Invalid Default Notices

[vint1954]

Thats fine LA. All enttitled to an opinion, thats what this forum is partly about.

 

Just spend some time reading the relevant threads and historic outcomes, to see the actual possition and dont forget, as soon as you go down this route, the CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR, so learn about contract law.

[mot22]

Thats fine LA. All enttitled to an opinion, thats what this forum is partly about.

 

Just spend some time reading the relevant threads and historic outcomes, to see the actual possition and dont forget, as soon as you go down this route, the CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR, so learn about contract law.

 

"CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR"

 

If I may ask vint1954, does post UR relinquish any rights of the debtor to ask and receive CCA and SAR requests from creditors ?

 

Presumably creditors would not deny those requests, for obvious reasons, but I just wanted to know.

 

many thx

Edited May 22, 2010 by mot22

[Lord_Alcohol]

Thats fine LA. All enttitled to an opinion, thats what this forum is partly about.

 

Just spend some time reading the relevant threads and historic outcomes, to see the actual possition and dont forget, as soon as you go down this route, the CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR, so learn about contract law.

 

Thanks Vint, and I know you have experience in these areas.

 

But I think we are all agreed that a dodgy DN + termination = UR, and that the debtor should accept it asap, even if payments have subsequently been made.

 

We are also agreed that the contract at this point is ended, but also that the OC cannot now claim monies unpaid because s87(1)(b) is unavailable to him due to non-compliance with s88.

 

(My view on reclaiming overpaid amounts is merely based on availability of s87(1)(b) to the OC).

 

The only issue that is causing a problem is what to do if the OC just sits on the account after UR (which has been accepted), presumably worried about making a claim which could be defended on the basis of UR. The debtor just gets clobbered with adverse credit for 6 years. Of course, he may not have to pay the OC back, but he also should not feel responsible for the OC's errors. He may even have wanted the contract to continue when the arrears were repaid.

 

As an example of this, I have a DN from Egg that claims twice the arrears. I wanted to keep this account, and could have paid the actual arrears, but saw no reason why I should pay twice this. Egg refused to back down, the contract was ended, UR accepted (last month), and now they are unlikely to do anything other that sit on the festering default for 6 years. I am therefore stuffed due to Egg's mistake.

 

The issue, then, is knowing how to proceed after UR where the OC fails to make a claim or otherwise fix the problem.

 

LA

[Lord_Alcohol]

"CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR"

 

If I may ask vint1954, does post UR relinquish any rights of the debtor to ask and receive CCA and SAR requests from creditors ?

 

Presumably creditors would not deny those requests, for obvious reasons, but I just wanted to know.

 

many thx

 

I don't think that's quite correct, as s140 is available to the debtor after a contract is terminated (see s140A(4) of the 2006 upgrade);

 

A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

 

I think an SAR comes under the 1998 DPA, not CCA, so that's not affected by UR. Not sure about a s78 request - is that info provided as part of a SAR?

 

LA

[mot22]

I don't think that's quite correct, as s140 is available to the debtor after a contract is terminated (see s140A(4) of the 2006 upgrade);

 

A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

 

I think an SAR comes under the 1998 DPA, not CCA, so that's not affected by UR. Not sure about a s78 request - is that info provided as part of a SAR?

 

LA

 

Me Lord...yes what you say makes sense. I get things mixed up so thanks for putting me "in order". lol

 

Apologies if it seems a silly question but so I'm clear on this, can we say that it is alright to make any request for anything pertaining to an account post UR, in that those requests would not "allege" endurance etc..?

Thx

 

PS: Further apologies to Pinky69 for any unnecessary intrusion on your thread..has the Queen Bee asked us drones to leave yet? lol

[vint1954]

"CCA 1974 is no longer your protector post UR"

 

If I may ask vint1954, does post UR relinquish any rights of the debtor to ask and receive CCA and SAR requests from creditors ?

 

Presumably creditors would not deny those requests, for obvious reasons, but I just wanted to know.

 

many thx

No thats fine. They must supply information under SAR. I suppose if you clainm that the agreement is at an end, then s78 request will not be covered.

[vint1954]

Thanks Vint, and I know you have experience in these areas.

 

But I think we are all agreed that a dodgy DN + termination = UR, and that the debtor should accept it asap, even if payments have subsequently been made.

 

We are also agreed that the contract at this point is ended, but also that the OC cannot now claim monies unpaid because s87(1)(b) is unavailable to him due to non-compliance with s88.

 

(My view on reclaiming overpaid amounts is merely based on availability of s87(1)(b) to the OC).

 

The only issue that is causing a problem is what to do if the OC just sits on the account after UR (which has been accepted), presumably worried about making a claim which could be defended on the basis of UR. The debtor just gets clobbered with adverse credit for 6 years. Of course, he may not have to pay the OC back, but he also should not feel responsible for the OC's errors. He may even have wanted the contract to continue when the arrears were repaid.

 

As an example of this, I have a DN from Egg that claims twice the arrears. I wanted to keep this account, and could have paid the actual arrears, but saw no reason why I should pay twice this. Egg refused to back down, the contract was ended, UR accepted (last month), and now they are unlikely to do anything other that sit on the festering default for 6 years. I am therefore stuffed due to Egg's mistake.

 

The issue, then, is knowing how to proceed after UR where the OC fails to make a claim or otherwise fix the problem.

 

LA

Thats why I suggested a good long read. It has all been discussed here before.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Thats why I suggested a good long read. It has all been discussed here before.

 

Holy cow Vint! You mean read all 140 pages...again?

 

Well, maybe tomorrow. Right now I'm going to sit in the garden with Lady Alcohol and a bottle of Dubonnet we just found in the cupboard under the stairs

 

LA

[Lord_Alcohol]

Me Lord...yes what you say makes sense. I get things mixed up so thanks for putting me "in order". lol

 

Apologies if it seems a silly question but so I'm clear on this, can we say that it is alright to make any request for anything pertaining to an account post UR, in that those requests would not "allege" endurance etc..?

Thx

 

PS: Further apologies to Pinky69 for any unnecessary intrusion on your thread..has the Queen Bee asked us drones to leave yet? lol

 

That's all right my man (but try not to let it happen again).

 

Vint is the chap who can answer your question - my opinion would be that it cannot affect it at all. After all, you can still request information about any account that you have had in the past and which has been closed.

 

LA

[vint1954]

Holy cow Vint! You mean read all 140 pages...again?

 

Well, maybe tomorrow. Right now I'm going to sit in the garden with Lady Alcohol and a bottle of Dubonnet we just found in the cupboard under the stairs

 

LA

Try "anatomy of a default notice" also.

[vint1954]

Me Lord...yes what you say makes sense. I get things mixed up so thanks for putting me "in order". lol

 

Apologies if it seems a silly question but so I'm clear on this, can we say that it is alright to make any request for anything pertaining to an account post UR, in that those requests would not "allege" endurance etc..?

Thx

 

PS: Further apologies to Pinky69 for any unnecessary intrusion on your thread..has the Queen Bee asked us drones to leave yet? lol

Yes, SAR comes under the Data Protection Act, nothing to do with the agreement, but ensure that you request a copy of the agreement in your SAR.

 

The OC is supposed to keep the original agreement for 5 years after the business relationship has ended, for money laundering regulations.

 

Also, under the companies act 1985, companies must display their registered address and company registration details on every letter and form, even applications. If they do not, it is a criminal offence. So look out for PO box numbers only on letters or DN's.

 

Pinky has been into this in some detail.

[cosalt]

Hi everyone, I am back in court this afternoon for a 1 hour hearing, my defence is based totally on their invalid DN and them changing the remedy time etc. Here is the thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

[frettful38]

Hi everyone, I am back in court this afternoon for a 1 hour hearing, my defence is based totally on their invalid DN and them changing the remedy time etc. Here is the thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

 

 

forgot what I was going to write sorry guys,

[mot22]

Hi everyone, I am back in court this afternoon for a 1 hour hearing, my defence is based totally on their invalid DN and them changing the remedy time etc. Here is the thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

 

Wishing the best outcome for you cosalt.

 

Many thanks for those previous replies vint1954

Edited May 24, 2010 by mot22

[brooooooooooce]

Hi everyone, I am back in court this afternoon for a 1 hour hearing, my defence is based totally on their invalid DN and them changing the remedy time etc. Here is the thread -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

 

 

Good luck!

[Laura Cooke]

Best of Luck hello guest

[cosalt]

Case lost, sorry everyone looks like a dodgy DN doesnt matter......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence-9.html#post2942614

[Laura Cooke]

I was told a dodgy DN was everything? I queried this a few weeks ago when a lady on here lost on same thing don`t understand this:confused:

[littlefatbudha]

This happened to me as well, the judge asked me if i owed the debt, i said "yes but", i think that was my down fall, apart from the judge being on the creditors side from the start.lfb

[letsgetitsorted]

but doesnt a default notice have to be in a prescribe form...by law....sorry to hear you lost..

[Fred Bassett]

I don't know how important this but somebody might see some relevance.

 

A while back, Halifax sent me a reconstructed 'true copy' of my agreement - they had previously only sent a copy of an application form without the necessary Ts & Cs. A few days ago, they sent me another reconstructed 'true copy' in response to a F&F offer. I've been through both copies and the wording as far as I can see is identical except in one respect:

 

'Original' version:

 

5.1 - We make a handling charge of 3% (at least £3) for all cash advances and 3% (at least £3) for balance transfers and cheques.

 

'New' version:

 

5.1 - We make a handling charge of 2% (at least £2) for all cash advances and 2% (at least £2) for balance transfers and cheques.

 

Now this may not mean much but it does at least show that one of these reconstructed versions is not a true copy of the original. It's quite possible that neither of them are.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Jameson78]

Very interesting to read Cosalts thread Re: Repo order help with defence post #2774

 

"despite the DN saying I must remedy within 14 days of the date, they say they actually gave me 18 days because they did not terminate until 4 days after." Quote post #145 Cosalt's thread.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

 

Could be an interesting new trajectory for this thread...

[MandM]

Very interesting to read Cosalts thread Re: Repo order help with defence post #2774

 

"despite the DN saying I must remedy within 14 days of the date, they say they actually gave me 18 days because they did not terminate until 4 days after." Quote post #145 Cosalt's thread.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177130-repo-order-help-defence.html

 

Could be an interesting new trajectory for this thread...

 

Then I would say that the OC was on dodgy ground. If the court accepts this argument then it would blow a big hole in almost all dodgy DN defences as the claimants argument would be based on the fact that they corrected their 'error' after the DN had expired by actions that Cosalt was unaware of until he was before the court.

 

Whether they terminated 4 days or 4 months later surely should be irrelevant as the act of termination does nothing to correct or invalidate the DN. The DN is still incorrect.

 

To put it into context - If they had terminated 4 months later then the OC would be saying that the rectification period for the DN had in fact been extended to 4 months and 14 days, therefore, the DN is correct! This cannot be right.

 

On a brighter note, the OC in cosalts case later produced a DN with the 18 days on it. As they have now admitted that the account was terminated 4 days after the expiry of the first DN it makes a complete mockery of their second attempt as it was issued against an account that was, by their own admission, already terminated

 

M

[pedross]

I agree MandM

 

The DN issued under section 87/1 should comply with section 88 and state a date which "must not be less than 14 days after the date of service"...............

 

In my opinon it does not matter when they terminate, the DN should be compliant for the creditor to become entitled to gain the benefits of section 87. Once they terminate it stands to reason the opportunity to get it right has gone forever.

 

Pedross

[MandM]

I agree MandM

 

The DN issued under section 87/1 should comply with section 88 and state a date which "must not be less than 14 days after the date of service"...............

 

In my opinon it does not matter when they terminate, the DN should be compliant for the creditor to become entitled to gain the benefits of section 87. Once they terminate it stands to reason the opportunity to get it right has gone forever.

 

Pedross

 

Which is why cosalt should win on appeal if the law is applied correctly.

 

M