states? Yes, termination notice received and they listed the gross amount, which doesn't agree with the DN.

Considering sending this and would appreciate any comments: I refer to your letter of 12th November. Once again I do not agree that my complaint is settled and I still consider the account to be in serious dispute. I am surprised that you consider the term “credit limit” not being a prescribed term to be a “well established point of law” and would be interested in your references of when this has shown to be the case. Although I agree the Central Trust –v- Spurway was indeed in relation to a fixed loan agreement, I feel the point being made is that the prescribed terms should leave no doubt or confusion to the lay-reader as to what the term relates. An “approved limit” does in no way imply “credit limit” and could easily relate to a limit of transactions, a limit of value of individual transactions, or indeed many other items, none of which are required prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition, your agreement not only refers to an “approved limit” but also to an” individual limit”. Are these one and the same? Why are they renamed if they mean the same thing? Again, as a layperson, I feel this only adds confusion to an already confused point which should be exact and clear if it a correct prescribed term? I also note that Egg chose to change this term in later agreements which surely suggests you feel the agreement as issued originally is not compliant? I also understand you have a case in the High Court in the early part of next year relating to this point exactly and on this basis I would consider your comment that this is a “well established point of law” is far from accurate. You may also wish to consider the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger as both these binding judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are misstated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. (cont…..) Coming on to your comment about default charges and your comment as quoted “With regard to the allegation that the agreement fails to correctly detail the default charges which may be payable by your client….” I would be grateful if you would explain who my client is? I have only dealt with matter personally and have had no legal representation. Please clarify. Your comment that the charges are clearly set out in clause 17 and that these terms are these terms are referenced in the agreement is interesting, however I have to inform you IT CANNOT BE! The reasons for this is that Regulation 2 (4) Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (SI1983/1553) requires that the statutory information set out within Para 3-19 of schedule 1 and 2 SI1983/1553 should be shown as a whole and not interspersed with other information if the agreement is to be properly executed and compliant with section 61 CCA 1974 Finally I wish to point out that I am quite disappointed with Egg’s behaviour in this matter; you took over 4 months to reply to my complaint at which point you advise this is your final response and to refer anything further to the FOS. I find this attitude somewhat disingenuous and I also note that your collection process has now recommenced with earnest! I would be grateful if you would cease sending me your daily emails requesting that I telephone you to save us both time – yours in sending the email and mine in deleting it. I would also be grateful if you would advise Damian of Credit Collections Agency that I do not “need” to phone him urgently and if he wishes to communicate with me he should do so by letter, as I have previously requested. I trust this letter makes my position perfectly clear and I look forward to hearing that you will not be perusing this matter further. May I also respectfully remind you of the restrictions placed upon Egg being as this account is still in serious dispute? Yours faithfully

To be honest I did not keep the envelope it came in or take notice of the day received.

I find that very interesting and really do wonder about the motives in a case like this. Are they trying to prove a point as it seems likely they would have received nothing from the bankruptcy that they have spent the best part of £1000 to bring? I wonder if they had mis-valued his home or thought he had other assets?

Received this (below) DN from Tesco which is all correct and sent in time with adequate time to remedy etc. However, the DN threatens court action for the net amount being approx £12K. I have now received a CC Summons demanding the gross amount (15K) so my questions are: 1. Does this cause them any problems or in any way make either the DN or the POC defective? 2. Can they sue for the total amount payable which includes a further 4 years interest upto Nov 2013? Many thanks for all the help.

Even on a self-employed person with no assets? Surely this would just be throwing good money after bad from their point of view? Or do you mean they would send the SD but not follow up with a bankruptcy petition? As I say, I'm far from this position and I'm currently in the process of either requesting CCA's and keeping others at bay for the time being until work picks up with a self-managed DMP.

Thanks for the reply. It was just a hypothetical thought really for me to understand the CCJ process. I do have quite a bit of debt but as I'm a homeowner the possibilty of charging orders and forcing a sale are very much issues in my case.

So assuming a self-employed person who rents their home has quite a bit of debt but ignores the situation, what could a bank do? Assuming they owe a credit card of say £6K and the bank gets judgement by default, what then? They can't get an attachement of earnings as self-employed, charging order isn't possible and assuming the person is savvy enough not to let a bailiff in and also either parks his car on private property or is of little value - what would be the bank's next step? I know this wouldn't happen to anyone on here, I just wondered at what point would a bank/DCA decide to call it a day?

Thanks M for your support - it is appreciated. I'll post something in the thread you mention later.

Had a reply, not that it's particularly interesting but I suspect they may go over the 14 days to respond? I take it I would submit the standard "embarresed" defence if this happens? Would still appreciate thought on the differing amounts on claim and DN if anyone knows please?

bumpity bump.