Invalid Default Notices

[Duffers Mum]

Can someone clarify for me please...can you only claim this UR thing if you have stopped payments after receiving the (dodgy) DN and their claim for the full outstanding balance?

 

Waves to guests UHOOOOOOOO!

[Scrapper]

Can someone clarify for me please...can you only claim this UR thing if you have stopped payments after receiving the (dodgy) DN and their claim for the full outstanding balance?

 

Waves to guests UHOOOOOOOO!

 

 

Well lets hope so as I kept paying Tesco's until a Default appeared on my credit file while on a payment arrangement 1 year after the so called event. I was somewhat green back then and found the copy they said they sent filed in the wrong place as I didn't really have a clue to be honest. I wasn't a cagger back then.

 

Once I found out what they had done and the fact the DN was invalid I stopped paying them 2 months ago.

 

Not heard a word from them since. I'm not saying I won't though.

 

If they take me to court I will plead I'm only a layperson and was none the wiser and they acted illegally etc etc. More clued up now.

 

Shame really as I would have cleared it in around 15 months as I was about to up my payments from £60pm to £100

 

Oh well sh*te happens.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

[beachcomber60]

Don't forget the correct terminology....their unlawful termination constitutes repudiatory breach, which you elect to accept, therefore the agreement is rescinded.

 

Oops - letter gone

[Undercover-Elsa]

Don't worry Beachy..it's only me being pedantic

I'm sure they'll get the drift. We're only laypersons after all

Did I thank you for the blob?

 

Elsa x

 

PS..DM....It's generally thought that as a layman you can only reasonably be expected to know that you have the right to accept the repudiation once you become aware of the significance after taking advice, and providing they haven't issued another DN in the meantime.

[Duffers Mum]

Thanks Elsa...that's me stuffed then, because as you know they issued a second, even more dodgy DN

[Scrapper]

If they take me to court I will plead I'm only a layperson and was none the wiser and they acted illegally etc etc. More clued up now.

 

 

I'm not saying that it will go my way if they did take me to court but who gives a f*** anymore.

 

The Banks and Credit Card companies are running around like their s**t don't stink and have done nothing wrong and basically breaking about every law and regulation there is and are being allowed to run riot.

 

When you confront them or ask for any sort of help they just ignore you altogether and carry on regardless then slap a bloody great Default on your credit file because they can. Whether warranted or not and the CRA just let them get away with it and ignore you as well.

 

If they can act like the common criminals that they are then why shouldn't I do exactly the same?

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander in my book.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

[nks22]

Can someone clarify for me please...can you only claim this UR thing if you have stopped payments after receiving the (dodgy) DN and their claim for the full outstanding balance?

 

No, you can claim it at any time after their termination (in this case a demand for the full amount). That you had previously continued making payments in ignorance shouldn't matter.

[Undercover-Elsa]

DM..that's fine if the second DN was dodgy too!!!

They can keep having cracks at it till they terminate/demand full balance, but if they STILL get it wrong the result is the same.

[Duffers Mum]

:D just what I needed to hear..thanks, can't click the scales again, says I have to share the love around lol

[Mozz1]

Hi. Could any of you guys take a look at the thread I have started to help my girlfriend out with HSBC overdraft/Final Demand problems? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/265817-hsbc-help-desperatley-needed.html#post3031946

If you coulod we would be very grateful.

[diddydicky]

No, you can claim it at any time after their termination (in this case a demand for the full amount). That you had previously continued making payments in ignorance shouldn't matter.

 

but it may well!!

[lexis200]

have there been any other cases other than Bill Shiddings in which it has been proven to be an issue?

[diddydicky]

not that i personally know of

[lexis200]

Thanks DD - nice to know!

[Undercover-Elsa]

At the end of the day, without having issued a valid DN, and regardless of repudiation, they still don't have cause of action.

[DebtDissolver]

Afternoon caggers! Hoping for some knowledgeable advice plz?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/267786-invalid-default-notice-issued.html#post3033095

 

can anyone take a look at this for me please? many thanks!

[Drederick Tatum]

Can someone give their opinion on this please as a default notice.

 

 

 

 

I've had a letter from them this morning terminating my account so I'm looking for my next move, I wasn't even sure the above was a default notice but it's all I've received.

[Gallahad]

This is typical of crap1 although failing to meet the requirements of the act by stating a date they rely on the judges lottery to believe that 28 days will get them by.

G

[Gallahad]

Have you sent a CCa request? When was account opened?

It would be wise to start your own thread under crap1

G

[Drederick Tatum]

Have you sent a CCa request? When was account opened?

It would be wise to start your own thread under crap1

G

 

I'm already down the CCA route which is why they are terminating my account.

 

I'm just looking for opinions on this to give them more hoops to jump through.

[lexis200]

This is typical of crap1 although failing to meet the requirements of the act by stating a date they rely on the judges lottery to believe that 28 days will get them by.my guess is it would get them by...

G

 

Although it is absolutely right that a date should/must be specified and they do not do this, the fact that they allow a full 28 days following the date on the letter is I think something you would be hard pressed to get a court to say it is invalid on this fact alone.

 

The trouble is, you have to have 14 clear days and they are obviously giving you much more than this, so despite the fact it is not written as the regulations stipulate I don't think you'd get too far with arguing the toss on it as they will simply say you had way more time than the regs require. Of course if you get someone who is going to follow the exact letter of the law you'd be fine:)

 

If anyone has won on this point though I'd be very pleased to see it as I've got a '28 day' one from cap1 myself:rolleyes:

[diddydicky]

alas 28 days WILL get them by

 

this DN is valid (unless the amounts are seriously wrong)

 

( well it does not "specify" a date - but as it gives you 28 days you aint going to be able to succesfully defend on the basis of the DN ) IMO

[diddydicky]

sorry lexis- didnt see your post:)

[Lord_Alcohol]

If an OC issues a seriously defective DN (eg, insufficient time to remedy or amount stated to remedy far too high) under s87(1) then repudiates the contract (which is accepted by the debtor), he is therefore not entitled to demand earlier payment of any sum (s87(1)(b)) or recover possession of any goods (s87(1)©).

 

At least, that is what CCA states.

 

If he continues to seek earlier payment or possession of goods but does not issue a county court claim, can an order be sought in the courts that prevents the OC from any further action?

 

I know we went over this a while back and I've spent the time since going over the implications - yet it seems clear to me that, by continuing to try to recover money/goods, the OC is repeatedly in breach of CCA. He breaches s87(1) because he has not complied with s88.

 

Every time he sends a demand/threat he breaches the Act, AFAICS.

 

I think that the only way to stop his continued breaches is a court order of some description - anyone have any more thoughts on this?

 

Apologies to resurrect an old chestnut...but I'm dealing with an OC (BoS) who has been doing this for almost 2 years

 

LA

[diddydicky]

i would suggest that as the creditor is likely to argue that he HAS complied with s87 (they always do) then "repeated" breaches would not be possible since the creditor is entitled to pursue the debt ( he is allowed to pursue the debt whether he has not taken legal action and he is allowed to pursue the debt even if he takes and loses a legal action!!

 

i would say therefore IMO that a court order to stop him would be both costly and unproductive since the court is bound to take the view that the as yet uncontested debt is a valid debt- until such time as it is deemed invalid and that the creditor has a right to pursue it