VG - Vs Northen Rock - Charging Order

[Von Greenbach]

Thanks for the support HH

at least you have more time to collate evidence etc and build up a better defence.

Oh, I've already submitted my defence are you saying am I allowed to present more evidence I may have missed when I submitted my original defence?

[hammyhound]

No VG sorry I didn't mean to confuse you but I feel that if you are given more time like I have been I have found an awful lot out since my last hearing.

 

You could do a lot more research etc looking at relevant case law which I have found invaluable and also this site.

 

HH

[Von Greenbach]

Update:

 

My application to have judgement set aside has been listed for a hearing 20th February together with the redertimination and final charging order.

Although I have 3 weeks before my hearing I’ve received nothing from the claimants since October when the Interim Charging Order was granted despite my CCA & CPR18 requests.

As the claimants have a copy of my defense I’m starting to get worried due to the lack of contact, is there anything I need to do with regards further preparation or informing the court?

I just want to make sure I’ve covered myself, any advice / comments?

[Von Greenbach]

There's lots of quotes on here, but can anyone provide a direct link to this legislation?

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 1983 No 1561 as amended (“Default Regulations”)

 

I've tried Google but the only thing coming up is this which is asking for a fee

 

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006

 

[palomino]

You can also search the Governments' Statute Law database here Home - Statute Law Database

[Von Greenbach]

Thank you Pal I had what I'm looking for but sent if off to the court with my defence I sent the original and forgot to take a copy.

 

I forgot where I got the information from.

[AA99]

Hello VG!

 

Please understand that the Default Notice is the step they need to take to become entitled to the benefits of s87. Click the following to read what any Section actually says:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Once they think they have issued a valid Default Notice and you have not Paid the Arrears they wanted, then they'll think they can enjoy the benefits of s87 and push on to ask for absolutely everything. That is why they mention the Balance.

 

The usual is after a week or so from the Deadline stated in the Default Notice, they will make moves to grab the lot.

 

The Default Notice should not be relied upon as saying they only want the Arrears.

 

The point is they can only ask for the Arrears in the Default Notice. After the expiry of the Deadline, they can then ask for everything.

 

They need you to blow the request for those Arrears so that they can move on to grab the lot, because s87 then allows them to do so.

 

The Charging Order Claim should state what they are after, which I would think would be the Total Balance, i.e. the Balance which will include the Arrears.

 

To stress, before Termination, they can only chase you for the Arrears, but after lawful Termination, due to s87, they can then chase you for the lot.

 

The Default Notice is just a stepping stone towards a greater goal for them. Once you fail to pay the Arrears demanded, then they can and will move in for the lot.

 

However, this is also the problem for them, because they have issued an invalid Default Notice.

 

If they have Terminated, then they have lept out of the Agreement leaving behind any Right to ask you for the main Balance. The benefits of s87 are now denied to them.

 

The key is now Termination. If they have not Terminated, then they could, in theory, just issue a valid Default Notice.

 

If they have Terminated, then all they can run with is the Default Notice they have, and that is invalid. They can bend over and kiss goodbye to s87 in that case.

 

In summary, the Default Notice is a stepping stone. Just because it says they only want the Arrears, does not mean they will only ask for that after the Deadline has passed. They will want the lot.

 

Your Defence to that is the Default Notice is invalid, so they are now only able to ask for the Arrears. Indeed, to ask for the Arrears means they must have an Enforceable Agreement in the first place. Without that, they cannot even ask for the Arrears.

 

Your task now is to outline the Charging Order Claim, and set out exactly what they have sent you, so that a Defence to this can be discussed and prepared. My guess is they'll be after a Charging Order for the full balance.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

BRW, am now in angst with my AA99 v GEMoney Car Loan thread and referred back to your above thread, however, can you clarify this part for me please:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello AA99!

 

I regret have no time at the moment, as will be busy with Accountant now until next week.

 

But s88 sets out how a Default Notice must be set out etc.

 

Am working on a Post that'll try to give you all the best summary I can...i.e. rather than keep spreading my opinions around CAG like confetti!

 

Aim is to keep them in one Post/Thread and then edit in the light of further feedback and understanding.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[AA99]

Cheers BRW, that link is literally about the DN needing to give 7 days notice and for the debtor to react within 7 days. I know we all talk about 14 days now. It just concerned me that c.39 keeps referring to 7 days:???:

Look in when you can and good luck:)

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello AA!

 

Don't worry, it changed to 14 Days from 19/12/2006...see below:

 

See: Consumer Credit Act (1974) and related Regulations

 

The PDF you want is Post #4 of the above Sticky Thread, and it's PDF number 6...

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

 

3

 

A specification of:--

 

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

 

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

 

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

 

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

 

Then look further down to the notes towards the bottom...

NOTES

 

Amendment

 

Para 3: in sub-paras ©, (d) words "not less than fourteen days" in square brackets substituted by SI 2006/3094, regs 2, 3.

 

Date in force: 19 December 2006: see SI 2006/3094, reg 1.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[AA99]

I know you know that you are a star but I'd like to tell you again that you are a star:D Thank you:cool:

[lexis200]

I'll second that thought AA:D

[Von Greenbach]

Looking for the expert’s guidance here please?

My OH took out a personal loan with NR during 2006, at the time of the telephone application PPI was mentioned, my partner stated PPI was not required as they are paid from work, and also as they have an ongoing medical condition they didn’t believe PPI would be covered, the agent stated the loan application was approved complete all the ticked boxes and return the loan application form.

The loan application came through, and although there is a separate box for PPI, my OH just signed it.

Having read the numerous threads on here, in December 2008 wrote to NR stating believed PPI mis-sold due to ongoing medical condition at the time PPI was applied to the loan, and as no loss of income due to sickness PPI was not appropriate.

NR replied enclosing PPI questionnaire, returned questionnaire uncompleted stating as no claim has been made on the policy, all details are held on NR database.

Received final response letter stating although the call was not recorded at the time of loan application, they believe the policy was not mis-sold, also the PPI box was ticked and signed by the applicant, they go on to say the applicant had the opportunity not to sign the ticked PPI box, and all PPI options would have been discussed at the time the of the loan application, they finish by saying, the applicant had 30 days from the loan application to cancel any unwanted PPI (well we didn’t know about CAG then)

The letter states, this is our full & final response, should you be unhappy with this, you have the option to refer your complaint to the FOS.

Any suggestions / advice please?

[Von Greenbach]

No replies, hummmm :cry:

[womble72]

Hi Von,

 

Hope you are well.

 

I do notice that some posts are very quiet with anyone responding.

 

Hopefully someone will respond in good time.

 

Womble

[Von Greenbach]

Hi Womble

 

I'm well thanks, how are you?

 

Thanks for the acknowledgement, I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction what to do next, someone in the know may pop by.

[pompeyfaith]

Received final response letter stating although the call was not recorded at the time of loan application, they believe the policy was not mis-sold, also the PPI box was ticked and signed by the applicant, they go on to say the applicant had the opportunity not to sign the ticked PPI box, and all PPI options would have been discussed at the time the of the loan application,well this is for them to prove they finish by saying, the applicant had 30 days from the loan application to cancel any unwanted PPI (well we didn’t know about CAG then) Well i guess at the time you where not awear that most if not all ppi policies where a money making machine that has been grossly oversold to the detriment of the consumer

 

Regards

 

Pompeyfaith

 

Oh why not go to the ppi in the press forum at the bottom and print off and include a few press releases

 

Or the other option is to just had your claim over to the FOS to investigate but be warned they have a backlog and the FOS is very likely to take 9/12 mths to come to a conclusion but i would go that way instead of the court route because the judges decision is final plus if you do not get a favorable response from fos you can then go via court.

 

Regards

 

Pompeyfaith

[Goldlady]

Hi, is this loan still ongoing? I would not accept their full and final response - they are obviously going to try and say that they are in the right.

 

Taking it to the FOS will take time, but then they do get results. If it was me I would write back to them and say that I do not accept their final response and that the onus is on them to prove that the PPI was correctly sold.

 

If it was 'front loaded' onto the loan then they have even less legs to stand on.

[Von Greenbach]

Oh why not go to the ppi in the press forum at the bottom and print off and include a few press releases

Gee that's a good idea pompey, should I send thm the press releases/

[Von Greenbach]

Hi GL

 

Thanks for replying

Hi, is this loan still ongoing?

Yes, although were on a DMP

If it was 'front loaded' onto the loan then they have even less legs to stand on.

What's front loaded?

 

I'm going to take both pompey and your advice, is there a template letter strong enough to get my point over?

[Goldlady]

Added to the initial loan balance so that interest was charged on it from day one.

 

I don't think there is a template letter. If you look under my username you will find a thread where I took on Firstplus for some friends which might help.

[pompeyfaith]

Here you go have a look though these and yes print and send a few with your letter.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/ppi-media/

 

Regards

 

Pompeyfaith

[Von Greenbach]

Added to the initial loan balance so that interest was charged on it from day one

GL

 

I'm look at the CCA it has figures made up on it, it looks like it maybe front loaded

[Goldlady]

That's good for you and very bad for them:D

[Von Greenbach]

GL

 

I'm look at the CCA it has figures made up on it, it looks like it maybe front loaded

This may confirm if it's front loaded