Jump to content


Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4697 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

Well the Default is almost certainly wrong with respect to the "14 days"

 

It's also wrong in the amount of arrears demanded. They can't demand as arrears on 19th June money which is due for payment in the future on 29th June.

 

That only leaves amounts which are arrears from the previous month i.e. £275.80 which was outstanding for payment. Anything else was not yet arrears. Problem, is that £140 was cleared on 18th June. Which brought the existing arrears down to £135 odd pounds.

 

This puts the arrears demanded in the Default Notice as being well over 100% greater than the actual arrears - and bang into the middle of 'Woodchester & Swayne territory.

Edited by shakespeare62

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for your comments folks. The 14 days notice period is yet another issue and one which will effect people across the board - so it's more important from that point of view.

 

I'll use both.

 

All comments welcomed.

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

was it 14 days when it was issued in 2007- or was it 7??

 

not sure when it changed

 

BRW found this for me, so 19th December 2006.

 

http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Consumer%20Credit%20%28Enforcement,%20Default%20and%20Termination%20Notices%29%20Regulations%201983.pdf

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

was it 14 days when it was issued in 2007- or was it 7??

 

not sure when it changed

 

Hi DD,

 

In short the answer is yes. In more detail :-

 

The 14 day change for Default Notices came into effect on 1st October 2006. This was for Schedule 2 the Consumer Credit Act 2006 Amendments to the CCA 1974. See the link below and scroll down to Schedule 2 :-

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/uksi_20061508_en.pdf

 

The actual text in the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is below :-

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14)

 

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (No. 3094) says the change from 7 to 14 comes into effect on 19 December 2006 :-

 

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

 

Basically the primary legislation (The Consumer Credit Act) will take precedence over the Regulations. So the change over date of 1st Oct. 2006 will apply if there is any doubt.

Edited by shakespeare62

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi S62

 

Apologies for jumping into your thread but I know Diddy & Donkey are often looking in and me being a lazy sod..........

 

Anyway...... can anyone assist over on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/254690-aib-visa-card-applied.html#post2886697 and take a look at AIB's application for summary judgement.

 

Reams of claim form but no real content - never had to defend an SJ myself so other than advising the OP to turn up theres not much more I can offer with regard to process.

 

Thanks

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

He did state in a letter to me, afterwards though, that it was not possible to forensically date the report or the handwriting.

 

So, in short, you can send a CCA request, get some unenforceable document in response, jump through a whole bunch of hoops in court and in the end they can forge your signature on a copy of an enforceable agreement and you can't forensically proove it. Looks like game over for the 'uneforceable CCA due to lack of prescibed terms' argument. Bum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello MSR!

 

Looks like game over for the 'uneforceable CCA due to lack of prescibed terms' argument. Bum.

 

Not really. The risk of getting caught is still high. Many have copies of the thing, and can prove what it did look like, so they can only play this game so far.

 

There's still something very fishy about these new Arsemex Agreements, but the truth is hard to pin down. Not impossible.

 

I think the issue here has only served to show how bad the position is, so it has done the hostile grasping arrogant foreign bank who shall remain nameless, no favours at all.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence received strongly strongly suggests that there may be a high level of "LODGE_ACTIVITY" to come and much "LINE_DRAWING".

 

I can make no further comment on that.

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received this letter from 'pishcon a few days ago.

 

Anyone read the story of Troy ?

 

I served the following reply on them today - see attached doc.

Pishcon 4 May 2010.doc

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Cause Ime On Office10 ? But Ive Read The Letter From Them Via The Photobuck Image To You If That Is What Your Refering To ..

 

Aahh

 

 

Posted by patrickq1 at 22.07

 

Ok Dude...wish I Could Help..like Clutchin At Straws Of The Ex Witness Report..ime Reminded That I Would Have Thought An Expert Wit In Handwriting And Documents Would Be More Capable Over Even Doing Tests Such As Ink Tests And Variations Etc...so I Would Be Extremely Dissapointed With The Reports As I Am Already..

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ime Daft Enough To Send The Doc To Fbi Lol And Ask Their Opinion ,,but Thats Me Typcle

 

 

Posted by patrickq1 at 22.17

Thanks Shaky Lol Got It Now Yes Ime On Office 10 It Wont Read Lesser Docs...

 

ooops sorry shaky ...

Edited by patrickq1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Opened perfectly for me. I personally hope you come out of all this winning. Mitts crossed!

 

Michael.

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Shaky Lol Got It Now Yes Ime On Office 10 It Wont Read Lesser Docs...

 

Because it'ss a jpeg image Patrick you just need an image viewer such as Windows Photo Gallery to open it which should be pre-installed.

 

Anyway, you've done it now!! :D

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...