Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear All,   BN - Thank you for your comments.    My wife had prepared the relevant notice to the court and rather than spending time redacting I am sending it as PM to the contributors to this thread. It covers everything we have been discussing and is in line with  your comments and our discussions.   For the benefit of readers oif CAG I will redact and post it later as we have pressing family medical matters to attend to.    Warm regards BF  
    • Maybe have a third chamber, The Peoples' House 😃
    • Thanks for the images. It's shocking. This more than ever reinforces my view that you should take this to court. The number of people they must be fobbing off with this three months story is incredible – and they need pulling into line. If you simply complain to the CEO then they may sort out your problems – but the rest of it will go on as usual. They need something very serious here. In fact, I would think about suing them for £200 because I think that once they realise about the mistake they are making, they will be extremely anxious not to go to court. On the basis of this, I'm afraid I don't think I would even alert the CEO. I would send a letter of claim which will probably simply be seen by drones – and then issue the papers. I think you have an easy win on this case. Also, once they realise that they are dealing with a court case, they will look at the whole situation more carefully and they will probably sort out all of the problems at the same time. If they don't, then these two have laid down your marker and they will know that you're not mucking around and they will take you seriously.
    • These are the two incidents from Virgin Chat where their Live chat has informed me of the 'only 3 months' decision.... 15 April was the date they acknowledged receipt of my SAR. Apparently anything from before that date can't be included!
    • You could try both routes at the same time. Send your letter of claim by email to the CEO email address. Confirmed by letter. That way you have communicated with the CEO – but given a very definite deadline and a very definite promise as to what will happen if they don't comply. Then on day 15 sent the claim. Don't make a threat of legal action if you don't intend to carry it out. Don't bluff – but it is very easy to do
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3958 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

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

Lack of a total amount is a failure to serve in the prescribed form.

 

As for the has it or hasn't it been terminated question, the fact is that they demanded earlier payment, for which a DN is also required.

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread 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...