Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
  • 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

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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 it's here:

 

 

87

.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "

default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by

reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as

terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

If the DN is not in the prescribed form, they cannot legally go on to do any of the above.

 

Hi Vint, Is a person having a current account overdraft, a debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement as far as 87:1 is concerned? If so, then a dodgy DN may still be a valuable document as it would appear that , even though the bank can withdraw the overdraft facility at any time, (they can do so because its written in the agreement). therefore having removed the facility they ask for the balance to be repaid, failing which, they issue a DN. They havent terminated the account, they have just removed the overdraft facility. Asking for the money back by issueing a dodgy DN.

 

Its confusing where overdrafts are concerned, easy when its hire purchase. Any chance of examining the position regarding overdrafts?

 

I couldn't agree more! There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer on CAG re dodgy DN's on OD's - I've got one at the moment, and I'm having to keep quiet as I haven't got any evidence to use to catagorically state "it's dodgy". The problem comes that they could possibly just reissue another, as they haven't terminated?

Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

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

The main advantage to be gained from a faulty DN is that the bank can only claim the arrears up to the point of termination. Obviously with loans and cards there will be an amount not yet due under the agreement, and only by issuing a valid dn do they have the right to demand this in advance. An overdraft, however, is payable IN FULL, on demand, subject to notice. Therefore, as far as I am aware, the only benefit of a faulty DN on an overdraft is the possibility of making a counterclaim for damages on the basis of unlawful rescission of contract. The full amount of the od would still be owed (less any amount awarded in a counterclaim) as there are no arrears as such or future instalments..... in contrast to the case of a running or fixed term credit account, where they would lose the right to claim sums not yet due if the dn is faulty.

Just my opinion..see what others think.

Elsa x

Edited by Undercover-Elsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's been raised before but please enlighten me.

 

If a DN is issued for an account, can the OC at a latter date issue another DN with larger arrears say a year latter?

I would have said no as the first DN notice is basically saying if you do not pay us £ by we are entitled to do the following. Now providing the DN is valid they are perfectly in their right to do what they say they want to. In issuing another DN haven't they just gone back on their first? The only time I would imagine 2 DN's getting issued are if the first was satisfied and the creditor then defaults again.

 

Thanks

 

Pumpytums

It will depend Pummpytums, if the account is closed or terminated following a DN, then no they cannot reissue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Vint, this is a real help.

 

So, under s87(1)(b), a dodgy DN excludes the right to claim the full amount, leaving just the amount claimed as arrears on the DN? That makes sense - the arrears being "late payment" and not "early payment".

 

Once the agreement is terminated or the ballance claimed in full.

 

So, to then get the default de-registered, that would mean an action of some description, assuming the CCC isn't interested in helping. I guess that could be either a counter claim in defence of an action started by the creditor, or an action started by the debtor.

 

You could try arguing with the CRA's that the DN is faulty and inaccurate information, therefore they are not allowed to process and have a duty of care to check.

 

You don't sound too enthusiastic about the latter, but what might the pitfalls be? Is part of the problem (or in fact all of the problem) trying to argue that there has been no default, when clearly there has been?

 

It is far better to negotiate than to litigate. If the CRA's are made aware of the possible fimne involved.

 

Is the only real way to do it to use the defective/unlawful agreement argument and not a flaw in the DN?

 

Using the agreement will be a long track. Search for a thread started by surleybonds recarding CRA's and data removal. There has also been discussion here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/222663-cras-ocs-credit-ref.html

 

Or is there something else I could do or argue?

 

Hope you've got time for this - your opinions are v. helpful and I'm sure not just for me !!

 

Cheers

LA

Vint
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's here:

 

 

87

.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "

default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by

reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as

terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

If the DN is not in the prescribed form, they cannot legally go on to do any of the above.

 

Hi Vint, Is a person having a current account overdraft, a debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement as far as 87:1 is concerned? If so, then a dodgy DN may still be a valuable document as it would appear that , even though the bank can withdraw the overdraft facility at any time, (they can do so because its written in the agreement). therefore having removed the facility they ask for the balance to be repaid, failing which, they issue a DN. They havent terminated the account, they have just removed the overdraft facility. Asking for the money back by issueing a dodgy DN.

 

Its confusing where overdrafts are concerned, easy when its hire purchase. Any chance of examining the position regarding overdrafts?

It depends on the overdraft. Most are not covered fully by the CCA, but some are where they may be linked to a Mortgage or other type of Loan, such as a One Acount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more! There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer on CAG re dodgy DN's on OD's - I've got one at the moment, and I'm having to keep quiet as I haven't got any evidence to use to catagorically state "it's dodgy". The problem comes that they could possibly just reissue another, as they haven't terminated?

If they have issued the DN under s87(1) of the CCA, then they obviously think that it comes under the act, so it must comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a DN served under sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974 for an overdraft on a current account demanding payment of the total amount oustanding. DN was issued in December 07 with, I think, incorrect complaince dates, issued 17/12/2007 [monday], received 20/12/2007[thursday](no envelope retained!) and "pay by date" of 07/01/2008 [monday], so effectual "pay by date" would be friday 04/01/2008? {christmas and boxing days were Tuesday/Wednesday, and new years day tuesday}

Could some one check these dates please?

Are the sections quoted correct?

When is account deemed to be closed or terminated?

I have not received any statement or notice in compliance of CCA 1974 in respect of failure to make required payments.

Any thoughts 0r advice would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi vint1954

 

just a quick one this. I have recently been to court and stopped a charging order in its tracks by citing a dodgy DN. The lender took the case to court and effectively terminated the agreement. I have always paid to my various loans using a third party management company, but they still took me to court. I have 2 questions;

 

1. Should I still be paying the loans I am disputing?

2. Should I send a letter of Unlawful recission of contract to the lender who recently took me to court?

 

Many Thanks for your help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi vint1954

 

just a quick one this. I have recently been to court and stopped a charging order in its tracks by citing a dodgy DN. The lender took the case to court and effectively terminated the agreement. I have always paid to my various loans using a third party management company, but they still took me to court. I have 2 questions;

 

1. Should I still be paying the loans I am disputing?

 

That depends on the judgement that the court made. You must pay if they have said so.

 

2. Should I send a letter of Unlawful recission of contract to the lender who recently took me to court?

 

May be too late now, but more details are required.

 

Many Thanks for your help!

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone help me with a letter on this specific issue?

 

It's to a well known DCA (rhymes with carrot) who are demanding a response by tomorrow or else their claim becomes a trial:

 

Thank you for your letters dated xx/04/10.

In response, I would point out that, as this matter relates to a Consumer Credit Agreement, made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, that Act ('The Act') and regulations made under it are the primary legislation pertaining to the case, and not the Law of Property Act, which you have previously cited..

Under s.189 of The Act, it is clearly stated that you are The Creditor, as the person or persons to whom the rights and duties of the agreement have passed by assignment.

As previously stated, the Original Creditor issued a Default Notice which was not compliant with s.88(2) of The Act, in that it did not allow sufficient time to remedy the alleged Breach of the agreement. The subsequent termination of the agreement, by means of its assignment to a third party (ie. yourselves) thus represented an unlawful rescission of the agreement, as made clear by s.87 of The Act.

The original creditor had no lawful right to claim any sums other than the arrears stated on the Default Notice.

 

It's at this point I get a bit stuck for eloquence.[/font]

Edited by Yog sothoth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vint

 

Many thanks for your help with all this - truly useful advice.

 

Did anyone else notice that no-one raised the question of invalid default notices at last night's leadership debate? We had foreign affairs, Trident and the Pope instead - what a waste!

 

 

:grin::grin::grin:

 

LA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a DN from the co-op dated 11/02/09 giving me until the 25/02/09 to rectify also a letter dated 11/02/09 terminating the account.I have had the account with a solicitor since july 09 regarding the cca as all I had was a screen print of the front of the doc.The co-op have now sent the solicitor a copy of the terms and conditions that they say are on the back of the doc the solicitor has now dropped the case as he says they dont have to produce the original in court. a copy will do, so it will be enforceable.I am now left with the DN and dont know what to do next I have a DCA keep phoning me and up to now I have told them to deal with my solicitor.Anybody any idea what I should do next regarding the DN as it seems its the only leg I have left to stand on should I write to the DCA or co-op.Anybody.Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone help me with a letter on this specific issue?

 

It's to a well known DCA (rhymes with carrot) who are demanding a response by tomorrow or else their claim becomes a trial:

 

Thank you for your letters dated xx/04/10.

In response, I would point out that, as this matter relates to a Consumer Credit Agreement, made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, that Act ('The Act') and regulations made under it are the primary legislation pertaining to the case, and not the Law of Property Act, which you have previously cited..

Under s.189 of The Act, it is clearly stated that you are The Creditor, as the person or persons to whom the rights and duties of the agreement have passed by assignment.

As previously stated, the Original Creditor issued a Default Notice which was not compliant with s.88(2) of The Act, in that it did not allow sufficient time to remedy the alleged Breach of the agreement. The subsequent termination of the agreement, by means of its assignment to a third party (ie. yourselves) thus represented an unlawful rescission of the agreement, as made clear by s.87 of The Act.

[/font]

 

Any good?

 

"Obviously, I cannot stop you instituting legal proceedings against me, but I am sure there are other cases where you will have a much better chance of winning."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone help me with a letter on this specific issue?

 

It's to a well known DCA (rhymes with carrot) who are demanding a response by tomorrow or else their claim becomes a trial:

 

Thank you for your letters dated xx/04/10.

In response, I would point out that, as this matter relates to a Consumer Credit Agreement, made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, that Act ('The Act') and regulations made under it are the primary legislation pertaining to the case, and not the Law of Property Act, which you have previously cited..

Under s.189 of The Act, it is clearly stated that you are The Creditor, as the person or persons to whom the rights and duties of the agreement have passed by assignment.

As previously stated, the Original Creditor issued a Default Notice which was not compliant with s.88(2) of The Act, in that it did not allow sufficient time to remedy the alleged Breach of the agreement. The subsequent termination of the agreement, by means of its assignment to a third party (ie. yourselves) thus represented an unlawful rescission of the agreement, as made clear by s.87 of The Act.

[/font]

 

"Obviously, I cannot stop you instituting legal proceedings against me, but I am sure there are other cases where you will have a much better chance of winning."

 

Any good?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody any idea what I should do next regarding the DN as it seems its the only leg I have left to stand on should I write to the DCA or co-op.
It's a good leg (and one many of us are standing on). If they've terminated you should write to accept unlawful recission.

 

How about a company that terminates your agreement BEFORE it issues a default notice?!
The same as after an invalid DN. The absence of a DN is no different to an invalid one. The only problem is that if they claim to have issued a valid DN you won't have the evidence to prove otherwise.
Link to post
Share on other sites

... unless they have a clause in the T&Cs that allows them to terminate at any time. Egg have done this most famously, with people whose accounts were being run perfectly well. However, they are usually obliged to give notice of termination, all the same. But technically you CAN have termination without a DN - what matters is whether the issues surrounding the termination were related to non-payment or arrears, and there was correspondence regarding this.

 

Complicated, ain't it? I need a drink...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a termination have to be set out in a certain way the same as a DN? I have what I think is a termination letter which was sent out in 2009 when the actual debt was sold on in 2005. No DN, DCA threatening Statutory Demand.

 

Need a drink... going to get one now before I go blind reading this fab website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a DN from the co-op dated 11/02/09 giving me until the 25/02/09 to rectify also a letter dated 11/02/09 terminating the account.I have had the account with a solicitor since july 09 regarding the cca as all I had was a screen print of the front of the doc.The co-op have now sent the solicitor a copy of the terms and conditions that they say are on the back of the doc the solicitor has now dropped the case as he says they dont have to produce the original in court. a copy will do, so it will be enforceable.I am now left with the DN and dont know what to do next I have a DCA keep phoning me and up to now I have told them to deal with my solicitor.Anybody any idea what I should do next regarding the DN as it seems its the only leg I have left to stand on should I write to the DCA or co-op.Anybody.Thanks

 

Spookily similar to my co-op debacle.

 

If I ignore the fact they terminated the account without a DN a couple of years ago, more recently they sent a DN, gave exactly 14 days from the date on the letter (if you don't count the fact it was payable before the stated date), then terminated. After that they sent another DN along with a termination dated the same day, then if memory serves they sent another termination which would have been fine if it wasn't for the 2nd DN being a pile of toot.

 

Going on personal experience, you will get absolutely nowhere with them when you argue this. I have sent them proof of the original termination. They say it has not happened as it's not in the notes. I HAVE THE LETTER IN MY FILES!!!! I have sent them proof of the 2 cocked up DN's and subsequent terminations, but apparently I am mistaken and they comply fully. They will not be budged on it regardless of evidence showing they are utterly and completely screwed.

 

Do attempt it with them, but unless you manage to get your letter to the desk of someone with a brain (I've written to the CEO twice - apparently he's 'too busy' to bother reading the letters of his customers though) be prepared to get hugely annoyed with their evasive and downright false replies.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... unless they have a clause in the T&Cs that allows them to terminate at any time. Egg have done this most famously, with people whose accounts were being run perfectly well. However, they are usually obliged to give notice of termination, all the same. But technically you CAN have termination without a DN - what matters is whether the issues surrounding the termination were related to non-payment or arrears, and there was correspondence regarding this.

 

Complicated, ain't it? I need a drink...

 

No, they can't. They can write it in their t's and c's, but afaik a company's terms do not yet overrule the Consumer Credit Act (although they might like to think they do) which most definitely requires a creditor to give notice!

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to terminate is standard - banks can withdraw the card with notice, and the customer can hand it back if they pay off the balance. Without a right to termination, nothing would ever happen! The CCA does not deny those rights - it just clarifies how they should be used, as stated, ie. by giving notice.

 

Wish I'd never given up drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

unless they have a clause in the T&Cs that allows them to terminate at any time
If it's an agreement regulated by the CCA then it's an agreement regulated by the CCA and that requires a valid DN and termination before a court can enforce payment. There's no provision in the Act for lenders to opt out of that even if the debtor was to agree to it.

 

(My understanding, anyway, but I could have misunderstood somewhere!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to terminate is standard - banks can withdraw the card with notice, and the customer can hand it back if they pay off the balance. Without a right to termination, nothing would ever happen! The CCA does not deny those rights - it just clarifies how they should be used, as stated, ie. by giving notice.

 

Wish I'd never given up drugs.

 

Hi, could you point out where in the CCA 1974 it allows creditors to terminate a running account ( credit card ) without it being in default ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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...