Invalid Default Notices

[cashins]

these dickheads increase the days to 17 and then post on a thursday

 

god if they had brains they would be dangerous!!

 

 

Yep they're a day short.

 

Always a danger when you ask a fool to count above 10, they forget to take their shoes off.

 

David

[MandM]

Yep they're a day short.

 

Always a danger when you ask a fool to count above 10, they forget to take their shoes off.

 

David

 

If you're cloven hoofed in the first place you'll only ever get up to 14 without the shoes

 

M

[cashins]

If you're cloven hoofed in the first place you'll only ever get up to 14 without the shoes :grin:

 

:lol:

 

David

[littlefatbudha]

Thanks for your repllies have since found out the letter was actually received on the Tuesday 24th November, but was sent 1st class ,so they must of posted Monday i guess, cant see no frankin mark with date, but have enough to prove they did not give enough time.just got to wait for termination now,fingers crossed

[Pinky69]

Updates on original post.

 

My case against Bank 2 to get defaults removed is now with the ICO and is finally being investigated by the bank itself after an approach to the CEO (they originally said they wouldn't reply to my correspondence). Two court cases are ready if none of that works. I had to delay court procedure because the court expects you to have gone through all the channels before you finally go to them.

 

Got a really cheeky email from Experian this morning about Bank 2 in response to the copies of statements I sent them showing Bank 2 entered defaults when the balances were zero (they charged off the accounts without telling me). The witch who wrote it said they couldn't check every piece of information and I should keep a regular check on my credit reports. I asked her who she thought she was with her high handed and condescending manner!! I told her they had to check entries when new information querying these entries was sent to them and I had already had an email from another "adviser" telling me the entries were being rechecked with Bank 2. It just shows you what they think of themselves and what they think of us - she got her answer! Obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

 

The FOS is being investigated by the Independent Assessor at the FOS because the Ombudsman made a decision in Bank 2's favour on a matter separate from the defaults without looking at evidence. The bank sent him statements he never even looked at and I discovered this because when I asked for copies from the FOS (I had never seen these statements) it showed the accounts were charged off, which neither the bank nor the FOS told me about - and there was someone else's statement right in the middle of them! They passed from the bank to the Adjudicator to the Ombudsman to the Service Review Team at the FOS and not one person in that chain looked at them. My MP is involved and has written to the IA saying he is "alarmed" that the Ombudsman made an incorrect decision based on inaccurate evidence. Report expected in a couple of months. I expect a whitewash.

 

Bank 3 - a laugh a minute. Sent me a letter today saying they wouldn't remove the entries and enclosed yet another set of T&Cs - the third. So a formal complaint has now gone off to the ICO. A court case is also prepared. Having breached criminal law by failing to put their Company registration details on the application form, they have gone and done so again on the fabricated T&Cs I received today!! They couldn't run a cludgy! More power to their unlawful DN. Which set of T&Cs is supposed to be the right one? None of them are of course - but the default breach is stated on the DN as a Clause of the T&Cs. There is no such clause on this set of T&Cs. I'll be going to court with 3 different sets of T&Cs. Thank you Bank 3 - your sheer incompetence and stupidity has just made my day!

 

Will keep you informed playmates.

[Saint2K]

Hey.

 

Going back to my original post on page 25 of the thread, is there much point at all going down the invalid default route if you no longer have the envelope, or even the default notice.

 

I know someone mentioned being able to SAR the creditor, and find out how the DN was served etc, but can you still then claim it was invalid based on the information you receive by way of the SAR?

[Pinky69]

It's worth going down that route if no DN was sent and you won't know that unless you SAR the creditor. I kept copies of the DN Notices and SAR'd the creditor to prove where one wasn't sent. As a result I am ready for court if that is necessary to remove the defaults - I am also ready for court to claim damages for unlawful rescission.

[Saint2K]

Thanks for the reply.

 

So if they state a DN was sent, and I don't have it, how would I proceed from here in terms of finding out whether they actually served it, and whether it was valid/invalid?

[Pinky69]

You need to ask them for proof of postage as what matters in determining whether a DN gave sufficient time to remedy the alleged breach of agreement is the date of receipt and that can only be worked out from the date on which it was posted. Don't ask them for anything special until you get a response to your SAR then pursue the DN separately. You need to do this with kid gloves if there is no DN and you want to prove rescission. Be absolutely sure the agreement was terminated.

[diddydicky]

Thanks for your repllies have since found out the letter was actually received on the Tuesday 24th November, but was sent 1st class ,so they must of posted Monday i guess, cant see no frankin mark with date, but have enough to prove they did not give enough time.just got to wait for termination now,fingers crossed

 

if they posted it monday you got it wednesday !!!!!!!

[TheContendor]

How do you define an account termination? Is it after the DN timescale or is it a different letter you receive? An can you take it for granted if the debt has been sent onwards to a few DCA's? I have an incorrect DN but do not want to show my hand if they can change it before it goes to court/

[InformedSearcher]

Can I ask regarding invalid DN's ...

I receive a default notice dated 4th. It states that it must be paid by the 14th of that same month (as in 10 days)! To claim this is invalid would I need much more to add?

 

Michael

[diddydicky]

a creditor can terminate an account in writing,

 

a creditor who demands the repayment of sums not yet due, (usually a demand for the whole of the outstanding balance) is clearly demonstrating that he considers the agreement to be at an end

 

the major (only) benefit of the agreement to the debtor is the ability to borrow money and (subject to a minimum monthly payment) repay t as and when he wishes.

 

clearly if that major benefit is removed from you by the other party then they are either legally or illegally terminating the agreement

 

if they have issued an effective DN and you have not remedied an alleged breach then they do so legally since the act gives them that right

 

if they terminate on the back of, or in the absence of an effective DN (sometimes the DN itself demands the full balance in which case it is a clearly unlawful rescission) then they seek to unlawfully rescind the agreement

 

Now neither party can simply unilaterally terminate the agreement therefore you as the injured (still performing) party have two choices

 

you can tell the creditor that you do not accept his unlawful rescission ( or you can simply do nothing but carry on honouring your side of the agreement to signify your refusal to accept his unlawful action)

 

OR

 

you can accept the unlawful rescission and agree that the agreement is therefore terminated

 

you can acheive the same thing by doing some act which demonstrates this to the creditor- such as stop making payments, however if you are not making payments at the time he rescinds then there would be doubt as to whether your actions have made your acceptance of the unlawful rescission clear

 

far better (IMO) to write and tell him that you have accepted the unlawful rescission

 

you could state in the letter that you take his unlawful rescission as a clear message that the relationship has broken down and that he intends that the agreement is at an end IMO

[InformedSearcher]

Thank you for this however in my case it's simply because I am unemployed. The thing that 'got' to me was the fact they knew this and we did back in May an income & expenditure calculation. However since that no matter what ever I said the answer would be 'So how much are you going to pay us today sir?'.

When the DN finally arrived it had to start with the wrong dates on it - like 4th and due by 14th. I pointed this out to them after the final demand arrived but they chose to totally ignore both the written letter and verbal communication with swiftly appointed (in house) DCA. Rather than to reply in any way I then find that the DN's are entered on two CRA's.

 

If their actions were different I would have taken the nice approach. However it was never relenting and the fact due to no fault of my own (or theirs) I was made redundant. If I'd gotten another job fast which I've come to learn is a bit wishful then none of this would have happened.

 

That's why I'm asking for guidance. I mean they could well do the 'catch 22' affair and never progress to a CCJ seeing as the CRA entries with a DN are just equally as bad. In fact what's to stop them doing this as when I did on line queries with both CRA's the bank came back with a simple 2 liner;

 

'The repayment was required by 14/8, this was not met and final demand followed dated 9/9. Bank

have acted in line with their procedures in this regard and the debt remains outstanding.'

Michael

Edited December 7, 2009 by InformedSearcher
format error

[diddydicky]

i understand

 

their tactics at the moment are working for them- theyve got you afraid of them and of the courts

 

the court is NOT their legal arm

 

EVEN IF they win- a ccj is no bad thing since it ends the charges and interest being added to the account

 

look on the payplan and CCCS sites and download their income and expenditure sheets

 

fill it out (for yourself not your creditors) and work out your disposable income (make sure you include an amount to save for holidays- you are not denied those)

 

now they show you how to work out what to offer your unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis

 

this is EXACTLY the same way the court will work out what you will pay on a CCJ if it gets that far.

 

nothing to do with what the creditor WANTS- that is what he will get

 

being unemployed actually helps your position- make sure your creditor knows that you are unemployed and that you do not have a pot to P** in- that way he will know that if he continues- he aint going to get anymore (probably a whole lot less) that what you have already offered

 

there really is no need to be afraid of the county court process.

 

a ccj will not mess up your credit record any more than the creditor has already messed it up

 

some (myself included) say that it is no bad thing - having got ones self out of the doo doo- that one has to learn to live within their means for a few years and not get back into the same mess

 

hope that helps you

[Jim Pike]

Hi diddydicky

 

Thanks that was a great post number 541

It says it all in a way that puts a bit of order back into the dread of court and ccjs.

It's helped reasure me, Thanks

Jim

[diddydicky]

no probs just keep us in touch with what letters you get and you will get all the help you need.

 

its all about taking control instead of being led by the nose!!

[egg-sterminator]

no probs just keep us in touch with what letters you get and you will get all the help you need.

 

its all about taking control instead of being led by the nose!!

DD if i could just pick your brains . Had a DN notice from our friends mercers and then a demand for full amount, if the DN is faulty [which it is having hardly any of the prescribed terms] does the DN need to have been registered with the CRA's for me to consider the account terminated . Thanks

[InformedSearcher]

i understand

 

their tactics at the moment are working for them- theyve got you afraid of them and of the courts

 

the court is NOT their legal arm

 

EVEN IF they win- a ccj is no bad thing since it ends the charges and interest being added to the account

 

look on the payplan and CCCS sites and download their income and expenditure sheets

 

fill it out (for yourself not your creditors) and work out your disposable income (make sure you include an amount to save for holidays- you are not denied those)

 

now they show you how to work out what to offer your unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis

 

this is EXACTLY the same way the court will work out what you will pay on a CCJ if it gets that far.

 

nothing to do with what the creditor WANTS- that is what he will get

 

being unemployed actually helps your position- make sure your creditor knows that you are unemployed and that you do not have a pot to P** in- that way he will know that if he continues- he aint going to get anymore (probably a whole lot less) that what you have already offered

 

there really is no need to be afraid of the county court process.

 

a ccj will not mess up your credit record any more than the creditor has already messed it up

 

some (myself included) say that it is no bad thing - having got ones self out of the doo doo- that one has to learn to live within their means for a few years and not get back into the same mess

 

hope that helps you

 

 

I'm sorry I think you might have missed my point. If I can reply to your post...

 

I'm not in fact afraid of them. My belief is that they need not go to court to ensure the DN remains on the CRA files. If they go to court I will challenge the DN and if I win the DN entries will be removed from the CRA's.

 

I did and incme and expenditure with them back in May. The lady agreed there was no available funds to service the loan. She even told me that they would not call the D/D payment (which they lied and did!).

 

Once the DN and final demand arrived they effectively stopped further interest by virtue of themselves. The figure shown was the one to the date of the DN.

 

Getting a CCJ is not what I intend to do if at all possible and as I said myself the DN (wrong) entry on the CRA's is of equal derogatary status. Of course I could have gone to court to delay the DN but in fact without a timeline that would have been pointless. However the fact they have ignored my views regarding their DN kind of answers it's own question.

 

I did live within my means untill I was made redundant. The fact is that financial institutions could not care once payments stop. Their phone and letter system goes into overdrive and they will smply not listen.

 

I think we are looking at the same problem with different beliefs and prospectives. Life is a course of events and with the best planning in the world unless you never borrow anything then anyone can end up in the same situation.

 

Michael

[Pinky69]

Entering defaults on credit reports is not related to termination. Termination is either by letter or by the creditor demanding the full balance/selling the debt on.

[diddydicky]

as pinky as said

[diddydicky]

I'm sorry I think you might have missed my point. If I can reply to your post...

 

I'm not in fact afraid of them. My belief is that they need not go to court to ensure the DN remains on the CRA files. If they go to court I will challenge the DN and if I win the DN entries will be removed from the CRA's.

 

I did and incme and expenditure with them back in May. The lady agreed there was no available funds to service the loan. She even told me that they would not call the D/D payment (which they lied and did!).

 

Once the DN and final demand arrived they effectively stopped further interest by virtue of themselves. The figure shown was the one to the date of the DN.

 

Getting a CCJ is not what I intend to do if at all possible and as I said myself the DN (wrong) entry on the CRA's is of equal derogatary status. Of course I could have gone to court to delay the DN but in fact without a timeline that would have been pointless. However the fact they have ignored my views regarding their DN kind of answers it's own question.

 

I did live within my means untill I was made redundant. The fact is that financial institutions could not care once payments stop. Their phone and letter system goes into overdrive and they will smply not listen.

 

I think we are looking at the same problem with different beliefs and prospectives. Life is a course of events and with the best planning in the world unless you never borrow anything then anyone can end up in the same situation.

 

Michael

 

that's good

 

however

 

i think that you are going to find it very difficult to remove the adverse from your CRA files whatever the outcome of the DN arguments but i wish you luck with it

 

 

i

[InformedSearcher]

Entering defaults on credit reports is not related to termination. Termination is either by letter or by the creditor demanding the full balance/selling the debt on.

 

 

Is not the DN and Final Demand not that then?

 

Michael

[InformedSearcher]

that's good

 

however

 

i think that you are going to find it very difficult to remove the adverse from your CRA files whatever the outcome of the DN arguments but i wish you luck with it

 

 

i

 

 

Well this is the 'catch 22' thing is it not? The DN and final demand is issued. The bank decides that they'll ignore the DN being invalid and enter it into the CRA system. They know that if they go to court for a CCJ then there's a good chance (for me anyhow) that the DN will be deemed invalid and therefore will be removed from the CRA files and the CCJ application fail. I am aware that the debt does not vanish but the words 'DN' and the red circle does.

My other option is for me to go to CC and claim the DN invalid. This is indeed a good option, as they ignored me telling them and of course they cannot rectify their mistakes now. Strange I also no longer get any phone calls either!

 

Michael

[diddydicky]

it is a difficult and frustrating position to be in

 

they of course will (swear) that they did not believe the DN or TN to be faulty at the time they recorded the information

 

( they should not record ANy default information upon issue of the DN, since, if effective the DN gives you the opportunity within 14 days of service to remedy the breach and to continue the agreement "as if the breach had never occurred")

 

therefore if they have recorded this BEFORE the DN time was up they are at fault there

 

the will ONLY accept that the DN/TN is at fault when the judge says it is- thus they exonerate themselves from being vexatious at the time they recorded the information

 

this is where the SAR usually comes in handy!!

 

the debt collection part of the business might tell a few porkies and "pull a few strokes" but trust me the people that enter the information on a daily basis onto the computers will not usually fabricate and once entered it is very difficult apart from super IT bods to change records without leaving "traces"