Is this Amex application enforeceable

[Elgrand]

CR*P, CR*P and more CR*P!!! The default notice needs to give a specific day to rectify by, not just 14 calender days. Let them terminate on this DN and they are stuffed:lol:

 

Let's hope so:D

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Elgrand!

 

The Date of Posting on that Envelope is very useful, as the Legal Date of Service is based on that, not on when you happened to receive it.

 

So, if Posted on Thursday 2nd April 2009 that then gives you a Legal Date of Service of +2 Working Days if they Posted via 1st Class Post (Monday 6th April 2009), or +4 Working Days if Posted via 2nd Class Post or worse such as TNT Business Post (Wednesday 8th April 2009...Today )!

 

However you look at it, they have not given you 14 Clear Days to remedy the alleged default.

 

Note it is 14 Clear Days, not Working Days. Think of that as 14 Calendar Days, but the Days must be whole and complete. So, they have to start the day after you get the Default Notice. Thus, Day 1 of 14 does not start on the Day that you get the Notice.

 

Thus, assuming the Date of Service was Monday 6th April 2009 (1st Class Post), then the Statutory 14 Clear Day Deadline would be Monday 20th April 2009.

 

However, their Default Notice says:

 

...fourteen calendar days from the date of this Default Notice.

 

The Notice was Dated 1st April 2009, so 14 Calendar Days from that makes an Amex Deadline of somewhere between 14th April and the 15th April, depending on when the reader feels the clock starts ticking.

 

Note that Amex do not even say 14 Clear Calendar Days, so I think it would be reasonable to assume they mean the clock starts ticking from the Date of the Notice!

 

Thus, it is potentially defective even if hand delivered on the 1st April (April Fools Day) because 14 Days from the 1st gives you an Amex Deadline of the 14th April. But it certainly became defective the moment they stuck it in an Envelope and elected to Post it. Indeed, they even delayed Posting it until the 2nd April. Obviously, Amex do not care about the 14 Clear Days that Parliament require must be allowed.

 

Right, your job now is to hold on to that Default Notice and hold on to that Envelope, and then sit back and wait for Amex to Terminate/Cancel the Account. Once that stage has been reached, they cannot then scamper back to fix the defective Default Notice.

 

Amex probably won't anyway, as they have issued so many of these dubious Default Notices that they appear to have adopted the attitude that they are all valid. Thus, in their arrogant minds, to edit just one would be to admit they are all invalid. So, for now, Amex are sticking with the same format in the hope they'll be able to bullsh*t pliable Judges, or hit the bullseye by getting mostly pro-bank Judges when these Default Notices are questioned.

 

Note they are saying you are in default of the Agreement, so this is clearly a default situation. Amex will usually send a Termination letter that will say they will then report this to the Credit Reference Agencies, further confirming that the Termination was carried out whilst the Agreement was in default and Terminated whilst in default.

 

In a defaut situation, they must follow s87/s88 if they wish to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Elgrand]

Hi BRW,

 

Thank you for your comprehensive and detailed post.

 

I got lucky with the envelope on this occasion as they actually date stamped it, not just the usual orange bar coding.

 

I will sit back and wait patiently for the termination notice and post that up once they have done so.

 

Good luck with your case and i hope everything is going to plan for you.

 

Cheers

Elg.

[Elgrand]

Just received another letter from Amex, rather confusing?

 

I had a read of the section mentioned, but don't understand what this means?

 

The sums in this letter are three times as much and I do not know how they have come to that figure?

 

If anyone could please explain.

 

Thanks again.

 

[Elgrand]

This is what the section 86 E say's

 

12 Notice of default sums

 

After section 86D of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 11 of this Act) insert—

“86E Notice of default sums

 

(1) This section applies where a default sum becomes payable under a regulated agreement by the debtor or hirer.

(2) The creditor or owner shall, within the prescribed period after the default sum becomes payable, give the debtor or hirer a notice under this section.

(3) The notice under this section may be incorporated in a statement or other notice which the creditor or owner gives the debtor or hirer in relation to the agreement by virtue of another provision of this Act.

(4) The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay interest in connection with the default sum to the extent that the interest is calculated by reference to a period occurring before the 29th day after the day on which the debtor or hirer is given the notice under this section.

(5) If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer.

(6) The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of the notice under this section.

(7) Regulations may—

(a) provide that this section does not apply in relation to a default sum which is less than a prescribed amount;

(b) make provision about the form and content of notices under this section.

( This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.”

 

Thanks Elg.

[Elgrand]

Got a postcard from RMA this morning and they have just backed it up with a phone call.

 

Caught me off guard really and I had a little conversation with them.

 

They claimed they were acting on behalf of Amex and I said i would like a letter to confirm and politely hung up.

 

Does this mean they have sold the account, it's getting a little confusing now, as no termination notice and that odd letter posted earlier.

 

Any thoughts most welcome.

[the_shadow]

Got a postcard from RMA this morning and they have just backed it up with a phone call.

 

Caught me off guard really and I had a little conversation with them.

 

They claimed they were acting on behalf of Amex and I said i would like a letter to confirm and politely hung up.

 

Does this mean they have sold the account, it's getting a little confusing now, as no termination notice and that odd letter posted earlier.

 

Any thoughts most welcome.

 

If they are acting on BEHALF of Amex then its been assigned to them but not sold.

 

S.

[Elgrand]

Hi Shadow.

 

They should have a letter of assignment then, I will write to them asking for it.

 

I was waiting for Amex to terminate, but perhaps that's a little way off.

 

Do you have any thoughts on that last letter, I've been searching round for something similar on the site, but no luck yet?

 

Thanks Elg.

[the_shadow]

Hi Shadow.

 

They should have a letter of assignment then, I will write to them asking for it.

 

I was waiting for Amex to terminate, but perhaps that's a little way off.

 

Do you have any thoughts on that last letter, I've been searching round for something similar on the site, but no luck yet?

 

Thanks Elg.

 

If you mean the one from Amex, cca2006 regs required when you are charged default sums, i.e. when you've failed to make a payment and they charge you for them to send a letter stating this. Just file with the rest of the paper confetti

 

S.

[Desperate Daniella]

I think they are acting on BEHALF of Amex too.

 

I told them I was still waiting for answers from Amex and they said they would go back to them.

 

DD

[Elgrand]

Thanks S.

 

Yes I did mean that one.

 

I've left you some rep, I always appreciate yours and everyone else's time help and great advice.

 

Elg.

[the_shadow]

Thanks S.

 

Yes I did mean that one.

 

I've left you some rep, I always appreciate yours and everyone else's time help and great advice.

 

Elg.

 

Cheers, happy to help if I can... we're all in the same boat and still bailing

 

S.

[Elgrand]

I think they are acting on BEHALF of Amex too.

 

I told them I was still waiting for answers from Amex and they said they would go back to them.

 

DD

I'll send the letter to RMA asking for the NOA and then I think i'll send another SAR to Amex and maybe come back with some developments

 

Elg.

[the_shadow]

I'll send the letter to RMA asking for the NOA and then I think i'll send another SAR to Amex and maybe come back with some developments

 

Elg.

 

sounds good to me.

 

S.

[Elgrand]

I've just got some extra info on top of what they sent me in the SAR and have scanned up what they say were the original T&C's at the time.

 

A couple of things

 

The way these are set out would indicate a leaflet trifold of some sort.

 

On the first one you can see set out in three columns, where it says Conditions - Gold, thats the first part, on the same page, they have the last part, the second page, when opened out would be the entire middle of the leaflet, so i don't believe these could possibly have been on the back of the application.

 

The original credit limit was 9,500 and changed immediatley to 11,700.

The examples in paragraph 9 do not have an apr for those limits.

 

If anyone wants a closer look at the paragraphs, they have sent me a seperate A4 sheet detailing each one with better clarity.

 

 

[Elgrand]

On 1st May i sent amex a request under CPR 31.16 because i want to know if they have anything different from the application form they have sent in the CCA and SAR requests. Signed for today 05th.

 

I hope i am correct in thinking the idea behind this is to exhaust all avenues, give them plenty of time and then push on for the court to demand that they comply with my request or admit they do not hold an original compliant agreement, thus giving me a much clearer idea of what they actually do have in the event of proceedings being started against me.

 

So far they have sent me an application (twice) without any prescribed terms on the application or even implied they are on the application, they have in a letter admitted they no longer hold the original terms in their system.

 

The prescibed terms they have sent do not have an example that relates to my original credit limit either.

 

Now i sent this on the 1st and today i received this letter from Westministers.

 

I have had no letters of assignment from amex stating that RMA or anyone else has any right to be contacting me.

 

Do i respond to Westministers, stating my CPR request or that the account is in dispute?

 

Any thoughts most welcome.

 

[Desperate Daniella]

I'd reply and say both, and on what basis can they start legal proceedings when they haven't supplied a copy of the original agreement despite months of asking for it?

 

I'm always somewhat bemused by these "solicitor's letters" which ask you to reply to someone else - in this case RMA.

 

You asked RMA for the NOA, I think, and I should point that out to Westminsters too. I always write to one and copy the other - your choice which way round.

 

I haven't come across Westminsters on any of my threads. Let's have a look and see what they usually get up to.

 

DD

[macmiddle]

Hi

 

Ive had lots of dealings with Westministers, they seem to love Statutory Demands.

 

They sent me a SD a few months ago for a MBNA debt, i then applied to get it set aside ( no valid cca ) and once a hearing date was given Westministers sent me a letter saying they have withdrawn it. I still went to the hearing and claimed in excess of £500 costs against the idiots. They didnt turn up.

 

I had similar letters to yours before they issued the SD.

 

I would nt worry too much about them, if you fancy a laugh give them a ring, they always sound stressed out and overworked and never have the paperwork to hand.

 

Hope everythin goes well

[macmiddle]

Oh and when i recieved the SD from westministers it was sent from RMAs postcode.

 

Obviously the same company or closely linked

[smouk]

The stroppy letter I received from Cope's actually came from Newman & Co in Leeds so this seems to be common practice - nasty, cheap Sol rents out letterhead to pokey DCA.

 

The Palace of Westminster might have a thing or two to say about that letterhead though!

[Elgrand]

Just got a reply from Amex to my CPR 31.16 request and they have just referenced it as a letter.

 

I'll post up what appears to me to be a termination although they state Cancelled?? Hopefully someone can clarify that.

 

 

Any comments most welcome

Elg

[Elgrand]

Hi

 

Ive had lots of dealings with Westministers, they seem to love Statutory Demands.

Waiting for that one now!

 

Oh and when i recieved the SD from westministers it was sent from RMAs postcode.

 

Obviously the same company or closely linked

The stroppy letter I received from Cope's actually came from Newman & Co in Leeds so this seems to be common practice - nasty, cheap Sol rents out letterhead to pokey DCA.

Thanks for forewarning me macmiddle and smouk, both my letters to Westminsters and RMA were received in preston.

 

Elg

[Elgrand]

I'd reply and say both, and on what basis can they start legal proceedings when they haven't supplied a copy of the original agreement despite months of asking for it?

 

I'm always somewhat bemused by these "solicitor's letters" which ask you to reply to someone else - in this case RMA.

 

You asked RMA for the NOA, I think, and I should point that out to Westminsters too. I always write to one and copy the other - your choice which way round.

 

I haven't come across Westminsters on any of my threads. Let's have a look and see what they usually get up to.

 

DD

Totally agree, wrote to both and to date have not heard back.

I guess now Amex have Frederickson International as their external collection agency on the case, i'll be hearing from them next.

 

I sent off for another SAR but have been told by Amex that we are not obliged to supply the same data in succession and have returned my £10 postal order.

 

They do however comment that they would supply any additional data free of charge if i specify what it is i require.

 

Elg.

[smouk]

Just to recap then: Duff CCA, duff DN, no formal cancellation, and a DCA chasing the full amount?

 

The Amex SAR response is gonads.

 

DPA guidance

 

Data controllers do not need to comply with a request where they have already complied with an identical or similar request by the same individual unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request. In deciding what amounts to a reasonable interval, the following factors should be considered:

 

the nature of the data;

 

the purpose for which the data are processed; and

 

the frequency with which the data are altered.

 

They should state their position and then you might add to their headache by pointing out that CPR and SAR are a wee bit different. 'No charge' can potentially bypass the consequences of a DPA-based request.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if they actually have a designated 'Data Controller'.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Elgrand!

 

I'll post up what appears to me to be a termination although they state Cancelled?? Hopefully someone can clarify that.

 

The letter seems to confirm they regard the Agreement as Terminated/Cancelled. It doesn't matter which word, it is the meaning that matters, so Dead/Ended/Terminated/Cancelled, all will do fine.

 

I suspect there would've been an earlier letter proudly telling you the nasty Agreement/Account had been cancelled, so it would be useful to find that. Have a hunt at home, and failing that, send Amex another SAR. Or, send them a SAR if you have not already done so...if in mid battle with them, it is worth sending them a regular SAR to see what else they have been saying or doing, as you never know what else they may let slip.

 

Different staff are likely to handle the different S.A.R.s so one may be keener than another, or may include something Amex would rather they hadn't included!

 

Cheers,

BRW