Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4967 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

Still soldiering on. In view of Bank 2 not replying to Equifax - it is now 7 weeks since Equifax asked the bank for info and haven't heard a peep out of them since - I have asked Equifax how long they give them to reply. I have also written to Experian and Callcredit telling them about the bank not replying to Equifax and suggestion that in view of this they too would want to seek clarification about the entries. Putting on more pressure. Eventually the bank have to take their corporate head out of the sand and stop behaving like ostriches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I certainly am Vint, leaning hard on the DCAs and going ahead with the legal stuff. I am going on holiday at the beginning of October for 2 weeks and I expect the real action to begin when I return. However, this is the first time that Bank 2 have shut up so there are the green shoots of a breakthrough there. That's why I am turning the pressure up on the CRAs. Until now Bank 2 have bluffed their way through but with the invalid defaults they must know their bluff has been called. I have the evidence - I think they destroyed their copies or did it on templates and don't have copies. It is going to stick in their throats to remove the defaults but they have no excuse not to. In Scots law you have to get them to remove the defaults first then claim damages in a separate action so that allows me to step the level of action against them up a notch when claiming for damages. Also, in a complaint I made to the FOS about them harrassing me for payment (nothing to do with the defaults) the Ombudsman replied to me that he had seen statements from both accounts. I didn't get any statements when I SAR'd them so either they have breached the DPA not giving me copies or they have lied to the FOS. I have written to tell the FOS this and their Review team is going to get in touch with me. If they have lied to the FOS they are in trouble there; if they have lied to me they are in trouble with the ICO. Either way it is a lose-lose situation for them. So onwards and upwards and the evidence on all fronts is building up nicely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly am Vint, leaning hard on the DCAs and going ahead with the legal stuff. I am going on holiday at the beginning of October for 2 weeks and I expect the real action to begin when I return. However, this is the first time that Bank 2 have shut up so there are the green shoots of a breakthrough there. That's why I am turning the pressure up on the CRAs. Until now Bank 2 have bluffed their way through but with the invalid defaults they must know their bluff has been called. I have the evidence - I think they destroyed their copies or did it on templates and don't have copies. It is going to stick in their throats to remove the defaults but they have no excuse not to. In Scots law you have to get them to remove the defaults first then claim damages in a separate action so that allows me to step the level of action against them up a notch when claiming for damages. Also, in a complaint I made to the FOS about them harrassing me for payment (nothing to do with the defaults) the Ombudsman replied to me that he had seen statements from both accounts. I didn't get any statements when I SAR'd them so either they have breached the DPA not giving me copies or they have lied to the FOS. I have written to tell the FOS this and their Review team is going to get in touch with me. If they have lied to the FOS they are in trouble there; if they have lied to me they are in trouble with the ICO. Either way it is a lose-lose situation for them. So onwards and upwards and the evidence on all fronts is building up nicely.

I will watch with interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!

 

Equifax emailed me today that in view of Bank 2's non-response to their enquiries, they have removed their entries from my credit reports. I have written to Experian and Callcredit telling them to get them off - if you get my drift!:lol:

 

A breakthrough, although they could still reply to Equifax and put them back on again. Somehow I doubt it. Rather than admit defeat, they simply didn't reply. Hooray!:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you everyone. I'll keep you all informed. It's a long, slow process and a question of keeping the pressure on. I wrote umpteen letters at the end of last week and the phone wires must be going but so far no replies. Once it is all over I'll do a chronological sequence of events for everyone to read.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it is all over I'll do a chronological sequence of events for everyone to read.

 

That would be excellent mate.

 

So far, over the last 2 years I have seen off all that have come after me. Been thinking of late that taking the fight to some of them would be worth it.

 

Be interested to see how you went about it, after all if it works, not much point in reinventing the wheel.

 

Cheers

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fellow CAGERS.:D

 

Well, progress and I have had to delay court action to allow that progress to filter through. The court expects you to do that and it will be in my favour that I have.

 

In April, my credit reports read 14 accounts and 6 defaults. :-(

 

Today it reads: CRA 1 - 8 Accounts and 1 default

CRA 2 - 10 accounts and 3 defaults

CRA 3 - 10 accounts and 3 defaults

 

Bank 2 as you will recall has 2 defaults. CRA 2 has not replied to my letter informing them that CRA 1 has removed the entries and CRA 3 says that CRA 1 has probably only hidden them from the archive. Not so - they have been deleted. So more ammunition for me in court - why did Bank 2 not reply to CRA 1 when they asked them for confirmation of the defaults?

 

Bank 3 will not remove them - it's the 1 default left on my reports with CRA1.

 

So, I have had to re- tweak the court cases yet again! The new court lodgement date will be on 19 October as I am going on holiday before then and I want a clear run at it when I return - should fill up my Winter nights!:lol:

 

So, court cases are now:

 

Bank 2 - 2 defaults - 2 cases for default removal and damages

Bank 3 - 1 default - 1 case for default removal and damages

DCA - 1 case for damages (default removed)

Bank that passed debt to DCA - 1 case for repayment of money.

 

The cases are all prepared - again! - and I will keep you all posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear - Experian has the jitters again!:eek: A letter from the Director's Office to say that Bank 2 told them their 2 entries on my reports were correct. Now, that strikes me as very odd. They told Experian one thing on 30 June and told Equifax the exact opposite the very next day. Mmmm. :rolleyes: Bank 2 clearly don't know their ar*e from their elbow, poor souls. I wonder what the court will make of that?? :grin: Choices. I can either go easy on Experian and the other CRAs and not spoil the beginning of next week for them - or I can do a bit of screw turning. The rack is out as we speak!!:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

glad i found this thread

 

situation to ponder

 

if a default notice is invalid for what ever reason

not laid out in the correct format

time limit, etc etc

 

the creditor then goes on to trash your credit file

 

now being the default is crap. the creditor can only then claim the arrears if at court stage

 

CAN THE DEFENDANT PUT IN A CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO CREDIT FILE, BEING UNLAWFULlY DEFAULTED

 

IME TALKING £1000 DAMAGES PLUS VALUE OF THE DEFAULT

 

THE WOOLWICH JUDGEMENT IME QUOTING ON THIS

 

mightbat least get the creditor to withdraw or agree removel of any default

 

just shooting from the hip on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

As AA99 said Saturday does NOT Count.

Here's some info on postal dates.

 

Quote:

1. Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

This states:-

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

 

 

Gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4967 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...