The dfn point is not an easy argument at all with fixed sum hire purchase with fixed repayments, but worth a shot. Could you argue estoppel in that they made representations the agreement continued in subsequent letters and notices which you relied upon to your detriment? Just thought vomiting here.

Because per doc1 above DFN 8th March 2017 termination 30th March 2017...

DFN is dated 8th March 17 and gives 21 days for compliance and appears to be in the prescribed format. if the arrears are not overstated it's good and so is their termination if I were you I'd complain on the misleading info and s140a and look to refer to the FOS and see where it gets you. Legally assuming the DFN is good, as it appears, you lost the right to terminate as they have said IMHO

S98 consumer credit act dx. But it's a moot point if the DFN is compliant as the nosia issue doesn't invalidate it

Not surprised, as per post #28. Perhaps try the s140a avenue.

Sorry, late ro the party on this but.... Given a breach of s86B gives rise to temporary unenforceability under the CCA until remedy and an inability to charge during the period of non compliance and considering that enforcement is held as being entering judgment What grounds are there for suggesting the DFN and termination are invalid? Also if the DFN was somehow invalid what makes the termination invalid (Could it be treated as a simple termination of contract outside of provisions for breach)? In which case could it be unlawful? Start line do appear shoc

Bmw v Hart re unregulated hp has little application in the Times. We cha agree to disagree.

It has determined the date from Which cause of action arises for the purpose of the limitation act. In that respect it is cast in stone barring an appeal to the supreme court Arguments can be made where there is some egregious delay in issuing a default notice that it gives rise to an unfair relationship under s140 cca but that's a different argument, though one touched on in Doyle and which a district judge would likely find persuasive when considering any prejudice asserted. As an aside registering a default with a CRA is an entirely different matter to a creditor iss

That's what forums are for, learning and sharing knowledge

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/12.html Here you go fodder.

Its a determined point of law. Of someone argues purely limitation on facts where the default notice expired within 6 years of the claim being issued they will lose it's that simple. If they take other points (for example the agreement is unenforceable for want of a prescribed term) and win on that it doesn't detract from the limitation argument being wrong in law.

Depends entirely on the nature of the contract, the nature of the breach and of the claim. A contract may require Notice of Breach, or a Demand in order to bring terms in to effect and missing a payment may not be a sufficient breach (not of the essence) as to give rise to a claim for termination/repudiation or indeed anything other than payment of the missing instalment and nominal damages. In terms of Consumer Credit debt, Doyle binds the Court in all matters, otherwise than where a debt is payable on demand. We must be talking about debt other than payable on demand here, given

Could fall within S4 of the Fraud Act 2006 BF, certainly fits in with the definition of Theft, guess we won't find out which the CPS prefers as the OP isn't going that route. £489 p/h solicitors rates seems to fall within the Theft Act too, that's an astounding rate. It is odd that Ladbrokes cannot trace an account with the details you have given (presumably the details of your wife), are you positive she gave her details and not (and this would be a major complication) yours as presumably she would know them all?

Given that you do not want to see your wife prosecuted. My suggestion is that you gp and take legal advice from a regulated law firm to understand exactly where you stand and the consequences of any actions you take as, being as blunt as dearest Ethel, what you do will influence what they do

Having a sum of money in an instant access bank account does not convey some greater culpability on the account holder. Don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion the wife shouldn't be blamed or punished for taking and spending 13k that wasn't hers. Its black and white