Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MBNA/Restons claimform - old A+L Card **WON+COSTS**


fairbyblue
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5208 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 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

idont know if the lack of the total amount owed is a defect in itself

certainly there is no need for a contact number to be included

 

 

and you might like to check out the wording and fonts- isnt the word DEFAULT NOTICE supposed to be prominent and not squeezed in where it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

ive just spotted something

 

most companies default notices are a standard form with the individual references auto filled into them from the computer

 

looking at the type spacing and the endings of texts it is clear that one of these (if not both) appear to have been individually typed out

 

why this would be baffles me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FB

Did you actually recieve two DN's????

Because your second copy does not state who it is from, and it is NOT on mbna headed paper(which it needs to be to be a proper letter from them)

gill5blue

 

I know. then they produce the second as the one they rely on. It is defective anyway, although their solicitor says its 're created copy' I did get the 2nd DN but it was without all the letterheading and contact details and it was in the format that they are relying on.

 

They have only mentioned it when pressed that the first one is defective.

 

It was terminated after the 1st DN!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a properly drawn up DN will have the total amount owed on it whilst simply demanding the arrears.

 

 

and here 90 minutes later you say

 

idont know if the lack of the total amount owed is a defect in itself

 

So I am now confused cos you are saying things then changing the argument shortly after and is totally confusing me!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

and here 90 minutes later you say

 

idont know if the lack of the total amount owed is a defect in itself

 

So I am now confused cos you are saying things then changing the argument shortly after and is totally confusing me!!!!!!

 

 

OK let me un confuse you

 

yu made a statement eariler on that "a document with a total amount in it must be a termination"

 

i was showing you examples where a total amount is shown in a document (such as a monthly statement or a DN) but that did not mean that it made the documents into termination notices

 

the second reference was in answer to a different poiint as to whether the absence of a total in a DN makes it unenforceable

 

two different points

 

hopefully thats cleared that up in you mind

Link to post
Share on other sites

See here Oct 8th 2008

 

 

 

A new amendment has been made in case of failure to give notice of sums in arrears in CCA 1974. Section 11 CCA 2006inserts a new section - 86D - that sets out the consequences for a creditor or owner if he fails to give a notice as required by sections 86B or 86C.

 

If the creditor or owner fails to provide a notice of sums in arrears when required to do so, then during the period of his failure to provide the notice (i.e. from the date that it was required to be given until the end of the day on which it is eventually provided), he is not entitled to enforce the agreement. In addition,

 

The debtor or hirer is not liable to pay any interest that relates to the period of the creditor or owner’s failure,

 

Notice of default sums

Section 12 of CCA 2006 applies to situations where a debtor or hirer under a regulated agreement incurs a default sum.

 

A creditor or owner must give the debtor or hirer a notice in the specified form when a default sum becomes payable as a consequence of a breach of the agreement. For example, you hire a car for the duration of your holiday. There will often be a penalty sum payable if you incur a fine from using the car. The car-hire company might say this is to cover, for example, administration charges. Either way, certain sums are payable if you breach the agreement. Where this applies, the creditor must provide notice to the debtor, of the amount they must pay. This only applies where the default sum exceeds a specified amount.

 

Additionally, a creditor may only require a debtor to pay interest (in connection with a default sum) 28 days after the day the notice was given to the debtor. So if the creditor fails to give notice to the debtor then he can not enforce the agreement until notice is given.

 

“Default sum”

The term ‘default sum’ has been redefined in s.18 CCA 2006.“Default sum” now means: a sum payable by a debtor or hirer in connection with his breach of a regulated agreement (e.g. a charge imposed for late payment of an installment due under the agreement or a fee imposed for exceeding a credit limit on a credit card). A default sum does not include sums that, as a consequence of a breach of the agreement, become payable earlier than they otherwise would have done. Nor does it include interest.

 

Interest on default sums

Section 13 has been amended so that a creditor or owner may only require simple interest to be paid in respect of default sums payable by the debtor or hirer. This includes sums payable under noncommercial or small agreements.

 

Minimum 14 days after Default notices

The new minimum period after which a creditor or owner may take action (in respect of the agreement after having issued a default notice) is now 14 days. It used to be only 7 days. Section 14 CCA 2006amends section 88 of the 1974 Act to create this extension.

 

Additionally, under s87, a creditor or owner must give the debtor or hirer a default notice in the prescribed form if he wishes to:

- terminate the agreement;

- demand earlier payment of a sum;

- recover possession of any goods or land;

- treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred; or to

- enforce any security

 

Section 88 is also amended to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe information in the default notice to include any matters relating to the agreement (e.g. information about whether the agreement includes a term providing for the charging of post-judgment interest).

 

 

 

Regards

Andy:wink:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that several excellent points regarding DNs have been put forward by x20 and others in various threads, but here's my slightly simplistic view on this situation.

 

I think we established much earlier in the thread that DN #1 was defective because of the dates/time given to rectify, and I think everybody would agree that point.

 

MBNA have said they will terminate the agreement if the sum demanded is not paid by the date given, so if the payment was not made then they should be taken at their word that they subsequently terminated (at least that logic was accepted by the Judge in my case against HFC/Restons).

 

Restons (and maybe others) like to argue the point between the word 'MAY' and the 'will' which is included in the threat of the consequences of not paying, but as has already been pointed out the word 'MAY' is part of the regulatory format of the DN.

 

Furthermore, I've seen 1 or 2 threads where Restons have used the feeble (IMO) argument that if the DN was defective then it follows (using their blinkered logic) that the threatened termination was therefore ineffective. I would counter that by pointing out the wording of s.87 which says that;

 

87. - (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

 

..... etc. etc.

The operative word being 'entitled'.

 

Because the DN was defective (i.e. not in accordance to s.88 ) MBNA were not entitled to persue any of the actions listed above, but this did not prevent them from going ahead and doing so. They just did something which they were not entitled to do, i.e. unlawfully terminated the agreement as per the case law mentioned further up the thread and elsewhere.

 

An analogy might be shoplifting. You are not entitled to take things from shops without paying for them, but this does not prevent shoplifters from doing so.

 

Cheers

Rob

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put, Rob:)

 

Thanks underdog ;)

 

Just to add to what I said above; if the shoplifters deeds are not spotted by someone then s/he probably gets away with the goods, but on the other hand .....

 

In this case the shoplifter (MBNA) has been well and truly caught and (IMO) must bear the consequences of their action.

 

Tough luck MBNA!

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the information provided to the credit reference agencies from the creditor regarding defaults of any relevance?

 

For example, if the creditor registers the default for the full amount outstanding wouldn't this imply that termination has occurred? Firstly, as it is implementing one of the "may" clauses of the default notice and secondly, because it means they are demanding the full amount outstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, if the creditor registers the default for the full amount outstanding wouldn't this imply that termination has occurred? Firstly, as it is implementing one of the "may" clauses of the default notice and secondly, because it means they are demanding the full amount outstanding.

 

Not as I understand it.

 

The entry means in effect that the loan, for X amount has defaulted.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

87. - (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

 

..... etc. etc.

 

I think we need to be really careful here on what is deemed to be termination of an agreement. The creditor has five options to exercise under S87(1) one of which is termination. The section states OR between (a) or (b) or © etc. So a default notice stating that they may or will terminate, does not in itself mean that they have terminated at the end of the 14 days. Similarly, demanding an earlier payment of ANY sum does not necessarily mean that the agreement has been terminated. I would even contend that passing the collection of any amount to a third party would not constitute termination. Also assigning a debt to a third party, IMO is also not termination.

 

Unless you have a clear statement from a creditor that the agreement is terminated, as Fairbyblue got on 02 December, then I would not regard an agreement as terminated simply by virtue of a default notice or demand for payment of the full amount.

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[/indent][/indent]I think we need to be really careful here on what is deemed to be termination of an agreement. The creditor has five options to exercise under S87(1) one of which is termination. The section states OR between (a) or (b) or © etc. So a default notice stating that they may or will terminate, does not in itself mean that they have terminated at the end of the 14 days. Similarly, demanding an earlier payment of ANY sum does not necessarily mean that the agreement has been terminated. I would even contend that passing the collection of any amount to a third party would not constitute termination. Also assigning a debt to a third party, IMO is also not termination.

 

Unless you have a clear statement from a creditor that the agreement is terminated, as Fairbyblue got on 02 December, then I would not regard an agreement as terminated simply by virtue of a default notice or demand for payment of the full amount.

 

In my letter it says that 'account has been terminated as you failed to comply with default notice'

 

So i am taking it that it occured an the 1/7/08 as thats what the 1st DN said 'that on or after that date the agreement will be terminated'

 

Although the letter is dated 2/12/08 (in response to my request) but all the evidence on Comms log and no change is amount to remedy between the 2 DN's certainly IMO that the account termintated when they said it would. On the 1/7/08.

 

Test2.jpg

P5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your case, I think it is difficult to say exactly on what date the agreement was terminated. It is not definitive that it is 01/07/08, as the default notice states that the agreement will be terminated on or AFTER the date shown.

 

So, somewhere between 01/07/2008 and 02/12/2008, the agreement was terminated. I don't know if you have any other paperwork indicating when it may have been terminated.

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount to remedy is the same on the 2nd DN even though interest / charges and payments have been made. 5 offers of settlements at different %'s in July

and earlier in ths post

MBNA have said they will terminate the agreement if the sum demanded is not paid by the date given, so if the payment was not made then they should be taken at their word that they subsequently terminated (at least that logic was accepted by the Judge in my case against HFC/Restons).

 

Restons (and maybe others) like to argue the point between the word 'MAY' and the 'will' which is included in the threat of the consequences of not paying, but as has already been pointed out the word 'MAY' is part of the regulatory format of the DN.

 

p4.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the matter that the 2nd DN does not comply, it once again states that ON or AFTER the date shown, the account WILL be closed and the agreement WILL be terminated.

 

If it said "ON the date shown" then you can take it as gospel that the termination date was 13 November or 1 July, but the addition of the word AFTER changes the statement.

 

So, at some point between 13 November and 2 December, the agreement was terminated.

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the matter that the 2nd DN does not comply, it once again states that ON or AFTER the date shown, the account WILL be closed and the agreement WILL be terminated.

 

If it said "ON the date shown" then you can take it as gospel that the termination date was 13 November or 1 July, but the addition of the word AFTER changes the statement.

 

So, at some point between 13 November and 2 December, the agreement was terminated.

 

I think it termintated 1/7/08 because of their deeds, the settlement letters, the charge off and the amounts the same.

 

And the 2nd DN is does not comply anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...