Invalid Default Notices

[beyondhope]

its up to you but yes- once they get your acceptance of their unlawful repudiation they are well and truly stuffed

 

the DN itself was an unlawful rescission let alone the TN

 

Thank you I think I will pass it to fos anyway as a way of costing them £500

[diddydicky]

Thank you I think I will pass it to fos anyway as a way of costing them £500

 

bitch!

[diddydicky]

[beyondhope]

bitch!

 

 

How the hell you know my middle name

[diddydicky]

i took 5 years to find my mrs right..............................

 

if only i'd known then that her first name was always........

[beyondhope]

i took 5 years to find my mrs right..............................

 

if only i'd known then that her first name was always........

 

 

OMG how the hell didnt I realise you were my hubby You should be sorting ya own HP agreement with all this knowledge not getting me to do it

 

And on that note Im off immobiliser shopping before I actually let my head hit the pillow Thank you again there is another on the welcome forum who has *i think* received pretty much identical docs so I shall send him over here

 

Thank you

[the_shadow]

The "Without Predujice" marked on the termination letter would not stand up in court imo, its clearly not a genuine settlement offer or part of negotiations for that goal. Why put it on a termination letter when they will need that letter at some point in the future if it does go to court... bizzare?

 

S.

[exchange]

The "Without Predujice" marked on the termination letter would not stand up in court imo, its clearly not a genuine settlement offer or part of negotiations for that goal. Why put it on a termination letter when they will need that letter at some point in the future if it does go to court... bizzare?

 

S.

 

Could it be that they don't know what they are doing?

[lickthewallfatboy]

does unlawful termination thingy still apply when it's done while in default of a CCA request?

 

*Crosses fingers*

[Undercover-Elsa]

Unfortunately the McGuffick case messed up the interpretation of enforcement. Here's the OFT's new stance:

What if the lender does not comply with the request?

Your lender must provide you with the information within 12 working days of receiving your request. After the 12 days are up, if the lender has not provided the information then the agreement is unenforceable until they do provide the information.

 

'Unenforceable' does not mean that your debt is wiped out. Any outstanding debt is still owed, but there are some consequences for the lender’s ability to enforce the debt.

If you do not make payments when your debt is 'unenforceable' it means that:

 

 

Your lender cannot

• demand earlier payments of your debt

  
  
  

• threaten court action

  
  
  

• take possession of anything that you bought on credit, or which you used as security when you took out the agreement.

  
  

Your lender can

 

 

 

• request payment from you
  
• issue a default notice
  

• pass details of your default to a credit reference agency

  
  

• pass your information onto a debt collector

  
  

 

 

So it seems they can issue a default notice for arrears due, whilst in default of a CCA request, but CANNOT then follow it through with a demand for the full balance of money not yet due under the agreement. Ridiculous.

How long did the DN give you to rectify, LTWFB? Is all the prescribed wording correct?

Elsa x

Edited February 17, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa
Tidying up :-)

[Undercover-Elsa]

For those who haven't seen the new guidelines:

Well named. Con.

OFT1175con.pdf

[emandcole]

These guidelines are very interesting but reading through it I was pleased to read the following:

 

Where there has been a variation of the terms and conditions of the

agreement

2.27 Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1)

of the Act, the OFT considers that, by virtue of Regulation 7 of the

Copies of Documents Regulations, the duty is to provide not only a copy

of the agreement as originally executed but also either

 

14 There are cases where no executed agreement is required by the Act, for example, certain bank overdrafts.

 

15 Section 127(3) continues to apply to agreements made before 6 April 2007.

 

• a copy of the latest variation given in accordance with section 82(1)

of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has

been varied, or

 

• a clear statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in

accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

2.28 Although some creditors have apparently considered it is sufficient to

provide a copy of the current terms and conditions (that is, 'a statement

of the terms of the agreement as varied'), that does not comply with the

requirements of Regulation 7. In Carey v HSBC Bank plc16 there was

detailed analysis of this issue and it was confirmed that 'include' meant

that the documents showing the variations were to be supplied in

addition to a copy of the original agreement.

 

Given the fact that in all of the CCA requests I have made the creditor has only provided the original and the current T&C's on one occasion this is an important section to stay aware of and the fact we can fall on Carey v HSBC is very useful.

 

As credit card companies were effectively forced to reduce their charges to no more than £12 to avoid any OFT investigation anyone who has a credit card account that was opened before this change was made (2008 ish?) would need to have the T&C's applicable when the account was opened as well as the newer T&C's that reflect the new charging structure. If there were more differences unilaterally made since then they'd also need a current set of T&C's applicable today.

 

Basically the older the agreement/application/napkin the better, same as it's always been, but in addition we have a right to receive a full set of T&C's that document the historical changes to the account. Pretty useful.

[The GodMother]

just cause the oft have a new stance on things it does not make them correct.

 

the law is still the law.

[lickthewallfatboy]

as regards the default notice,they already defaulted the account years ago and of course can't do it twice.

[SHELBELLE]

if the DN is invalid then they cannot take "the next step" since onlythe failure to remedy a VALID DN can give them that benefit

 

 

Thanks DD

 

I have taken the liberty of sending you a PM.

 

I hope you can help and don't mind.

 

Thanks

 

S.B.

[middenmess]

The OFT guidelines are headed as draft guidelines so presumably there will be further tweaks before they become the 'Official OFT Guidelines'

 

Are guidelines any more than guidelines---are they legally binding?

[nks22]

I think they (some?) may be binding if the organisation has agreed to honour them.

[Guest suziedarkness]

This is a very interesting post and I was wondering if anyone can help me with this, If a HP agreement was terminated following an obviously dodgy DN and a court case came and went, can you ressurect (sorry cant spell) this and go after HP company?

 

SD

[haggis1984]

This is a very interesting post and I was wondering if anyone can help me with this, If a HP agreement was terminated following an obviously dodgy DN and a court case came and went, can you ressurect (sorry cant spell) this and go after HP company?

 

SD

 

If the case went undefended in the first place (with good reason ie. defendant didnt recieve the court papers) and judgement was obtained by default you may be able to get a set aside with the dodgy DN as your proposed defence.

[Guest suziedarkness]

Thanks Haggis, unfortunately, its not quite that simple.

 

SD

[diddydicky]

as regards the default notice,they already defaulted the account years ago and of course can't do it twice.

 

they can if you havent accepted an unlawful rescission and/or continued making payments

[lickthewallfatboy]

according to the OFT a default can only be placed against an account once

 

The account was defaulted a few years back

 

Or is that just me reading it wrong?

 

We have accepted the "unlawful recision" of the account on this occasion

[haggis1984]

Thanks Haggis, unfortunately, its not quite that simple.

 

SD

 

No probs. Unfortunately if its not simple im probably the wrong person to be offering advice!

[diddydicky]

according to the OFT a default can only be placed against an account once

 

The account was defaulted a few years back

 

Or is that just me reading it wrong?

 

We have accepted the "unlawful recision" of the account on this occasion

 

sorry i was referring to issuing of DN's not cra files

[InformedSearcher]

WCF are swift as I think we all know. They are also cunning that they will be after getting the car. How much of the actual costs has been paid though? I would think for this amount they will go wizzing to the County Court.

 

Michael