Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hey have filed a defence at 4pm today the day before I could request a judgement.  I thought it was last Friday but it was infact tomorrow they would have ran out of time 
    • Hello All,   My query is about the Service charge. I am leaseholder of a 3 bed flat in a purpose build block in London (Westminster) our service charge used to reflect the maintenance of the building and overall look and feel. But now not only service charge goes up every year but quality of service like general maintenance gone down. For example lifts keep breaking down, building needs refurb, walls are dirty, my windows are so old that in winter no matter how much heating you put on room still feel cold.    additionally they keep adding major works charges to service charge with this year being £1917 in addition to £1890 service charge. Don’t mind paying only if I see improvement in the block but we have only seen steady decline over many years now. So today I called them (city of Westminster) saying I don’t want to pay and cannot pay so high charges where there’s no evident results.    I came here to find if anyone has been successful in negotiations on regards to service charges complain or any advice regarding this. Charges are too for what we get    Thanks in advance  
    • this is going to be really simplistic, but have they started by talking to senior management now the bad apple has gone?
    • Hi everyone  . . .  Just an update   The CMD was this morning.  It started with cheap  manoeuvrability  by Intrum’s lawyer, but let me give you quick summery background:   The judge issued an order to us to submit evidence supporting our case such as call for witnesses or ask the court to order the original creditor to some action.  We were giving 21 days for the submission.  In my simple calculation without, allowing time to post, the final date was to be 10 March 2021, with post time 2 days later.   On the 10th March, and to be on the safe side, I send to the court the response version giving to me by DX100UK.   Then on 12th March, I send to the court the version giving to me by Andy, asking the court to replace the first document with the second  one.   On 7th of April I send Intrum lawyer the document 2 as it is our official response.   ON the 12th April I send the court the medical certificate for my niece asking to be viewed exclusively by the court.   At the start of the CMD the Judge ask Intrum lawyer to start.  So he started by claiming the following: 1.    We failed to meet the 21 days deadline set by the court. 2.    He received a response on the 7th April which is only a week ago. 3.    He admitted that he has the two version of our submission. He claimed that they were collected by colleague of his from the court’s Clark while he was in court. 4.    He said that this case has taken too long and the defendant just messing them about and keeping changing their plea.   At that time the judge announced that he does not have the two documents in the case file. He only has the medical certificate.  Then he turned to me to ask me for explanation. a)    I said that we met the deadline set by the court and submitted the required response.  Also I explained the issue with two documents. b)    I confirmed that we have received a confirmation form the court on their receipt of  my submission emails. c)    I stated that Intrum lawyer’s claim is incorrect that we failed to meet the deadline, and pointed out that he has our two documents in his possession which he obtained from the court.   Then the judge started asking Intrum lawyer on the content of the two documents, which is bizarre not to ask the author of the documents.   Intrum Lawyer stated that the two documents almost identical. He then started pointing out the negative sides in the documents such as our change of the 50% settlement.  He continued claiming that we are changing our defence without following the certain set procedure, which it seemed to confuse the judge. The lawyer  continued to ridicule the document in general without being specific.  At the end the judge turned to me  to response.   I said that the court must see the document as it is important to the case.  It is not correct to ask the lawyer to a brief the court on our document as he has been selective in what to read.  The judge came in and said that he asked the lawyer for a general summery of its content.   I continued that the full claim case is fundamentally flawed, and I continued to list why: 1.    The nature of the relation between the original creditor and defendant does not constitute the need for Financial Agreement between the two parties.  The claimant stated in their case that the defendant was in breach of a Financial Agreement. Where is this agreement? 2.    There is no Default Notice that the claimant stated in their submission there was a Default  Notice. 3.    Also has the original creditor served a notice of assignment on the defendant? 4.    The other fundamental issue is the question of the nature of the sum claimed!. .  .  .  . . .   At that time the judge stopped me asked me if I was asking for the other side to present these documents.   I responded:  Intrum are experienced organisation in this type of business.  They know very well the importance of these documents to the case, why they have not been  incorporated them in their case submission , . .  my answer Yes  . . . our missing response document put the claimant to Strict Proof to present these documents to the court.   The lawyer then announced that the Default Note was included in their submission and, he continued to quote a reference number, then he retracted his claim, which is I had a sense that he felt he has gone too far in his BS***t.   However, the judge spend most of session faltering and does not know what to say.  At the end he decided to go for another CMD. But then the funny part he asked the Claimant lawyer to send him the two missing documents.   I feel more positive now on the case but I would appreciate your views and comments.   Thank you
    • Had a reply from the Council today. While they didn't specifically say the car can be parked there, they gave me this bit of info which I am reading as parking being allowed during those hours as long as you don't enter the street:     Hadn't even considered deliveries! I live just outside the catchment area so I've never had problems, but it does make me wonder how Royal Mail, DPD and the rest are handling these kinds of restrictions...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Default Notice Re-Issue


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2296 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There was a recent case in CC where the claimant put forward PB's stance as a proposed solution having lost because of a faulty DN and the DJ dismissed it out of hand. Not because of bringing a 2nd case but because the agreement was terminated. I'll try and dig it out.QUOTE]

 

Hi gh,

 

If you manage to find this case please let me know, I would be most appreciative.

 

I have also raised my own thread :-)

 

Many thanks for your assistance so far!

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@Peter - To follow on from this - if a creditor takes you to Court on the back of a faulty DN and loses - are you saying that they could then following the loss at Court - re-issue a valid DN and tehn take action again. After all it would not be another action on the same matter as this time it would be on the back of a valid DN a very different matter.

At what point is an account terminated .....

 

Recently a creditor closed one of my account and wrote of the balance - now, I was in default and they had sent a DN (invalid) so again are you saying that that account is still 'live and kicking' and could be resurrected at any time ....

 

 

 

Hi

A default notice issued under section 87 of the act has only ever been a device to ensure that the debtor has the correct information regarding his breach and ample time to remedy. If a faulty default is issued than there is no sanction within the act for that error. Except that it prohibitws all further enforcement untill the error is rectified.

It is true that common law would allow for the possibility of an injunction be made for this breach but unlikely as the prejudice would be so small and the court would accept that the debtor would be given a further 14 days to pay to be sufficient remedy.

Common law permit that following repudiation of an agreement the debtor may as one of the remedies open to him agree to terminate the agreement this is true but this would not eradicate any of the liabilities under the agreement, in any case the CCA permit’s the debtor to terminate at any time so in that respect there is no difference. The reason for this facility in common law is to facilitate the withdrawal from a contract of the innocent party on breach of an agreement, this would be appropriate if say it was a builder that breached an agreement to perform and the hired wanted to sack him.

The only real issue her is one of can a creditor when terminating an agreement under section 98 of the agreement then issue a default termination under section 87 and re terminate. To be honest I do not know, but is suspects that if challenged the lender would say that he terminated only the right to draw down credit in the first instance, which would then leave him able to terminate after the default, it would then be up to the lender to prove otherwise, which would be extremely difficult.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

A default notice issued under section 87 of the act has only ever been a device to ensure that the debtor has the correct information regarding his breach and ample time to remedy. If a faulty default is issued than there is no sanction within the act for that error. Except that it prohibitws all further enforcement untill the error is rectified.

It is true that common law would allow for the possibility of an injunction be made for this breach but unlikely as the prejudice would be so small and the court would accept that the debtor would be given a further 14 days to pay to be sufficient remedy.

 

Agreed

 

Common law permit that following repudiation of an agreement the debtor may as one of the remedies open to him agree to terminate the agreement this is true but this would not eradicate any of the liabilities under the agreement,

 

Again agreed - however those liabilities, under the CCA, only extend to sums already due in these cases the CCA overrides Common Law (where the full amount is still owing)

 

in any case the CCA permit’s the debtor to terminate at any time so in that respect there is no difference. The reason for this facility in common law is to facilitate the withdrawal from a contract of the innocent party on breach of an agreement, this would be appropriate if say it was a builder that breached an agreement to perform and the hired wanted to sack him.

The only real issue her is one of can a creditor when terminating an agreement under section 98 of the agreement then issue a default termination under section 87 and re terminate. To be honest I do not know, but is suspects that if challenged the lender would say that he terminated only the right to draw down credit in the first instance, - in order to terminate any rights of teh debtor in cases of default a S87 Dn is required which would then leave him able to terminate after the default, it would then be up to the lender to prove otherwise, which would be extremely difficult.

Peter

 

I think we broadly agree :D

 

I also think you are taking the view that would be taken by the Courts - i.e. trying to go 'straight down the middle' whereas teh creditors are biasing their argument one-way and I am countering that with another viewpoint.

 

As we all know - until there is precedent - there is no 'right or wrong' answer only opinions.

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 98 Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)

Subsection (1) - The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of the termination

Subsection (6) - Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

Please forgive my ignorance here but does this not suggest that a termination under s98 does not apply after a breach? Therefore s87 would automatically take precedence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we broadly agree :D

 

I also think you are taking the view that would be taken by the Courts - i.e. trying to go 'straight down the middle' whereas teh creditors are biasing their argument one-way and I am countering that with another viewpoint.

 

As we all know - until there is precedent - there is no 'right or wrong' answer only opinions.

 

Hi

 

Yes i always try to take the view i think the court would take,probably why i get so much stick on here. I think though that is realistically the most useful way to approach.:|

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
..........but does this not suggest that a termination under s98 does not apply after a breach? Therefore s87 would automatically take precedence?[/font]

 

it specifically states that s98 only relates to 'non default cases'! so, where there is a default, then s98 is not applicable. :-)

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesn't suggest. it specifically states that s98 only relates to 'non default cases'! so, where there is a default, then s98 is not applicable. :-)

 

If a termination is under section 98 there is no reason why it cannot be applied to an account that had been issued a default notice,the default terminationj just cannot be acctioned on account of the defective notice.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball
english

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a termination under section 98 is there is no reason why it cannot apply to an account that had been issued adefault notice,the terminationjust cannot be acctioned on account of the default notice.

 

Peter

the cca itself states that s98 relates to 'non default cases'. ergo, if there is a default, then s98 doesn't apply. full stop!!!

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
the cca itself states that s98 relates to 'non default cases'. ergo, if there is a default, then s98 doesn't apply. full stop!!!

 

Hi

 

Love when people end statement with "full stop or "End of" they are invariably wrong.

 

THe title refres to isuuance of the termination through or in the process of the default enforcement not after it. The creditor has used this as a means of termination after a case has been defaulted see Amex v brandon and i think also one of the rankin cases.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Sorry my last post was somewhat unhelpful, getting late and I am getting tired and a bit irritable

Yes section 98 says “none default cases“, but it also says “duty to give notice”. this is what the section is really for, the fact that it is there means that no notice is required on default cases or running account credit(subsection2a) and they can be terminated at any time without notice if that is what it says on the contract.

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a wind of change sweeping through CAG?

 

Just a few months ago the issue of an invalid default notice was widely stated to be a strong defence, in that it did not permit the benefits of s87 to be taken by the creditor. It seems to me that opinions are changing and that the validity of the DN is becoming something of a side issue. When we have creditors saying that if the DN was defective that they'll just issue one that is correct, and having several stabs at getting it right something sounds very fishy indeed.

 

If, as has been documented on here, that lack of sufficient days for remedy has been an effective defence, what has changed? Have there been any additional cases in the past 12 months that have set a precedent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

Love when people end statement with "full stop or "End of" they are invariably wrong. ..don't flatter yourself!:-)

 

THe title refres to isuuance of the termination through or in the process of the default enforcement not after it. The creditor has used this as a means of termination after a case has been defaulted see Amex v brandon and i think also one of the rankin cases.

 

Peter

 

well, there is no other way to state what s98 itself clearly states! namely, that s98 relates to 'non default cases' only. hence the 'jestful' 'full stop'.:-)

 

yes, duty to give notice of termination in 'non default cases'!

 

imo:-)

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a wind of change sweeping through CAG?

 

Just a few months ago the issue of an invalid default notice was widely stated to be a strong defence, in that it did not permit the benefits of s87 to be taken by the creditor. It seems to me that opinions are changing and that the validity of the DN is becoming something of a side issue. When we have creditors saying that if the DN was defective that they'll just issue one that is correct, and having several stabs at getting it right something sounds very fishy indeed.

 

If, as has been documented on here, that lack of sufficient days for remedy has been an effective defence, what has changed? Have there been any additional cases in the past 12 months that have set a precedent?

 

I think it is a case of creditors now claiming a faulty DN is just a technicality and the DJ's are determining the outcome on whether the technicality has been prejudice towards the debtor. It would seem it is becoming difficult to prove to a DJ one was prejudiced against based on what people are saying on here. Oh and this is my solicitors opinion too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, there is no other way to state what s98 itself clearly states! namely, that s98 relates to 'non default cases' only. hence the 'jestful' 'full stop'.:-)

 

yes, duty to give notice of termination in 'non default cases'!

 

imo:-)

 

Hi i did appologise for being sharp however the point is that the section saying none default acases only, does not have an effect on wether a creditor can terminate an agreement as i said it is about notice requied in fixed term none defalt cases.

 

Easy mistake to make

 

regards

peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is a case of creditors now claiming a faulty DN is just a technicality and the DJ's are determining the outcome on whether the technicality has been prejudice towards the debtor. It would seem it is becoming difficult to prove to a DJ one was prejudiced against based on what people are saying on here. Oh and this is my solicitors opinion too.

 

Hi

Yes the defective DN was only ever going to delay proceedings, some times the creditor would get fed up and rather than re file write the debt off but that is the only hope of success.

The Brandon case has really just moved the definition of what is a compliant DN a bit more in favour of the creditor.

It now seems that irrespective of the remedy time limit stated on the DN the court would relly on the fact of when the action under the notice was taken.

So if your termination was received 10 days after the default you still have a case,but if the notice says 10 days but the notice turns up in fourteen then there is no prejudice and no case

 

Best regards

Pete

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi i did appologise for being sharp however the point is that the section saying none default acases only, does not have an effect on wether a creditor can terminate an agreement as i said it is about notice requied in fixed term none defalt cases.

 

Easy mistake to make

 

regards

peter

 

am aware of s98(1) and (2)(a) thanks. yes, as i said, s98 (which of course includes 1 and 2a!) applies to non default cases. the application of 1 and 2a was never disputed by me! i just reiterated the point that s98 applies to 'non default cases' (such 'cases' being, atm, those that involve ss 2 etc) . maybe my point was misinterpreted! :-)

 

imo :-)

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read through the last few days of this thread it seems that things are changing. I am alittle confused now tho :?: In my case the creditor terminated without a DN evidenced by the log i recived as part of my SAR then went on to issue a dn and termination all properlly issued. also when the next threat o gram arrived i wrote and pointed all this out, the y wrote back and said "sorry is was not appropriate to terminate without a Dn first time so we did it again and thats ok!! we will proceed with collection" So with all thats gone on Do i still have a defence in anyone opinion?? Im sure i do but the way things have gone who knows!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was M&M on here who had £25k claim and won on a faulty DN and the creditor in Court said they would go back and re-issue. The DJ said that he was having none of it as they had terminated.

 

I *do* still believe that the DN issue is valid however I also believe you will need a strong argument to counter the Claimant and that would normally mean employing Counsel.

 

There is no precedent as the creditors have *never* appealed a faulty DN. If they were that confident in their argument they would afterall they would get their claim and full costs *if* they won ..

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the skeleton argument that Counsel for the Claimant had prepared in the SJ hearing that I had last month implied that a faulty DN was no defence, it went something like this - names and numbers have been changed to protect the innocent.

1. Nevertheless, the main point raised in the W/S concerns the Default Notice . Defendant states that the document (Exhibitxx) is the original Default Notice sent by Claimant to Defendant; Claimant is unable to verify this.

2. Claimant produces at (Exhibit yy)a recreated copy of the Default Notice; to the best of the Claimamt’s solicitor’s knowledge and belief this document is a copy of the original Default Notice. The Claimant does not concede that Exhibit xxis the original Default Notice.

3. W/S para zz draws attention to the requirement for the inclusion of the Office of Fair Trading Information Sheet as per the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (as amended). Exhibit yyis compliant; Exhibit xxis not compliant. Without the wording and information sheet as set out in W/S para zz the Default Notice is invalid.

4. Woodchester Lease Mana&ement Services Limited v Swain e” Co [1999] WLR 263 is authority for position that a Default Notice is not required to claim the arrears. Claimant can obtain summary judgement for the arrears.

5. Alternatively, Claimant can serve a valid Default Notice. The inevitable outcome will be that costs will be increased for the Defendant and the same outcome achieved.

6. Alternatively, Claimant refers to its contractual entitlement as set out at paragraph 10 to recover the balance. Exhibts xx1and xx2 can be taken to be demands for repayment of the balance; alternatively the issue of the claim form was sufficient demand for the debt (Joachimson v Swiss Ban/c Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110). In relying upon terms of the contract Claimant does not need to rely upon the default of Defendant as the basis for terminating the Agreement and under sections 87/88 CCA.

7. Consequently, it is submitted that even if the Default Notice does not comply with CCA it was effective at common law to terminate the Agreement and C is contractually entitled to the sum claimed in the Claim Form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually NotJoe that WS statement argues the exact opposite point!! :lol:

namely that the DN does NOT need to be valid in order to terminate the account .....

 

7. Consequently, it is submitted that even if the Default Notice does not comply with CCA it was effective at common law to terminate the Agreement and C is contractually entitled to the sum claimed in the Claim Form*.

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have been saying all along - these arguments can be very persuasive either way when they are presented by Counsel

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was what I was saying, wasn't it?

 

The argument(s) (since they offer three alternative arguments) - put forward is that a faulty DN is no defence, it's something that the creditor can make an end-run around.

 

It's like - See this cake? I'm eating it now. See this cake? I've still got it. Oooh, look, another cake! That's mine too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having read through the last few days of this thread it seems that things are changing. I am alittle confused now tho :?: In my case the creditor terminated without a DN evidenced by the log i recived as part of my SAR then went on to issue a dn and termination all properlly issued. also when the next threat o gram arrived i wrote and pointed all this out, the y wrote back and said "sorry is was not appropriate to terminate without a Dn first time so we did it again and thats ok!! we will proceed with collection" So with all thats gone on Do i still have a defence in anyone opinion?? Im sure i do but the way things have gone who knows!!

 

This is not a new idea years ago you used to be able to buy a kit to "clean up your credit record" it consisted of a formated letter to the court asking for the judgement to be set asside because you did not recieve a default, the idea was tht as soon as you recieved the set aside notice you sent it of to the CRA registry(this was before computers) and this would give you a window to be able to negotiate with the creditor or apply for credit.

 

The creditor would of course re issue the default and terminate correctly in most cases but sometimes it would be to mouch trouble and you would get away with it.

 

THe real issue here which i think is being forgotten is the function of the DN it is not an agreement it is just notice of an action to recover, if the notice is incorrect it just needs to be re issued, that is how the court will see it. The termination issue is really not relavant never was, every one on here is gioing on about how they have been predjudiced by the termination, believe me the court will not see that, they will see how the creditor has been impeded in collecting his money

There is no loophole here trminationn af an agreement can be made at any time by either party so there is no such thng as unlawful termination.

 

A default termination cannot be isseued on a incorrect default if it couold it would not be a default temrination. A contractural termination or a section 98 will be a termination to draw credit usually and even if it is a full termianation, it is not a temination on breach of the act, it is the breach that makes the default actionable not the temination.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...