rbs Ordinary Cause citation £15k unsecured loan and 1.5k overdraft - Glasgow **WON+COSTS**

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello SFU!

 

Sorry, use PM by all means, but my advice was to avoid trying to get advice that way directly. By all means use PMs to alert people.

 

HTH = Hope This Help!

 

HTH!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[seriously fed up]

it does :D:D

thanks

SFU

[leedoe]

By taking you to court and demanding re-payment in full surely that is classed as termination?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Leedoe!

 

By taking you to court and demanding re-payment in full surely that is classed as termination?

It sounds like it!

 

But do double check all of the issues, was the full demand asking for sums not yet due, did they Terminate/Cancel the Agreement via letter, did the Claim effectively Terminate the Agreement (almost certainly IMHO, but do read up and be as sure yourself) etc.

 

The thing to realise is Courts and the legal process is a bit fluffy, and if they can slide out of it, they will.

 

Your best way to nail them is to pin-point all of the key stages you need until you have as many ticks in the right boxes as possible so that you can stand up in front of a Judge and explain what they have done, and what it all means in relation to the Act and/or Statute.

 

You can't just say they cannot do this, or cannot do that without knowing why, and explaining why.

 

What you need to do is explain what s87 means, explain what they did and when, explain what the implications of that are in relation to s87, understand what is enforcement and what is not enforcement, what is Termination and what probably isn't Termination etc...

 

...and then present a conclusion to the Judge that you feel they have about as much chance of getting this off the ground, Your Honour, as a gaseous poop does in a Whirlwind.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[leedoe]

Hi all

received a termination letter today for both accounts,

it is dated 10th June.

 

The default notice was up on that same day have they terminated a day early?

[seriously fed up]

that's a toughy. I am really not sure.

The default notice will say that you should pay what they say is due by 10th june. I would have thought if you went along with the money on 10th June then you have fufilled the requirements of the default notice and they have no right to terminate. I mean, if you get a gas bill, it will say pay this amount by - lets say - 10th June and if you do that's fine. I cant see why this should be any different.

But the problem is - as BRW says - "The thing to realise is Courts and the legal process is a bit fluffy, and if they can slide out of it, they will.". So I suppose the danger is either that

 

1. they claim that by saying the default should be remedied by the 10th, if by 00.01 on the 10th you havent made good the default then they can issue a termination notice that same day
2. they claim its de minimis and the court agrees.
3.  

I think all you could do is wait for someone who really knows about default and termination notices to come along and hopefully disagree with me and confirm that they have terminated a day early, or argue this anyway.

Would this not be unlawful recission (recisission?) - but the consequence is that they can still claim what was due up till that date?

 

One other thing - have they defaulted you before. If so, have a look here at post 547 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm-28.html#post2954008

 

You might also have a look at this thread, and in particular post 657 by somene called Banker or something - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/170484-fairbyblue-mbna-restons-court-33.html

 

This suggests to me that

 

1. if they have defaulted you before and that was defective (and if it wasnt why another default notice?) then bringing the court action against you was effectively termination - as Banker observes in his post "they regard the account as terminated
2. if they havent defaulted you, then the proceedings they brought already still suggest termination, but this time without even a defective DN

[leedoe]

Thanks SFU i think i will have to try and find out why they are only coming after me,when both accounts are joint.Is this some loophole regarding the first DN where it was against me and my wife and now they are just trying to get judgement against me, so they think they can issue a new DN and disregard the first one.

[seriously fed up]

that might be another angle to look at in terms of whether the dn stands up. It doesnt seem reasonable to come after one signatory but not the other.

[leedoe]

Done abit of digging around they cannot issue another DN.It falls under the Data Protection Act ,a report from Carol Hufton from CAB , published in 99 by the Data Protection Registrar states " the re-recording of a default notice is not acceptable and is a breach of the 1st data protection principle".I decided to phone RBS today they refused to discuss anything and refered me to their solicitors,a bit strange since they gave me 7 days to respond to them on the 10th and this is only the 16th.So it looks like another court case for me!

[seriously fed up]

well that sounds good - ok no bad - to me.

If i were you i would firm up on the argument developed by Ms Hufton - CAB is just not a source of record - not to say that she is wrong, but i would look to get to the source - might even try Data Protection people.

New court case - a new court case is going to cost the bank still more (its not just the court case, lawyers dont work for nothing). If you can firm up as suggested above, and fire something off to them to show they have less chance than they had before, they might decide to cut their losses? Worth thinking about?

[leedoe]

Definetely, just waiting on letter or writ from sols