Invalid Default Notices

[lexis200]

If there aren't enough days to remedy it's cut and dried. It is very clear that you must have 'not less than 14 days' to remedy. Once you include service (assuming it's posted and not handed to you), this effectively means they must give at least 16 days from the date on the notice to any remedy date.

 

Faulty DN's are much more a black and white area, rather than the shades of grey involved with agreements. There are some bits that I would not want to try in court and so would fall into the grey area bracket (underlining in the wrong place etc - technically it would make it ineffective but it doesn't seem enough of an issue to cause them a huge problem), but most of the problems you see on here with DN's are major rather than incidental.

 

Of course you do always run the risk of an uninformed judge making a silly decision, but if that happens you will need to get them to set out their findings so that you can use it to appeal.

 

If the DN is fundamentally flawed they are screwed, as it is very clear what they can and can't do; there really isn't room for error on their part.

 

I've just realised we're on Pinky's thread here, so probably best to carry on elsewhere to save hijacking further - the 'Tale of a Dodgy DN' is a very good thread with a ton of information on this. Look out for posts by x20 and Banker Rhymes With, as they are both well informed on the subject.

 

ps - sorry Pinky!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Lexis200!

 

you should ALWAYS keep ALL envelopes that DN's are sent in and staple them to the letter. Absolutely! Has anyone managed to work out the orange barcodes yet? Do they give posting date info?

I've been working on the Orange Barcodes for a while now, but the good news is that it appears, as I have always suspected, that they do contain a date.

 

The upper Orange Barcode is the key, as that contains a date element that can tell Royal Mail when the Barcode was printed down to within a 30 minute time slot, and tell them which machine printed it.

 

Thus, location of printing and time of printing are both contained in the upper barcode. If nothing else, this will confirm when a letter was in transit so, by this evidence, not yet Served. :grin:

 

If the date and location are known, say, if the Barcode was printed on a certain date by a certain machine and Royal Mail know where that machine was located, then it can help to prove who sent the envelope. If the machine was in, say, the Royal Mail sorting office in Chester, and the Default Notice is one from, say, MBNA or M&S (their Registered Offices are within brick throwing distance BTW), then it's pretty good evidence that whatever the envelope contained was sent by the bank concerned. Even better if the envelope has their Postal Licence or other marks that identify the bank/DCA in question.

 

The lower barcode again, as anticipated...that's if you have been following my ramblings on this...contains the delivery routing data. If you check your own envelopes, then you'll see the lower barcode is usually the same for all letters sent to your address, irrespective of who sent the envelope. That's because the letters are all being routed to you, so it contains routing data to make sure it gets to you, which will probably include your Postcode, and any additional characters to identify your home/building. Some people have Postcodes that cover a numer of properties near them, so Royal Mail do have extra characters that they use to pin-point a building if it shares the same Postcode as others near to it.

 

I regret I can't yet read these Oranage Barcodes. The Character Map is not in the public domain, and Royal Mail won't tell me what it is...so far! But, having got this far, I am not about to give up now!

 

We'll get there! The fact that these Orange Barcodes do contain a date is potentially knock-out information. A date can potentially render many Default Notices defective if this proves a later Date of Service than the bank has allowed for in the Default Notice. Indeed, it coud, potentially, allow some people to go back and have earlier Judgments set aside if this evidence proves a bank/DCA had no right of action, i.e. s87 was not actually available to them when a Judge thought it was in the absence of any clear evidence - at the time - to prove a late Date of Service.

 

I will post full details when I have more news.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[mak71]

Excellent news

[diddydicky]

 

the DN is defective as soon as it is sent- and cannot be un- defected by the creditor then adding a few days weeks or years on to the end of the stated deadline

 

it can only be Un- defected by the issue of a correct DN BEFORE the time limit stated on it has expired

 

if it looks like a defective DN smells like a defective DN and quacks like a defenctive DN- then it is a defective DN

[diddydicky]

Mornin Lexis,

 

I & OH have these iffy DN's for the arrears & followed on by account terminations, where does this leave us

 

Beachy

 

breaking open a bottle of bubbly

 

if they terminated on the back of a faulty DN you legally only owe then the arrears on the account at the time of the termination

 

LESS your counter claim for unfair reccission of contract

 

happy days!!

[diddydicky]

Is it clear cut and case law that a defective dn cant be over ruled after termination by a sympathetic creditor friendly judge,?

 

Ie if not enough days to remedy, could a judge over rule that or could the creditor worm his way out of it on a technicality if all the other docs are valid and correct, or is it pretty clear cut dodgy dn = only arrears on the DN recovarable ,?

Could the creditor argue it was a typo error re dates etc and get a judge to show sympathy to them and still rule in their favour?

 

Weve all seen judges go in favour of claimants even when defective cca"s

are defective DN"s atill prone to the ignorant judges or are they easier to defend than a dodgy cca?

 

 

 

imagine that this judge said " well what's a day - 13 days is clearly enough"

 

this then becomes accepted practice

 

a year later another judge says "well what's 2 days" 12 days is clearly enough

 

you get the drift!!

 

the act was written to protect the consumer not to enable the creditor

 

the creditor is put to strict adherence of all the major points of the act and DN's are one of those areas where there is no compromise on the basic requirements

 

 

the message to the creditor is " get it wrong and kiss your loan goodbye"

[diddydicky]

Why are agreements unenforceable?

 

The man who wrote the Consumer Credit Act 1974 explains all;

 

As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson

for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on*Wilson v First County Trust

Ltd*[2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section

127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company

couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in

the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have

power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament

without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed

that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

167*Justice of the Peace*(2003) 773.

[lexis200]

the DN is defective as soon as it is sent- and cannot be un- defected by the creditor then adding a few days weeks or years on to the end of the stated deadline

 

it can only be Un- defected by the issue of a correct DN BEFORE the time limit stated on it has expired

 

if it looks like a defective DN smells like a defective DN and quacks like a defenctive DN- then it is a defective DN

 

Why? If they have not acted on the DN then it can be re-issued. Up until the point of termination the agreement is still live, and as long as they have not taken the actions afforded to them once a DN is not remedied they are at liberty to have another go. This is why you need to know it's terminated and not trust that it has just happened.

 

An ineffective DN is no use to you unless they terminate, as until they do that they have every opportunity to make it right, not just within the remedy date they've allowed you.

[lexis200]

I can't blob you for your post BRW, but I've done it in spirit:)

[Stressed150]

So lemme get this straight.... the banks are offering you compnesation for filing a default on your CRF.....but what is the reason that they have agreed to remove it? The dodgy DN or the fact that no agreement exists?

[diddydicky]

Why? If they have not acted on the DN then it can be re-issued. Up until the point of termination the agreement is still live, and as long as they have not taken the actions afforded to them once a DN is not remedied they are at liberty to have another go. This is why you need to know it's terminated and not trust that it has just happened.

 

An ineffective DN is no use to you unless they terminate, as until they do that they have every opportunity to make it right, not just within the remedy date they've allowed you.

 

try reading this:=_

 

The key issue to get your head around is the Default Notice is a document that has to be valid and compliant. Once printed, the Notice is either valid or it is defective, a bit like a Birth Certificate. If the date on the Birth Certificate is wrong, it will always be wrong, no matter what is said or what happens later.

 

Amex printed a Default Notice that was rendered defective when they elected to send it via Post. Once posted, it was defective from that point, and nothing they can do thereafter will change the defective state of that Notice.

 

Amex may as well say they waited 20 days before jumping through a hoop wearing a pink wig for all the good it will do them. Nothing they can do after the event can alter the defectiveness of the Notice, with the sole exception of issuing a 2nd valid Default Notice*before*Terminaton. Amex did not do that, so have denied themselves the benefits of*s87.

 

The one thing the Solicitior did get right was to accept that the Statutory Deadline based on the Date of Service, should've been Tuesday 3rd April 2007, i.e. not Sunday 1st April 2007 that Amex allowed you.

 

But, after that, the Solicitor was straight off on another planet handing out duff advice when he went on to ramble the following:

 

Quote:

Even so he said that did not matter as Amex did not terminate the account until 27th April 2007 so in fact Amex gave plenty of time to remedy the breach.

 

Amex could wait as long as they liked before Terminating, but that has naff all to do with the Statutory Time that a valid Default Notice*must*give youwithin the Notice itself.

 

IOW, what they do after printing the Notice does not matter, it is what they state*within*the Notice that matters. It is the paper Notice that has to be valid...just like a Birth Certificate has to state the correct date of birth.

 

Finally, this may cheer you up, it is a recent Hearing when a Cagger swayed the Court on the question of a defective Default Notice:

 

Re: Me vs MBNA court case looming help please

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Just to let you all know that I love you all.

 

You have been a great help and motivation through these hard times, without you I would be £21,000+ worse off.

 

Run down of the day in court.

 

I got there at 11:00 for my 12:00 appointment (wanted a bit of time for my nerves to die down), at 13:30 we were called to the desk and asked if it would take 40 minutes, The barrister said he doesn't think so but not sure if my evidence would, I said I have a lot of evidence to go through so it is quite likely.

The Judge said that she needed a break and something to eat so she put us off to 14:00.

 

14:05 we were called in, aggressive (pretty for an older lady) judge told us she had red through the evidence and there was not a valid defence, she also said to me that we cant go around drawing up credit card bills and expect to get rid of them through court, at this stage I stopped her and read an introduction I had prepared earlier.

 

 

"I have attended a court before as a witness to a motoring accident, I was questioned by someone who used all sorts of tactics to get me to say something different to what I saw, that was not my case and I stood to lose nothing.

Today's case directly affecting me is a different matter, I can not afford a solicitor to defend myself and I have no experience of court proceeding, I am a small fish up against the professional representatives of a multi million pound company, I am sure you have dealt with this situation before and I am sure you will take this into consideration when communicating with me, I am not familiar with the formalities of court but I am aware of the law and my only weakness may be the delivery of evidence"

 

 

She was as nice as pie after this and explained everything as clear as she possibly could.

 

 

 

I told her I do have a defence and started to read my initial defence statement.

 

 

"Default notice

There is a default notice attached to the evidence that has been supplied by Restons to the court*{MBNA DEF 1}, this Default notice is invalid in the fact that there is insufficient time from date of issue to the remedy time.

Restons realised this and made up a story through a witness statement from MBNA stating that the Default notice was created in error and that the remedy date was the 24th of August and not the 23rd{MBNA DEF 2}.

The original default notice*{Default notice}*has been checked and it has a remedy date of the 23rd of August, this invalidates the default notice, Restons also state that the default was sent First Class Ordinary post when in fact it was sent second class*{Default notice}, therefore even if the date mentioned on the falsely corrected default was true the default would still be invalid*{Legal page 1}."

 

Then*

 

"Accordingly the ‘default notice’ was invalid and failure of a default notice to be accurate invalidates the default notice*[Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255]*{Case Study 1}*which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counter-claim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119)*{Case Study 2}"

 

 

She asked to see the default and I gave her and the barrister a copy with a copy of the envelope to show it was second class, I then quoted*S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 advising her that weekend did not count and that using second class I had only 9 days to act.

 

She worked it out in her head and had to agree, the poor barrister asked to have time to look into it and we left the room for him to get advice, he tried to contact his client but was unable too so we returned.

 

The Judge ruled that the court be adjourned for 4 weeks to allow the claimant to investigate the document, at the end of these 4 weeks if they have not been contacted the case will be struck off. she was not interested in my other evidence as the DN was sufficient to make their case.

 

I was ordered to make a new defence with all the evidence I have and supply it to the court and Restons within 2 weeks, this was because the default notice was not listed on my defence documentation, I was ordered to pay £150 to the barrister for his time because it was not listed, the judge advise me that had it been listed the case may not have reached court, I only found the DN yesterday so I had little chance to make them aware, still £150 is better than £21,000.

 

I am not out of the woods yet but I cant see there being any comeback.

 

I asked the barrister if I could pay for his fees with a credit card, a forced snigger was his reply.

 

The Judge and the Barrister said I did very well, in fact I was a fumbling wreck, I advised the barrister that I would definitely take a solicitor even if I had to sell the kids next time because I was so nervous, he said I did very well and didn't need to, I said I would anyway just so he knows if he comes back he has an effective nervous wreck and a professional to contend with.

 

But thanks for everyone who helped you are a life saver.

 

BTW text in red was for reference to handouts I took.

 

 

*don't think your visit to a solicitor was wasted. He may well be a duffer DJ in training but at least you now have an indication of the level of knowledge that you may come across when you get into court!!

 

The points made by BRW are excellent. I would add that on the point about a defective DN, there is no correlation between the 14 days and the action taken other than what is stated in the Act, which is clear on the point. The DN has to provide you with 14 days clear days after service. If it does not, it is defective. You should refer the court to the case of*Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co*where the Court of Appeal held:

 

Held:*Allowing the appeal, that the Consumer Credit Act 1974, s 88, required the owner to specify not only the nature of the breach but the action required to remedy it. It was part of a statute plainly enacted to protect consumers. Since many regulated agreements would be complex, most hirers would be individuals, and the owner would be in a far better position to provide precise information about that remedial action, the*section should be construed as requiring an accurate statement not only of the nature of the breach but of the action required to remedy it*(subject, it might be, to a*de minimis*dispensation). Accordingly, the default notice did not satisfy s 88 and was not effective.

 

In other words, if the DN is defective, game over. It doesn't matter that AMEX didn't take action until much later. The DN was defective but they took action (termination) afterwards when they could not lawfully do so. Take a couple of copies of the Woddchester case with you to court next time and if the DJ starts going on about the 14 days doesn't matter because AMEX took longer before doing anything, politely (?) put the case under the DJ's nose and keep saying 'COURT OF APPEAL, COURT OF APPEAL'. The penny may drop hopefully in the DJ's brain that the issue has been decided.

 

** IMPORTANT **

 

I stand corrected by IGNM, Rankines would set a precedent on lower Courts (below the High Court),*however the other ‘counters to Rankines’*still apply. Especially decisions from the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, which set a*higher precedent*than Rankines.

 

**ALSO** remember that in relation to the Default Notice, the judge in the Rankines case, stated that the creditor at the time was unaware of the unfair charge issue. This was because the Rankines Default notice must have been issued prior to April 2006 – when the OFT issued guidlines to creditors aboutunfair charges. As stated in the link below : If your Default notice was AFTER April 2006, you can distinguish it from the RANKINES case i.e. Yet another reason why the Rankines judgement should not be relevant :-*

 

HFO court claim*

 

Good luck by the way.

 

‘Shakey

 

Hello Zhan!

 

Good luck.

 

If you have time, please re-read my Post:

 

zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors

 

That Default Notice is your Ace, so make sure you understand the key issues, and don't let Amex try to duck the issue. They cannot say they Terminated using*s76*because of s76(6) and they cannot use*s98*because of s98(6). Both of these sections of the Act are only to be used in non-default situations.

 

This was clearly a default situation, so they*must*follow s87 and s88 if they want to end/Terminate the Agreement and enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

They need a valid Default Notice to be able to Terminate, demand early payment of any sum and to take the next step, i.e. Court.

 

No valid Default Notice and they should not even be in Court. Likewise, if they have Terminated without a valid Default Notice, then the Termination is unlawful, so they should be paying*you*money, not the other way around. See:

 

Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998 )

 

Repeat after me: a defective Default Notice followed by Termination represents a repudiatory breach or breach of Contract on the part of Amex. They have no right of action, because the Act made it clear that in a Consumer default situation, they*must not*Terminate without a valid Default Notice and, if they do so, they*cannot*then enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

Any sums they can claim will then be limited to just those that were due before Termination, such as any genuine Arrears. Even those sums must not include any Unlawful Charges or mis-sold PPI. Furthermore, if Amex have Terminated unlawfully, then the Court may wish to rule that Amex pay you suitable compensation equivalent to, say, the Arrears!

 

I hope this helps.

 

All being well, they won't try that, i.e. s76 and s98 because they are both geared to Termination in routine situations,*not*in a default situation.

 

Some banks have Clauses that say they can Terminate at any time, but those Clauses cannot over-rule the Act, and may be unfair terms in any event.

 

For example, if someone has a Credit Card Balance of £15k, then they are unlikely to want to end the Agreement with immediate notice. In turn, if a bank thinks it fair that they can end an Agreement with a £15k Balance just because they had a bad hair day, is simply unfair.

 

The key Today is to lock in to the fact that you were in default, Amex accepted you were in default, so if it walks like a default, quacks like a default and waddles like a default, then it's a default.

 

In that case, s87 and s88 apply, and the only lawful way for Amex to end the Agreement is to firstly issue a valid Default Notice, and only then Terminate if you did not comply with that.

 

They were not supposed to issue a piece of toilet paper and then Terminate, because a piece of toilet paper won't serve as a Default Notice.

 

Amex are now heading into Court today armed with a piece of toilet paper, claiming that entitles them to all of the benefits of s87.

 

It doesn't.

 

They have Terminated without a Default Notice, and cannot now issue another one because they have Terminated. No live Agreement now exists upon which to issue another Default Notice upon.

 

Finally...keep calm, and make sure you take many notes of what the opposition say. Make sure the Judge knows that you are a Litigant in Person, and make them aware that you are nervous and not used to how Courts work.

 

If you do not understand anything, or if things are whizzing past too fast and you can't keep up, raise your hand and ask them to slow down and explain themselves so that a Litigant in Person can understand what they are saying...for the benefit of the Tape if nothing else!

 

Don't let the Judge turn this into a moral debate, it is not about that. You are simply exercising your rights to establish what, if anything is now owed, because you have major doubts about both the Agreement, the way Amex harassed you, and about the way that Amex then Terminated the Agreement without, apparently, following the steps clearly outlined in The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

Unfortunately, most judges are not aware of what a Summary Judgment hearing is.

 

Most claimants try it on as it has lower costs and they also get two bites at getting judgment.

 

Viscount Stair summed it up nicely - "I saw a commentary on a recent case (a case brought by the law firm Hammonds against some of its ex-partners for the return of profit shares that were allegedly miscalculated and overpaid**) that suggested that an application for summary judgment by a claimant was - perversely - a sign of weakness because it gave them two chances to win and a dry run for the main trial, even if they lost the first time. Apparently, if they genuinely believed they would win, they should have gone for determination of the point as a preliminary issue, at which you only get one chance."

 

Once issued, the Passport is defective because it has Donald Duck's picture and date of birth! Nothing will change that, a Passport is either valid or it is defective. In this case the Passport is no use as a Passport for your good self, nor Donald Duck for that matter, because he's called Donald Duck not Diddydicky!

 

In the case of the above Default Notice, they have drafted it in such a way that once posted, it was defective, as the NOTICE failed to allow the Statutory 14 clear days of time to remedy the breach. You can't remedy a defective Default Notice because it has no effect whatsoever. It may as well not have been issued.

 

To quote another analogy, a lady can't be half-pregnant. She is either pregnant or not. Same with a Default Notice, it can't be half-valid...it's either valid or it is defective.

 

Parliament did not say that a Default Notice could have a vague stab at getting the Statutory time right, it said the Consumer must be allowed 14 clear days...not if but, no but, yeah but, definite maybe around 14 clear days give or take a few if you close one eye and stand on one leg..

 

If the Notice is defective, it is defective.

 

Amex then ploughed ahead to Terminate but, without the benefit of a compliant Default Notice. So, the actual date of Termination is irrelevant in terms of its effect on the validity of the Default Notice. Or, rather, it cannot fix the Default Notice, but could even make it more defective if they Terminated within the default period.

 

the only chance they have is to re issue the DN before the expiry date- but they didnt

[beachcomber60]

breaking open a bottle of bubbly

 

if they terminated on the back of a faulty DN you legally only owe then the arrears on the account at the time of the termination

 

LESS your counter claim for unfair reccission of contract

 

happy days!!

 

Thanks all,

 

Will carry on reading, learning & understanding (well try! )

 

Sorry Pinky

 

Beachy

[Pinky69]

I've received a letter from one of the CRAs saying that the bank who have only recently given me contact details will be in touch with me in 2 weeks and the CRA cannot remove the default without the bank's say-so. That is rubbish because the CRA cannot process info unlawfully and are in breach of the DPA if they have have been informed the info was passed to them unlawfully and they continue to process it. It looks as if the bank is not going to remove the default.

 

There is a double whammy on this one as there is no agreement - just an unenforceable application form. So an invalid DN was issued on the back of no agreement then terminated. DN and termination should not have occurred as there is no agreement. I will need to think through how to present that in court. All comments appreciated!

[diddydicky]

Why? If they have not acted on the DN then it can be re-issued. Up until the point of termination the agreement is still live, and as long as they have not taken the actions afforded to them once a DN is not remedied they are at liberty to have another go. This is why you need to know it's terminated and not trust that it has just happened.

 

An ineffective DN is no use to you unless they terminate, as until they do that they have every opportunity to make it right, not just within the remedy date they've allowed you.

 

because you are entitled to beleive that what the DN says will happen will happen within the time given an they quite clearly say that after a given period THE FULL BLANCE will then become due - therefore for instance you could have given up trying to raise the funds to rectify the breach as you were "out of time"- this puts you at a disadvantage as had you known you had more time you may have been able to raise the funds

 

i AGREE it is wise to wait until you get the termination notice or if there is a lengthy delay with no news then do a SAR which will give you the information you need

[diddydicky]

I've received a letter from one of the CRAs saying that the bank who have only recently given me contact details will be in touch with me in 2 weeks and the CRA cannot remove the default without the bank's say-so. That is rubbish because the CRA cannot process info unlawfully and are in breach of the DPA if they have have been informed the info was passed to them unlawfully and they continue to process it. It looks as if the bank is not going to remove the default.

 

There is a double whammy on this one as there is no agreement - just an unenforceable application form. So an invalid DN was issued on the back of no agreement then terminated. DN and termination should not have occurred as there is no agreement. I will need to think through how to present that in court. All comments appreciated!

 

i think you wil find that the CRA's are indemnified against being held to account for information they publish on your file on the basis that they have to rely on the integrity of the organisation giving it to them

 

it is correct that they need the instruction from the originator to remove wrong data and it is very difficult (but not impossible) to get redress directly from the CRA

 

although you can put your own note on the file by way of explanation

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Diddydick,

 

I salute you and would hve dinged you scales till they fell over but it wouldn't let me.

 

 

 

GK

[diddydicky]

Diddydick,

 

I salute you and would hve dinged you scales till they fell over but it wouldn't let me.

 

 

 

GK

 

thanks GTP but that post was from X20 who clearly has a great deal of knowledge on these matters- it his scales that need tipping!

[Undercover-Elsa]

BRW...Re the barcodes, this is from the Royal Mail Clearmail manual, you've probably already found this, but just in case...any good? Full manual HERE

Elsa x

Edited June 10, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa

[lexis200]

because you are entitled to beleive that what the DN says will happen will happen within the time given an they quite clearly say that after a given period THE FULL BLANCE will then become due - therefore for instance you could have given up trying to raise the funds to rectify the breach as you were "out of time"- this puts you at a disadvantage as had you known you had more time you may have been able to raise the funds

 

i AGREE it is wise to wait until you get the termination notice or if there is a lengthy delay with no news then do a SAR which will give you the information you need

 

Ok, that makes sense - I give:D

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Elsa!

 

BRW...Re the barcodes, this is from the Royal Mail Clearmail manual, you've probably already found this, but just in case...any good? Full manual

Many thanks, I too thought I'd found the answer when I found that bumf. Sadly, I am already well aware of those fellas, otherwise known as the Royal Mail 4 State Customer Code or RM4SCC for short.

 

You can read more about that Barcode here:

 

RM4SCC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Unfortunately, the RM4SCC isn't it, but does look similar, and is also a Postal Barcode. It's worth knowing how that one works, but all it tends to be used for is Addressing, i.e. for bulk senders to add a Barcode so that their mail can be sorted faster/easier. It's mainly used as a single Barcode, either printed by the sender on the envelope, or printed below the Address that is visible through a window envelope.

 

OTOH, the Orange Barcodes are also Postal Barcodes, but they use a Character Mapping that is unique, and Royal Mail have never published that in the public domain. IOW, there is no guide as to how they use the Bars when mapping Characters so, no guide if they use 4-Bars, 3-Bars, 2-Bars or a mixture.

 

Indeed, I think Royal Mail use algorithms to compress things to get more data into the Barcode. For example, they may use code within code, so even if I can de-code them, what is de-coded may not be in Plain English, but a code that only the Royal Mail System can make sense of...probably why they are reluctant to disclose the Character Mapping.

 

I suspect that it'll need Software to read and de-code, to produce the Data inside the Barcode, but that is not so important to know, the key is the upper Barcode does contain a Date element. I'm trying to ask Royal Mail if they will allow people to have selected Barcodes de-coded, or if they may agree to release the Code details so that, say, a licenced utility can be created to de-code them that avoids their confidential business information being made public. They are keen to keep the details of how they do it to themselves, possibly to see off rivals seeking to muscle in on their business.

 

However, the really good news is Royal Mail have admitted the Orange Barcodes do contain a Date so, that key data is in there! Now it's just a case of working out how to read it, or working out how to get Royal Mail to read it and tell us what it says!

 

Ideally, they may agree to post a Web Utility that will allow people to enter the Barcodes manually, i.e. F for a Full line, D for a Descender Line, A for an Ascender Line and T for a Track Line, and then the utility will tell you the Date and Sending Location etc without giving away too much else.

 

Anyway, getting them to admit the Date is there was the first big step because, before that, I could not even get them to fess up that there was a Date in there.

 

Remember folks...KEEP ALL ENVELOPES! OK!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hey BRW..I thought you'd probably have sussed that one, but ya never know. We need an RM whistle blower! Hmmm..back to the drawing board!

What gets me is..when they're using this system to send time sensitive legal documents to customers, you'd think people had a RIGHT to have a readable date stamp on it. I had one that arrived 9 days after the letter date..how are we supposed to know whether it was posted late, predated or sent 1st or 2nd. It should be mandatory to frank them in a clear manner.

Elsa x

PS I'll take off the image so it doesn't clog the thread up.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa

[ltc1607]

subbing thanks

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Elsa!

 

It should be mandatory to frank them in a clear manner.

 

Absolutely, I could not agree more.

 

However, the good thing about the date being hidden in the Orange Barcodes, is the idiot bankers never thought anyone would stand any chance of picking up that they had been tardy sending things like Default Notices.

 

But, the evidence is contained in the Barcode...their past arrogance could now be coming back to bite them, hard.

 

Good.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Undercover-Elsa]

I'll watch you quest with interest BRW..I'm sure you'll crack it. Ive a pile of envelopes waiting for when you do

Did I see a second hand Enigma machine on Ebay....?

Elsa x

[Pinky69]

I don't think the integrity of the information given to the CRAs can be taken as a given when someone has questioned the integrity of that information and pointed out that their processing it is in breach of the DPA 1978. I can see how the CRAs would base initial entries on someone's report on the integrity of the information given but it behoves them to question and clarify the integrity of that information once they have been told it is unlawful. The CRAs are also subject to the DPA 1998 and if they breach it they too can be held accountable for it. They are not exempt from the law. I asked them to remove the default and gave them the reasons why and so far they haven't done it. If I am successful in my court claims I intend to take them to court too for processing my information unlawfully after they had been informed they were doing so.