Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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 4977 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

Originally Posted by Lord_Alcohol viewpost.gif

Could this also apply to the arrears? Ie, the arrears are monies owed under an agreement that is no longer in existence due to unlawful termination. On what basis should those arrears now be paid?

 

Not realy, as the arrears were due until the contract was unlawfully terminated. The arrears are due, less the amount that you intend to claim for UR, say £1000.

 

s87(1)(b) is clear that no claim can be made for monies not paid unless a proper DN is issued, but it seems very unclear what happens to the claim for arrears where there is a defective DN + termination.

 

At this point the arrears as a separate entity disappear, to be replaced by the entire debt. The issue here is why now just pay an amount of this (the "arrears"). Paying nothing seems to be equally allowable and possibly more so!

 

You have to look at the state of the agreement at termination.

 

Vint

 

Sorry Vint I'm not entirely persuaded by this.

 

The arrears were due at time of DN, that's for sure. You say due until termination, which I think has to be correct.

 

However, the arrears are no longer due after termination. They have been subsumed into the entire debt. The arrears previously claimed now only represent a part of the new claim (for the whole amount), and are not differentiated by the creditor.

 

There is a breach of contract in accumilating arrears, hence a DN (defective or not). However, the OC breaches the law itself (ie, the CCA) where the DN is defective and the agreement ended. Where, then, is the mechanism by which the debtor must pay an amount previously demanded under a contract no longer in existence through unlawful termination?

 

My brain hurts.

 

LA

:-x

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

Just one more thing companies seem to see the whole Default Notice as a joke. In the end it is a legal Statutory notice and should be treated with more or equal respect of an agreement because without a valid one they are infact in trouble. The CCA 1974 is a shield it protects the consumer S87 is for the consumer not a simple cashback notice for daft companies.

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

But be careful that you don't trip yourself up. It would be hard to prove that you just continued with the same payments to clear the arrears, while not having a clear statement of arrears from the OC. Don't forget that the arrears will increase from the sum stated in the DN, up to the point of rescission

 

Given the amount being paid monthly is probably an "affordable" amount surely it is logical, sensible and ethical to continue to make the same payments in order to allow the arrears to be repaid as quickly as you can afford?

 

To pay less each month might be seen as taking the p*ss out of the OC?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vint,

well my UR letter went off. I had been paying token payment they will now stop on the account. I actually had the in house DCA on the phone today and I asked them are you demanding the whole amount. They said yes so my UR letter is perfectly valid. They confirmed they would now be getting another DCA involved who may visit me oooo scary.

 

I actually tried to ask them why they had sent 3 DN's they said it was an automated system. Shame really I think they realised they had said too much in the end. Daft because I did explain to them (in the past) in about a year I will have the funds to pay it off in full. So if they had sat tight and kept accepting my payments they would have got their money back. Sadly all they will be getting back is a counter claim for UR and my PPI insurance.

 

Game over I'm afraid.

 

 

Pumpytums

Just keep pressing that home with the OC and DCA's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Lord_Alcohol viewpost.gif

Could this also apply to the arrears? Ie, the arrears are monies owed under an agreement that is no longer in existence due to unlawful termination. On what basis should those arrears now be paid?

 

Not realy, as the arrears were due until the contract was unlawfully terminated. The arrears are due, less the amount that you intend to claim for UR, say £1000.

 

s87(1)(b) is clear that no claim can be made for monies not paid unless a proper DN is issued, but it seems very unclear what happens to the claim for arrears where there is a defective DN + termination.

 

At this point the arrears as a separate entity disappear, to be replaced by the entire debt. The issue here is why now just pay an amount of this (the "arrears"). Paying nothing seems to be equally allowable and possibly more so!

 

You have to look at the state of the agreement at termination.

 

 

 

Sorry Vint I'm not entirely persuaded by this.

 

The arrears were due at time of DN, that's for sure. You say due until termination, which I think has to be correct.

 

Yes, the arrears accrue until termination. Until the contract is terminated, nothing unlawful has taken place.

 

However, the arrears are no longer due after termination. They have been subsumed into the entire debt. The arrears previously claimed now only represent a part of the new claim (for the whole amount), and are not differentiated by the creditor.

 

No, the arrears are due. Think of it as renting a TV. You have a contract to pay x pounds a month and you get to enjoy the TV. if you enjoy the TV without paying, you owe the arrears until they terminate the contract.

 

There is a breach of contract in accumilating arrears, hence a DN (defective or not). However, the OC breaches the law itself (ie, the CCA) where the DN is defective and the agreement ended. Where, then, is the mechanism by which the debtor must pay an amount previously demanded under a contract no longer in existence through unlawful termination?

 

The arrears have accrued prior to the issue of the DN.

 

My brain hurts.

 

LA

:-x

This is contract law and not CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the amount being paid monthly is probably an "affordable" amount surely it is logical, sensible and ethical to continue to make the same payments in order to allow the arrears to be repaid as quickly as you can afford?

 

To pay less each month might be seen as taking the p*ss out of the OC?

 

BD

In my view, you would have trouble in convincing a court that your payments were in fact to go towards the arrears and not just a continuance of the agreed payments.

 

Additionally, you would not pay them arrears of say £500, when you intended to claim possibly £1000 for unlawful rescission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Lord_Alcohol viewpost.gif

Could this also apply to the arrears? Ie, the arrears are monies owed under an agreement that is no longer in existence due to unlawful termination. On what basis should those arrears now be paid?

 

Not realy, as the arrears were due until the contract was unlawfully terminated. The arrears are due, less the amount that you intend to claim for UR, say £1000.

 

s87(1)(b) is clear that no claim can be made for monies not paid unless a proper DN is issued, but it seems very unclear what happens to the claim for arrears where there is a defective DN + termination.

 

At this point the arrears as a separate entity disappear, to be replaced by the entire debt. The issue here is why now just pay an amount of this (the "arrears"). Paying nothing seems to be equally allowable and possibly more so!

 

You have to look at the state of the agreement at termination.

 

 

 

Sorry Vint I'm not entirely persuaded by this.

 

The arrears were due at time of DN, that's for sure. You say due until termination, which I think has to be correct.

 

However, the arrears are no longer due after termination. They have been subsumed into the entire debt. The arrears previously claimed now only represent a part of the new claim (for the whole amount), and are not differentiated by the creditor.

 

There is a breach of contract in accumulating arrears, hence a DN (defective or not). However, the OC breaches the law itself (ie, the CCA) where the DN is defective and the agreement ended. Where, then, is the mechanism by which the debtor must pay an amount previously demanded under a contract no longer in existence through unlawful termination?

 

My brain hurts.

 

LA

:-x

 

 

Basically you have a valid agreement (hopefully) prior to the UR arrears accumulate which is OK. At the point of UR the agreement is terminated. So only the arrears are claimable as after the UR no agreement exists but it did prior to it. I hope this makes sense. They have terminated the agreement not you, by demanding monies not yet due or terminating the agreement on the back of an invalid DN. The CCA is very clear they are only entitled to sums not yet due and or terminate after valid DN is issued.

 

If they chose not to abide by S87 & S88 then they have broken the contract end of story, and this is unlawful recession. Additionally they can no longer use s87 to claim as the agreement is terminated.

 

I hope this helps

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vint

 

In practice how any people would actually press a claim for unlawful rescission?

 

Surely the OC would be more likely to pursue/defend matters if such a claim were made than if both sides just called it quits once the arrears (or a good % of them) had been repaid? Also what justification would there be to repay arrears more slowly thanpreviously?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vint

 

In practice how any people would actually press a claim for unlawful rescission?

 

Surely the OC would be more likely to pursue/defend matters if such a claim were made than if both sides just called it quits once the arrears (or a good % of them) had been repaid? Also what justification would there be to repay arrears more slowly thanpreviously?

 

BD

2 ways realy,

 

You could press them to comply and advise you of the true arrears outstanding at the time of UR, then submit your claim to them for their unlawful act. If you feel very brave ( or foolhardy )you could then take them to court if they don't accept your claim.

 

Or

 

Wait until they brave the courtroom and use it then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically you have a valid agreement (hopefully) prior to the UR arrears accumulate which is OK. At the point of UR the agreement is terminated. So only the arrears are claimable as after the UR no agreement exists but it did prior to it. I hope this makes sense. They have terminated the agreement not you, by demanding monies not yet due or terminating the agreement on the back of an invalid DN. The CCA is very clear they are only entitled to sums not yet due and or terminate after valid DN is issued.

 

If they chose not to abide by S87 & S88 then they have broken the contract end of story, and this is unlawful recession. Additionally they can no longer use s87 to claim as the agreement is terminated.

 

I hope this helps

 

Pumpytums

 

Thanks Pumpy (and Vint) - that's a bit clearer.

 

So contract law, not CCA, allows the creditor to reclaim the amount owed (ie, the missed payments) up to UR, even if in breach of contract and law?

 

Just need to get this 100% clear in what I euphemistically call my "brain".

 

LA

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 ways realy,

 

You could press them to comply and advise you of the true arrears outstanding at the time of UR, then submit your claim to them for their unlawful act. If you feel very brave ( or foolhardy )you could then take them to court if they don't accept your claim.

 

Or

 

Wait until they brave the courtroom and use it then.

 

A typo completly changed the meaning of my question. I meant "how many" - not "how any" - but you have actually answered both questions - by inferring very few would or should risk going to court off their own bat to claim any compensation - so paying up the lawful arrears at an affordable rate would probably be regarded as a reasonable action by a responsible law-abiding debtor - not an admission the contract endured.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fella's, I've just been running through the last page or 3 and see no mention of a disputed CCagreement....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please....

My understanding is that where a faulty DN is followed by a Termination letter terminated and the actual credit agreement was in dispute anyway, then the DN should not have been issued in the first place.

 

This being so, as the DN surely should not have been issued in the first place on the back of an unresolved dispute (ie; no specific terms etc, would the arrears still be payable?

 

I did have the answer to this, but, my brain hurts too, sometimes.

 

charlie :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fella's, I've just been running through the last page or 3 and see no mention of a disputed CCagreement....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please....

My understanding is that where a faulty DN is followed by a Termination letter terminated and the actual credit agreement was in dispute anyway, then the DN should not have been issued in the first place.

 

This being so, as the DN surely should not have been issued in the first place on the back of an unresolved dispute (ie; no specific terms etc, would the arrears still be payable?

 

I did have the answer to this, but, my brain hurts too, sometimes.

 

charlie :confused:

 

 

I understand your logic on this...A default notice whether Defective or not is irrelevant as an issue until firstly and foremost the issue of a properly executed agreement has been satisfied.

 

I should agree with you on this primarily because as one looks at the STRUCTURE of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 itself and how it is laid out with certain conditions having to be satisfied before others can be fulfilled and intrinsically depend on preceding provisions to have been complied with.

 

Then it follows that when the debtor attempts to question the agreement there is an orderly 'checklist' which s/he should no doubt follow.

 

And if the agreement WAS/IS in dispute this matter must FIRST be sorted before progressing on to the next 'checklist'

 

Many debtors may not realise that their repayments are being made on the back of what is in effect a void agreement ab inito

 

m2ae

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing

 

I have just refreshed my memory and understanding of

Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983

And 14 day countdown for 1st and 2nd class starts the day AFTER they have been deemed to have received it.

 

1st class-Monday 2 Days Deemed served Thursday

2nd Class-Monday 4 days Deemed served Saturday

Remember AFTER deemed service it's 14 CLEAR STRAIGHT DAYS

 

The above assumes that the actual act of posting did not take place on weekends or bank or public holidays...

 

Hope I am right but if wrong please advise...

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fella's, I've just been running through the last page or 3 and see no mention of a disputed CCagreement....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please....

My understanding is that where a faulty DN is followed by a Termination letter terminated and the actual credit agreement was in dispute anyway, then the DN should not have been issued in the first place.

 

This being so, as the DN surely should not have been issued in the first place on the back of an unresolved dispute (ie; no specific terms etc, would the arrears still be payable?

 

I did have the answer to this, but, my brain hurts too, sometimes.

 

charlie :confused:

 

Well, how on earth does the creditor get out of this one?

 

Agreement terminated after issue of a defective DN, but issued when the agreement was in dispute?

 

I find it difficult to believe that the creditor would be entitled to anything at all, apart from a stiff kick up his corporate arse.

 

Anyway Charlie, it might be better if you accept the UR rather than arguing that the DN shouldn't have been issued - you could be arguing that the agreement is still 'live' and therefore you remain liable for the full amount :shock:

 

LA

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A typo completly changed the meaning of my question. I meant "how many" - not "how any" - but you have actually answered both questions - by inferring very few would or should risk going to court off their own bat to claim any compensation - so paying up the lawful arrears at an affordable rate would probably be regarded as a reasonable action by a responsible law-abiding debtor - not an admission the contract endured.

 

BD

No not realy. My opinion is that if you continue to pay, after termination, you act as if the agreement endures and have not chosen to accept their Unlawful Termination of contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a UR happen when say Moorcroft are appointed by Argos to collect payments on their behalf.

 

This is the letter they sent after an invalid DN. It is in Post 2 with the DN in post 1.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/258301-argos-moorcroft.html

 

Thanks

 

I would say yes. And no.

 

Yes, because the account is transferred to a DCA. No, because Moorcroft's letter claims £12 as per the T&Cs of the agreement which presumably would be unavailable to them after termination.

 

Could you call them and ask if the agreement (not account) has been terminated?

 

LA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fella's, I've just been running through the last page or 3 and see no mention of a disputed CCagreement....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please....

My understanding is that where a faulty DN is followed by a Termination letter terminated and the actual credit agreement was in dispute anyway, then the DN should not have been issued in the first place.

 

This being so, as the DN surely should not have been issued in the first place on the back of an unresolved dispute (ie; no specific terms etc, would the arrears still be payable?

 

I did have the answer to this, but, my brain hurts too, sometimes.

 

charlie :confused:

That is the view that the OFT took. The act says while the default continues, the creditor is not able to enforce the agreement.

 

Unfortunately, enforcement was defined in the high court, late last year in the mcGuffick case. That judge held that everything up to enforcement in the court, was not in fact enforcement, so they are only precluded from obtaining judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing

 

I have just refreshed my memory and understanding of

Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983

 

And 14 day countdown for 1st and 2nd class starts the day AFTER they have been deemed to have received it.

 

1st class-Monday 2 Days Deemed served Thursday

2nd Class-Monday 4 days Deemed served Saturday

Remember AFTER deemed service it's 14 CLEAR STRAIGHT DAYS

 

The above assumes that the actual act of posting did not take place on weekends or bank or public holidays...

 

Hope I am right but if wrong please advise...

 

m2ae

Not quite, Saturday is precluded from the postage or service period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4977 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...