Invalid Default Notices

[diddydicky]

Can I ask a question. From reading thru this thread, I gather I need to accept Welcome's offer of unlawful termination? My question is, I received my default and termination back in August 08, agreement taken out in Feb 08. I never received these notices until last year when I sar'd them, and have just sat on them until now as its now been 18months since they were issued, and Welcome have made no attempt to recover the car or haul me before a court! So, can I write and accept their offer of unlawful termination now, and only owe them a few months arrears? If I can it would be extremely helpful, car was 7.5k and total agreement is just short of 14k.

 

have you made any payments to them or written anything to them since you received the DN? and TN

 

can you post the DN and TN up (minus personal details)

[Bigdebtor]

Are there any bar codes on the envelope? If so, there must be some way of decoding them to get a date of posting.

 

If not, then on the balance of probabilities you kept the envelope along with the letter!

 

BD

 

If it all gets down to balance of probabilities why on earth would you keep an envelope that the DN was NOT in and throw away the one it WAS in -since you clearly knew how important this piece of evidence was?

 

I think that to refute this EVIDENCE they would have to have a witness statement stating that they NEVER EVER posted out DN's 2nd class and the person in their post room always knew it was a DN inside and never EVER made a mistake. Any bluster by their lawyer would be just that - mere bluster (and blunder).

 

Good Luck.

 

BD

[diddydicky]

Thanks Diddy. There doesnt appear to be a barcode on the envelope.

 

if no round postcode then there should be a barcode

 

it is likely to be a very faint red marking across the envelope of a couple of inches

 

still the absence or lack of clarity of it is all in your favour- if you cant read it neither can anyone else!!

[Bigdebtor]

DD

 

But it must be the right envelope - because it's "the only one Batty had just after she had just opened the DN!" Why keep any other one and not that one?

 

As you say there will be no bar code reader in the court and therefore as I say the Balance of Probabilities argument should win out - putting them to strict proof if they claim the "always" send DN's out 1st class.

 

Also as you have already said, there are so many other inconsistencies with referrals to the same DN being issued on 2 different dates etc. Their credibility will be shot!

 

BD

[vint1954]

I sent a letter (kindly supplied by Vint) last week to see if the solicitors would fold but the only thing they have sent is another (have one already) copy of their costs if I lose. They have also sent a copy of the bundle they sent to court. It is just all of the stuff they have sent before but two copies of it all. I have so many copies of their DN & TN its not true. Can anyone say if they think I should use the envelope that I have. I cannot say for sure it was the one my DN was sent in but I cannot say it wasnt either, not sure how to present it to the judge. It is definately their envelope because it has their address on the back but it also says second class posting on the front, which all of their letters come by after you are signed up with them.

As DD has said, use it.

 

Maintain that the DN was sent second class, here is the envelope, you prove different.

[diddydicky]

its a bit late but look on the buddy list at the top of the site to see if there is one near you

[lexis200]

Hey Pinky, just wondering how your CRA fights are going at the moment? Just read through the last 15 or so pages after not being on for a while and I've only spotted one or two posts from you:eek:

[frettful38]

Right I have received the first of the replies to the letters that I sent above to the 2 DCA's and Littlewoods.

 

 

1st Letter I have received is from Lowell Financial and they have wrote:

 

"Further to your previous correspondence regarding the above account.

 

We have queried Shop Direct who have now requested that we cease all activity on this account as it was passed in error to ourselves.

 

We apologise for any distress or inconvenience this matter may have caused you.

 

 

So that is good news, one DCA down hey. I received a letter from Cabot last week and they wrote that they have requested information from Littlewoods and will get in touch with me as soon as they hear anything.

 

I had written to Littlewoods, Cabot and Lowell as I wanted to know who owned the debt.

 

Littlewoods had sold my debt to Cabot and to Lowell. I wrote to both DCA's and to Littlewoods. I have received a response from Lowells which I have written above and to day I have received a response from Cabot which reads:

 

Dear Mrs xxx,

 

Littlewoods have confirmed that your account was sold to the Lowell Group after the sale to Cabot Financial.

 

The account has now been withdrawn from the Lowell Group and we therefore request that you contact this office to discuss your payment options.

 

I have not received a response from Littlewoods yet, so do not know what to respond to Cabot and any advice will be gratefully appreciated. Thank you.

[lexis200]

Nice of them to tell Cabot that that was what happened but not bother to tell you:rolleyes:

 

I would just write something along the lines of

 

'As I stated in my earlier letter, until each company has informed me of the status of this account I will not be corresponding with any of you. I am still awaiting a reply from one company, and I have yet to ascertain whether all responses match.

 

I will contact you only when I am certain of who owns this account.

 

Love and kisses

 

Frettful'

[frettful38]

Nice of them to tell Cabot that that was what happened but not bother to tell you:rolleyes:

 

I would just write something along the lines of

 

'As I stated in my earlier letter, until each company has informed me of the status of this account I will not be corresponding with any of you. I am still awaiting a reply from one company, and I have yet to ascertain whether all responses match.

 

I will contact you only when I am certain of who owns this account.

 

Love and kisses

 

Frettful'

 

Thanks lexis for your advice, greatly appreciated.

[diddydicky]

Nice of them to tell Cabot that that was what happened but not bother to tell you:rolleyes:

 

I would just write something along the lines of

 

'As I stated in my earlier letter, until each company has informed me of the status of this account I will not be corresponding with any of you. I am still awaiting a reply from one company, and I have yet to ascertain whether all responses match.

 

I will contact you only when I am certain of who owns this account.

 

Love and kisses

 

Frettful'

 

you need to take the "es" off the end of "kisses"- far too extravagent!!

[lexis200]

Really?

 

Well perhaps it could be changed to Feck Off instead. Does that work better do you think?

[diddydicky]

much:)

[frettful38]

much:)

 

Thanks DD & lexis, I was wandering if you could have a look at the DN Littlewoods sent me and see if all is above board and how it should be please>

 

Littlewoods DN

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/LittlewoodsDN.jpg

 

Sorry didn't quite manage to get address of Littlewoods in at top!

[diddydicky]

looks ok to me

[frettful38]

looks ok to me

 

Well thought I would give it a try , no probs thanks DD>

[pedross]

Are you sure DD

 

I might be clutching at straws but paragraph 10A (final paragraph) which came into effect on 1/10/08 is quite specific. A statement in the following form:

 

This notice should include.........

 

My point is that in the regulations it is underlined and I assume for a reason.

 

For example, the previous 2 paragraphs in the default notice are in capitals as prescribed by the regulations. If they were not I think we would question them.

 

I might be completely off track but I have looked for explanations why this prescribed statement should or should not be underlined and as I cannot find an answer I presume it should be as stated in the regulations.

 

If I am wrong and someone can prove me wrong then at least we know where we stand.

 

Any takers?

 

Pedross

Edited March 1, 2010 by pedross
clarification

[diddydicky]

Hi pedross

 

judges are regularly dissing defences where the DN is a day short, (Yet another one only yesterday)

 

do you SERIOUSLY think a judge is going to rule the lack of underlining as a reason to reject the DN

 

that DN is as sound as a DN is likely to be (IMO)

[pedross]

Hang on DD

 

If it is a day short the judge is wrong ... agree or not?

 

I asked on another thread about thoughts regarding the whole statement a week or two ago and you said it is very often missing. I have now decided that if it is missing it must make the default notice defective...agree or not?

 

How do you feel about the statements that should be in capitals.. are they ok in lower case....yes or no?

 

I know you feel as passionate as I do about DN's so why should we start to give in to wrong decisions.

 

Final question...should the DN be in the way prescribed by the regulations or can the creditors just do as they choose and ignore the regulations?

 

I did say I might be clutching at straws but if it adds to the defence I don't see why we should disregard a statement which is not in the following form.

 

How about if we rearrange the words is that ok?

 

I know this is a long shot but one day someone is going to make a stand and these large companies will be forced to do what the act originally intended. Get it precisely right or suffer the consquences.

 

Pedross

[diddydicky]

Hang on DD

 

If it is a day short the judge is wrong ... agree or not?

 

I asked on another thread about thoughts regarding the whole statement a week or two ago and you said it is very often missing. I have now decided that if it is missing it must make the default notice defective...agree or not?

 

How do you feel about the statements that should be in capitals.. are they ok in lower case....yes or no?

 

I know you feel as passionate as I do about DN's so why should we start to give in to wrong decisions.

 

Final question...should the DN be in the way prescribed by the regulations or can the creditors just do as they choose and ignore the regulations?

 

I did say I might be clutching at straws but if it adds to the defence I don't see why we should disregard a statement which is not in the following form.

 

How about if we rearrange the words is that ok?

 

I know this is a long shot but one day someone is going to make a stand and these large companies will be forced to do what the act originally intended. Get it precisely right or suffer the consquences.

 

Pedross

 

if it is missing then CLEARLY it cannot be a de minimus issue since the text itself confirms that it is IMPORTANT text

 

the fact of it not being underlined does not make it any less readable nor does it confuse the debtor (IMO)

 

i am wholly in agreement with you on the fact that judges should not be ruling 1 day less as of no consequence and in the case yesterday, yet again the reason the judge has (IMO) got away with it it because a LIP was CLEARLY totally out of his depth in representing himself in court. He did not properly understand the arguments let alone the authorities for those arguments and really should not have been there

 

all i am saying is that it would be foolish to give someone hope that they could get a DN ruled as invalid on the underlining of the text you referred to when they cant even get the judge onside with the time limits

 

Whilst i am sure either of us could make good fist of some of these challenges and/or at least force matters to an appeal, optimist that i am- i would not even dream of trying to mount a defence against a DN on the sole basis of missing underlining

 

If i dont think I can do it- i certainly wouldn't advise anyone else to do it the more so because if i were the judge in such a case i would DEFINATELY rule that as a de minimus issue in the DN

 

In this case it is the ONLY fault with the DN-

Edited March 2, 2010 by diddydicky

[pedross]

Good man DD.

 

I would not dream of encouraging someone to fight a case on an issue which could be classed as De Minimus, which is why I kept stating that I could be clutching at straws.

 

However, I am not convinced. Personally, I would include it if it was supported by other arguments until someone proves me wrong. A day short, no underlining, wrong amount stated etc.

 

If the statements are in the regulations and a child could copy them I do not see how a variation can be De Minimus. 2 or 3 errors would need a good argument.

 

I can just imagine the conversation in the office when they typed up the amendments...Do you want me to underline it Sir, as you have...It makes no difference everyone will ignore it anyway?

 

Thanks for the debate DD ..I rest my case.

 

Pedross

[diddydicky]

i knew that would be your reply pedross - and whilst i was waiting i was musing thus in my word processor (well it is late and i'm feeling mellow)

 

A person cannot decide to become a plumber and to specialise in fitting central heating boilers- he first has to learn the general principles of plumbing

 

A person cannot decide to become a heart specialist until he has a basic grounding in anatomy and general medicine

 

And yet here we are (the majority of us) plastic “lawyers” trying our best to”specialise” in the consumer credit legislation, without first having grounded ourselves in the general principles of law.

 

How easily, when we park in the wrong place, which is clearly signed, or exceed by 9mph a clearly identified speed limit, we then protest that the traffic warden or policeman may be legally right but is being officious and what happened to common sense.

 

We get blinkered by our own narrow objectives into not seeing the overall picture.

 

It is my opinion (for what it is worth) that the civil law is very much based on “common sense”, True there are important “central” issues that must be carried to the letter, but legislation can never be drafted so as to be totally watertight or to cover every eventuality , nor was it (IMO) ever intended to be so

 

It was always the intention that where two (or more) parties disagreed over interpretation and implementation that the duty of the courts was to iron out the flaws and give clarity where there is doubt or misunderstanding, in other words common sense should prevail.

 

By and large i think the judges get things right- many of the cases i see on these forums being lost are either on spurious challenges or are improperly prepared or argued. I’m not blaming the individuals concerned since they often have no other choice, but i don’t believe that all that many judges are “bent” or “stupid”, as some try to make out when a case is lost - they can only make decisions based on what is put before them,

 

The law, like medicine has grown too big that a lawyer or judge can “know all the legislation" and has to rely upon the arguments and authorities being put before him. This in my opinion can only be done by lots of research and study so that the Lip KNOWS the arguments he is putting inside out.

 

I am all for challenging creditors who get things wrong – they live by the sword therefore must expect to die by the sword, but we can’t SERIOUSLY expect to have the letter of the law applied to every last word, comma , full stop or hyphen in a document, and to my mind the absence of such things as underlining of words in a document or the fact that a set of words was in capital text rather than underlined or vice versa is indeed (unless taken in concert with other errors or omissions) clearly not to the detriment of the recipient and looking as i always try to do from both sides of the fence – clearly “loophole seeking”

 

I have no problem with people doing that provided that they are prepared for the consequences of failure.

 

To encourage others to run these “trite” defences is easy from the comfort of ones armchair- after all it is not we who then end up dry mouthed in front of the judge in the sudden realisation of just how stupid the argument sounds when spoken in the calm and quiet of his courtroom.

 

All i am saying is that often we are guilty of not stopping and looking at the arguments and issues from both sides of the fence .

Edited March 2, 2010 by diddydicky

[nks22]

I can imagine that a judge will be more sympathetic if an error could have put you at a disadvantage rather than been merely a technicality.

[emandcole]

If you can demonstrate that disadvantage, perhaps. All the better if you can route that disadvantage from a previous case that is authoritative.

 

DD is quite right, it is easy to get your feathers all ruffled and to lose sight of the overall balance of things and that loss of balance is likely to result in a fall.

 

Great research, correct and neutral interpretation, a concise and well reasoned argument along with as much evidence as you can muster to substantiate any pleading are really the essential tools of the job, LIP or otherwise.

[angel_1]

hiya guys

 

ive missed so much on this thread i need a cuppa and some biccies to catch up

 

as alway you fellow cag members always inspire me and make me stay grounded to look at the overall picture

 

mind you found my dn notice and the termination letter on my mint account today and thus i really need to update a thread on this creditor so i can ask for help

 

will do later

 

in the meantime keep happy angel x