Invalid Default Notices

[ANDREAMOUR]

hi guys ive had a letter today in response to my complaint about a dodgey defaulf notice from RBS it appears they are not legally obliged to show a date.

Check out my link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?188948-Not-Sure-If-This-1s-Enforceable-From-Rbs&p=3076765#post3076765

[pedross]

hi guys ive had a letter today in response to my complaint about a dodgey defaulf notice from RBS it appears they are not legally obliged to show a date.

 

I expect that they would say that.

 

I don't know of it being tested in court and it is a tough one to call but the default notice probably said that you must comply 'by the date shown'.

 

I agree with the rest of their letter and they are probably right on the credit agency points.

 

The 17 day issue has been debated before. I think they should show a date to comply. One day I am sure we will have an answer.

 

Pedross

[Drederick Tatum]

Quick question.

 

Would a letter accepting unlawful repudiation be classed as written acceptance of the debt?

 

I'm not sure weather to accept their unlawful repudiation to tie them up further or just leave it knowing they don't have an enforceable CCA anyway.

[basa48]

Quick question.

 

Would a letter accepting unlawful repudiation be classed as written acceptance of the debt?

 

I'm not sure weather to accept their unlawful repudiation to tie them up further or just leave it knowing they don't have an enforceable CCA anyway.

 

Good question, but I wouldn't dream of trying to deny a debt exists. A few statements of account would soon show up that lie.

 

Whether it is worth accepting rescission is worthwhile? Well at least one cagger (and we know who you are DD !! ) reckons its pointless as a faulty DN is breach of the regulations not the contract.

[BeauBrummie]

I am in court on Monday directly on this issue- where by no date was given for remedy by GE Money followed by termination by a DCA that they employed.

 

Watch this space

 

Beau

[Lord_Alcohol]

I am in court on Monday directly on this issue- where by no date was given for remedy by GE Money followed by termination by a DCA that they employed.

 

Watch this space

 

Beau

 

Best of luck Beau - hope it goes well and will be watching out for your posts.

 

LA

[diddydicky]

Quick question.

 

Would a letter accepting unlawful repudiation be classed as written acceptance of the debt?

 

I'm not sure weather to accept their unlawful repudiation to tie them up further or just leave it knowing they don't have an enforceable CCA anyway.

 

did you use their money? are there records, credit card receipts etc in existence to show that you did so?

 

have you got receipts to show that you have repaid everything you have borrowed?

 

if not then OF COURSE you have to accept that a debt - and therefore an agreement exists

 

the best you can hope for from using this forum (except in exceptional cases) is that you prove that the agreement is unenforceable through the courts- you will still owe the debt and still have a crap CRA

[ANDREAMOUR]

I am in court on Monday directly on this issue- where by no date was given for remedy by GE Money followed by termination by a DCA that they employed.

 

Watch this space

 

Good luck BB

[BeauBrummie]

Thanks for the support

 

I am not attending personnaly so will have to wait for the judges decision by snail mail.

 

In case anyone is interested link to the relevant thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?249017-OH-v-Mr-Cohen-Again!!

 

Thanks

 

Beau

Edited August 7, 2010 by BeauBrummie
Spacing !!!

[cymruambyth]

'm also passing my best wishes and hope there is a more knowledgeable DJ than last time!

[Duffers Mum]

So from what i'm reading here, it sounds like it doesn't make any difference if the DN is defective, in which case the cc companies and banks etc can put what they want on it anyway! Whereas I thought (possibly wrongly as it turns out now) that they could only claim the arrears if the DN is defective? Could anyone put me straight please

[middenmess]

So from what i'm reading here, it sounds like it doesn't make any difference if the DN is defective, in which case the cc companies and banks etc can put what they want on it anyway! Whereas I thought (possibly wrongly as it turns out now) that they could only claim the arrears if the DN is defective? Could anyone put me straight please

 

A default notice has to comply with strict rules for it to be be compliant with the law.

 

Have you posted up your DN somewhere for caggers to look at ?

[The GodMother]

So from what i'm reading here, it sounds like it doesn't make any difference if the DN is defective, in which case the cc companies and banks etc can put what they want on it anyway! Whereas I thought (possibly wrongly as it turns out now) that they could only claim the arrears if the DN is defective? Could anyone put me straight please

 

No you did not think wrongly these companys will try anything on and will even try telling you the sky is not blue but green etc.

Just cause they believe something, which they always will do and will admit, does not make it right. I have always believed if the DN is defective then they can always try and reclaim but they are limited to the arrears. This is what l was told on here.

[Drederick Tatum]

did you use their money? are there records, credit card receipts etc in existence to show that you did so?

 

have you got receipts to show that you have repaid everything you have borrowed?

 

if not then OF COURSE you have to accept that a debt - and therefore an agreement exists

 

the best you can hope for from using this forum (except in exceptional cases) is that you prove that the agreement is unenforceable through the courts- you will still owe the debt and still have a crap CRA

 

I'm not trying to deny the debt exists, I'm happy to sit out the crap credit rating until the debt becomes statute barred so I don't want this to be classed as written acceptance which will start the clock all over again.

[basa48]

I'm not trying to deny the debt exists, I'm happy to sit out the crap credit rating until the debt becomes statute barred so I don't want this to be classed as written acceptance which will start the clock all over again.

 

What you should do is deny any obligation to make payments.

[robinredbreast]

Just a quick note and heads up ...

 

Are we all aware, for those solely relying on dodgy remedy dates in the DN as a defence, of the recent Brandon v Amex case ... where the DJ overruled the requirement of the 14 day remedy date under the DN, and also dismissed the Woodchester case ....

 

Albeit this is where the Debtor was the claimant, so had taken Amex down the litigation route, but worth bearing in mind in case this is the only defence you have (i.e compliant CCA, and nothing else wrong with the DN) ...

 

It came up for discussion in my own thead for a DN I've been looking at, and thought it a good idea just to mention it here too .. I've attached the PDF except of the case, I don't think the full transcript has been published up to now.

 

If this has already been brought up and discussed ... accept my apologies ... but I'd rather it be here twice than not at all if thats ok ...

brandon_excerpt[1].pdf

[lexis200]

Just a quick note and heads up ...

 

Are we all aware, for those solely relying on dodgy remedy dates in the DN as a defence, of the recent Brandon v Amex case ... where the DJ overruled the requirement of the 14 day remedy date under the DN, and also dismissed the Woodchester case ....

 

Albeit this is where the Debtor was the claimant, so had taken Amex down the litigation route, but worth bearing in mind in case this is the only defence you have (i.e compliant CCA, and nothing else wrong with the DN) ...

 

It came up for discussion in my own thead for a DN I've been looking at, and thought it a good idea just to mention it here too .. I've attached the PDF except of the case, I don't think the full transcript has been published up to now.

 

If this has already been brought up and discussed ... accept my apologies ... but I'd rather it be here twice than not at all if thats ok ...

 

How'd they manage to explain that then??? Or was this a court with the power to change legislation? If not, he needs to have been asked to set out his findings and why he was ignoring the legal requirements of the Act!

[bobbielee]

Hello

Not to hijack this thread, could someone have a look at my thread, "Ouch?"

 

Bobbie

[lexis200]

Here's the link

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?272449-Ouch&highlight=

[robinredbreast]

In the Brandon case, which was a High Court case the Judge (QC) held that the fact the default notice didnt give 14 days was immaterial, as the debtor did not try to remedy the breach anyhow, therefore the Creditor was allowed to recover their monies even though the time for remedy under the DN did not meet the requirements.

 

The Judge considered Woodchester and Swain and distinguished it.

 

The judgement stays unless allowed leave of appeal whereby the Court Of Appeal will hopefully overturn it ..

 

Its just to be aware that this arguement may be brought up by a Creditor, if the debtor writes to them accepting unlawful recession on this sole basis (personallly if I did this I wouldn't tell them why it was unlawfully recinded .. just thank them for it .. and let them work out whats wrong with the DN) .. but if its only on dates in the DN that the debtor is using as a "get out of jail free card" then there may be a problem ....

 

Thats assuming it gets to court of course ......

[Undercover-Elsa]

Reading that excerpt..is it just me, but doesn't Section 98 ONLY apply to NON DEFAULT termination:

 

Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases).

— (1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of the termination.

 

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a)

a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

 

(b)

that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1),

 

 

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

 

(3) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.

 

(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

 

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

So why did it even come into the argument??

 

Why no mention of Section 87?

87.

Need for default notice.

— (1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a)

to terminate the agreement, or

 

(b)

to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

©

to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d)

to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e)

to enforce any security.

 

Or am I just being FIK??

[Undercover-Elsa]

Also in view of the arguments used, presumably this doesn't set precident for fixed term agreements?

[nks22]

the recent Brandon v Amex case ... where the DJ overruled the requirement of the 14 day remedy date under the DN

My reading is that the judge decided a DN wasn't required at all and that therefore the length of the remedy period given was neither here nor there.

[Undercover-Elsa]

But not required because Section (termination in non default) was quoted...which surely shouldn't have been because this was a Default situation?

[Duffers Mum]

A default notice has to comply with strict rules for it to be be compliant with the law.

 

Have you posted up your DN somewhere for caggers to look at ?

 

My thread is:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262556-Sainsburys-Bank-now-assigned-to-Cabot

 

and the DN's are in #14, I received 2, the first giving 14 days, the second giving 5! Neither obviously giving time for postage to be taken into account. I do also have the added bonus of a reconstituted agreement which has a major flaw (but which I don't want to disclose due to DCA's nosying around this site).

 

I'm slowly losing the will to live with all this DN stuff