Invalid Default Notices

[beyondhope]

Yes please beyondhope!! That would be excellent, thanks.

 

LA

 

No worries will do it within the next hr once squidlettes in bed

[Mozz1]

Ah so you are blaming the females species now! lol

 

No offence taken Mozz (well only for a millisecond).

 

Yes I understand the pressure, of course but with CAG we will help each other along the way.

 

Thanks. Appreciate that.

 

The mosquito name/image was supposed to be a pun aimed at the creditors but I'm not convinced it attracts much sympathy!

[beyondhope]

The defendant notes the claimants allegtion that the notice of default was defective, and will comment as follows.

 

The law relating to the issuing of a DN is contained with ss 87-89 CCA.

 

S88 cca1974, as amended 2006, states that the date specified for remedying the default must not be less than 14 days after the date of service for the DN

 

The defendant notes the claimants reference to the interpretation act 1978 regarding the service of documents, and rule 6.26 of civil procedure rules.

 

Having regard to the CCA1974, as amended 2006, and having regard to all related statutes, the defendant will say as follows.

 

Regarding the interpretation act 1978, s7 states the service of a document by post is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre paying and posting a letter containing the document and is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post

 

The defendant will say that rule 626 of the CPR does not apply, as the CPR apply only to the service of legal documentation, and then only in relation to a civil claim, which had been issued in accordance with the CPR rules.

 

The notice of default was not issued in accordance with the CPR, and was in fact served in accordance with ss87-89 of the consumer credit act Therefore the claimants claim that the DN has not been correctly served in accordance with rule 6.26 is dismissed as entirely irrelevant

 

In any case should rule 6.26 of CPR apply, the same states that a document is deemed served the second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day, or if not, the day after that

 

The defendant will therefore say that rules 6.26 of CPR does not specify two business days, it merely states 'on the second day of posting, provided that day is a business day.'

 

Consequently, as the notice of default was served January 15th 2010, the same being a friday, in the ordinary course of post the same would be deemed to have been delivered on the second day after posting.

 

However, as the second day after posting was a sunday, and was therefore not a business day, the official date of posting was January 18th 2010, the same being the following monday.

 

The claimant claims that the notice of termination was issued february 1st 2010, the defendant will refer to the attached notice of termination, which clearly states that the same was issued on 2nd february 2010 The claimant is asked for an explanation as to why the facts relating to this document have been misstated.

 

In any case, the notice of termination was issued on february 2nd 2010, which allowed the claimant 14days, between 18th january 2010 and 2nd february 2010, to remedy the default which was outlined in the DN. Consequently any allegation of breach of s.88 CCA is denied.

 

The defendant notes the claimants allegation that the 14 day period had to be specified in date format, and that merely specifying 14 days is allegedly insufficient.

 

The opening words of the DN refer to the date of service of the DN. The intention of the instruction is given in s88 CCA is to advise as to when the period allowed for remedying the default has expired, ie after, or not less than, 14 days.

 

The defendant will say that by specifying a 14 day period in which the claimant is to remedy the default, the defendant has complied with s88 CCA in full.

 

The defendant will say that the dates specified on the DN allow no room for error The claimant can have been in no doubt as to the required action, and the time limit within which to carry out the required action

 

The claimant can have been in no doubt as to the consequences of failing to comply with the actions set out in the DN.

 

The defendant notes that the claimant admits to having received the DN and further notes that the claimant did not comply with the same in that the claimant not only did not pay the outstanding arrears under the agreement but the claimant failed to make any offer of payment, or indeed payment of any sort under the agreement and did not attempt to contact the defendant to discuss any offer of payment.

 

The defendant will further say that the claimant has in fact made no payment under the agreement since 31st October 2009.

 

In view of the above, the defendant will state that despite being allowed the statutory 14 day period in which to remedy the default in the manner specified in the DN, the claimant made no attempt to do so either within or at any time after the expiry of the statutory 14 day period.

 

The defendant will therefore say that the claimant has failed to demonstrate any breach of the defendant to comply with the rules set out at s87-89 CCA, any such allegation by the claimant being denied in its entirety.

 

Like the defendant will say that the claimant has failed to demonstrate any improper termination of the claimants agreement, any such allegation by the claimant being denied in its entirety

 

The defendant will again refer to the claimants apparent misquoting of the date on the TN, and again puts the claimant to strict proof for a full explanation.

 

 

 

 

***so there you have it in the wise words of a welcome finance employee! as for them wanting strict proof they can have it i have 2 termination notices both without prejudice 1 dated 1st feb, 1 dated 2nd feb so there was no mis stating on my part! any opinions, info and experience as to responding most welcomed thank you in advance and hope this will help someone else in some way also***

[basa48]

No worries will do it within the next hr once squidlettes in bed

 

Your hours up!!!! :lol:

 

Damn - you posted just as I posted :D

[beyondhope]

Your hours up!!!! :lol:

 

 

and so was my post took a little while to type

[Mozz1]

Oh, mozzquito!!

 

I was thinking of mozzarella...I am such a twit at times (trying to imagine male and female mozzarella)

 

I think I'd better go and lie down...

 

LA

 

yeah...

...that would be the first mozzi I've ever seen eating cheese

[basa48]

......i have 2 termination notices both without prejudice 1 dated 1st feb, 1 dated 2nd feb so there was no mis stating on my part! any opinions, info and experience as to responding most welcomed thank you in advance and hope this will help someone else in some way also***

 

de minimis. I think a hostile judge could easily argue that 1 day did not unduly disadvantage you.

[diddydicky]

i think you might have your defendants and claimants a little mixed up there- starting with the first sentence!!

[beyondhope]

de minimis. I think a hostile judge could easily argue that 1 day did not unduly disadvantage you.

 

I totally agree (I just wanted to ensure those reading knew I could prove it ) I actually cant believe they have had the bare brass neck to make their defence reach me past the deadline! My main problem appears to be I started all this months ago when everyone was much more adament that a defective DN was all you needed to fight them with etc but things have changed now and its too late for me so now I have to fight them anyway!

[beyondhope]

i think you might have your defendants and claimants a little mixed up there- starting with the first sentence!!

 

in what sense? as in i should be defending not claiming?

[diddydicky]

unless i have read it wrong (apologies if i have) arent you the defendant?

 

as far as the previous post is concerned- of course a dopy judge could rule 1 day short as de minimus (he could rule 10 days short as de minimus if he really wanted)- it would NOT survive an appeal as it is clearly laid down by parliament and as i said earlier (or on another thread)

 

the judge would have no grounds for ruling one day as de minimus since he has no authority on which to rely

 

he would then have to explain how many days- in his opinion are de minimus and whatever answer he came up with- (lets say he considers 2 days the absolute max ) then he would have to show authority for the proposition that one or two days were de minimus but three was not

 

there is no such authority

[beyondhope]

thanks DD no im the claimant the claim is us v them rather than them v us

 

we are claiming for unlawful repo and unfair relationship defective DN is major part of the repo

 

sorry for not explaining myself more clearly

Edited July 15, 2010 by beyondhope
more info

[basa48]

in what sense? as in i should be defending not claiming?

 

I read this as you are the claimant, i.e. suing the creditor on the strength of a defective DN ?

[basa48]

.........I actually cant believe they have had the bare brass neck to make their defence reach me past the deadline! ............

 

That's nothing (he says in best Monty Python style) !!

 

I have a defendant (yes I too am a claimant !) who has variously; failed to acknowledge, failed to submit defence, then applied to set-aside my default judgement 6 weeks after the DJ!!

 

He then failed to turn up at the set aside hearing, after a second hearing (where he got the set-aside!) then failed to submit his defence contrary to a judges order !!

 

I'm now waiting to see if the court will uphold my second DJ!!!

[beyondhope]

Oh My!!!

 

Deadline was yesterday nothing received at court or by myself so toddled off to court to enter default judgement sorted that pulled up at home to be greeted by the postman with their defence grr wasnt impressed what a wasted journey!

[frettful38]

Vanquis sent me a faulty DN and then unlawfully rescinded my agreement. I wrote a letter to Vanquis and accepted their unlawful rescission. I am now receiving letters from Lowell wanting to collect the debt, should I write to Lowell and inform them that Vanquis have unlawfully rescinded my agreement?

 

Any help would be great, thanks

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture006-2.jpg

[Undercover-Elsa]

The defendant notes the claimants allegtion that the notice of default was defective, and will comment as follows.

 

The law relating to the issuing of a DN is contained with ss 87-89 CCA.

 

S88 cca1974, as amended 2006, states that the date specified for remedying the default must BE A DATE not be less than 14 days after the date of service for the DN

 

The defendant notes the claimants reference to the interpretation act 1978 regarding the service of documents, and rule 6.26 of civil procedure rules.

 

Having regard to the CCA1974, as amended 2006, and having regard to all related statutes, the defendant will say as follows.

 

Regarding the interpretation act 1978, s7 states the service of a document by post is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre paying and posting a letter containing the document and is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post

 

The defendant will say that rule 626 of the CPR does not apply, as the CPR apply only to the service of legal documentation, and then only in relation to a civil claim, which had been issued in accordance with the CPR rules.

 

The notice of default was not issued in accordance with the CPR, and was in fact served in accordance with ss87-89 of the consumer credit act Therefore the claimants claim that the DN has not been correctly served in accordance with rule 6.26 is dismissed as entirely irrelevant

 

In any case should rule 6.26 of CPR apply, the same states that a document is deemed served the second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day, or if not, the day after that

 

The defendant will therefore say that rules 6.26 of CPR does not specify two business days, it merely states 'on the second day of posting, provided that day is a business day.'

 

Consequently, as the notice of default was served January 15th 2010, the same being a friday, in the ordinary course of post the same would be deemed to have been delivered on the second day after posting.

 

However, as the second day after posting was a sunday, and was therefore not a business day, the official date of posting was January 18th 2010, the same being the following monday.

 

The claimant claims that the notice of termination was issued february 1st 2010, the defendant will refer to the attached notice of termination, which clearly states that the same was issued on 2nd february 2010 The claimant is asked for an explanation as to why the facts relating to this document have been misstated.

 

In any case, the notice of termination was issued on february 2nd 2010, which allowed the claimant 14days, between 18th january 2010 and 2nd february 2010, to remedy the default which was outlined in the DN. Consequently any allegation of breach of s.88 CCA is denied.

 

The defendant notes the claimants allegation that the 14 day period had to be specified in date format, and that merely specifying 14 days is allegedly insufficient.

 

The opening words of the DN refer to the date of service of the DN. The intention of the instruction is given in s88 CCA is to advise as to when the period allowed for remedying the default has expired, ie after, or not less than, 14 days.

 

The defendant will say that by specifying a 14 day period in which the claimant is to remedy the default, the defendant has complied with s88 CCA in full.

 

The defendant will say that the dates specified on the DN allow no room for error The claimant can have been in no doubt as to the required action, and the time limit within which to carry out the required action

 

The claimant can have been in no doubt as to the consequences of failing to comply with the actions set out in the DN.

 

The defendant notes that the claimant admits to having received the DN and further notes that the claimant did not comply with the same in that the claimant not only did not pay the outstanding arrears under the agreement but the claimant failed to make any offer of payment, or indeed payment of any sort under the agreement and did not attempt to contact the defendant to discuss any offer of payment.

 

The defendant will further say that the claimant has in fact made no payment under the agreement since 31st October 2009.

 

In view of the above, the defendant will state that despite being allowed the statutory 14 day period in which to remedy the default in the manner specified in the DN, the claimant made no attempt to do so either within or at any time after the expiry of the statutory 14 day period.

 

The defendant will therefore say that the claimant has failed to demonstrate any breach of the defendant to comply with the rules set out at s87-89 CCA, any such allegation by the claimant being denied in its entirety.

 

Like the defendant will say that the claimant has failed to demonstrate any improper termination of the claimants agreement, any such allegation by the claimant being denied in its entirety

 

The defendant will again refer to the claimants apparent misquoting of the date on the TN, and again puts the claimant to strict proof for a full explanation.

 

 

 

 

***so there you have it in the wise words of a welcome finance employee! as for them wanting strict proof they can have it i have 2 termination notices both without prejudice 1 dated 1st feb, 1 dated 2nd feb so there was no mis stating on my part! any opinions, info and experience as to responding most welcomed thank you in advance and hope this will help someone else in some way also***

 

What deliberately misleading tosh! They missed the part in red.

They have conveniently misquoted s 88, it is just their loose interpretation of it so you need to throw the actual section back at em.

They have also deliberately misinterpreted the meaning of "DATE" which, according to the Oxford Dictionary is:

 

date 1 (date)

 

 

 

 

noun

• 1 the day of the month or year as specified by a number:what's the date today? please give your name, address, and date of birth
  

I don't know of many people who, when asked their date of birth, would reply " 25 years 3 months and 2 days before today".

 

Similarly, their justification of posting times is self serving and cynical, in that it would presume a letter posted on a Friday was delivered on the 2nd day, or the day after if the second day is not a working day...however if, say, the Monday was Christmas Day and Tuesday Boxing Day then the letter would not arrive until Wednesday, which makes nonsense of the reasoning.

One might question their motives when a time sensitive legal document is served by them in such a casual and unreliable manner when there are clearly benefits to be had, in the form of early repayment, if the recipient is not given sufficient time for remedy.

 

Elsa x

Edited July 16, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa

[Undercover-Elsa]

:twisted:

Vanquis sent me a faulty DN and then unlawfully rescinded my agreement. I wrote a letter to Vanquis and accepted their unlawful rescission. I am now receiving letters from Lowell wanting to collect the debt, should I write to Lowell and inform them that Vanquis have unlawfully rescinded my agreement?

 

Any help would be great, thanks

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture006-2.jpg

 

hi Fretful,

Did you get the NOA after you accepted the repudiation?

Have Vanquis acknowledged your letter?

 

Elsa x

[frettful38]

Hi Elsa, Vanquis did not acknowledge my letter but I did send it recorded and have a copy, I wrote the unlawful rescission letter in March 10. I have not received a response since then, and no NOA either. This account has been passed by Vanquis to nearly 5 different DCA's, in the end the DN they issued was faulty,

 

hope that makes sense? and thanks

[lord_tiger_putin]

Vanquis sent me a faulty DN and then unlawfully rescinded my agreement. I wrote a letter to Vanquis and accepted their unlawful rescission. I am now receiving letters from Lowell wanting to collect the debt, should I write to Lowell and inform them that Vanquis have unlawfully rescinded my agreement?

 

Did Vanquis actually terminated the agreement? I have an account with them as well as my wife. They passed both to 1st Criminals and when I send them a "Prove It" Letter, they let me know they are requesting the information from Vanquis.

 

I also made a SAR for mine and received only printed versions of computer files, getting the impression that they DO NOT keep any paper files, i.e. credit agreement, etc. I requested them to send me the "missing" files or to inform me they do not have the files. I haven't receive an answer back yet but should they not keep paper files, it could be very useful information. They also didn't send a signed agreement when I made CCA requests.

 

It doesn't seem to me that they actually terminated the agreement. The letters from 1st Criminals do ask for the full amount, can I consider this as termination?

 

Actually the letters from 1st Criminals on my wife's account is very generous! They offered a discount of 10%, then 25%, after that a 50% and then again a 25%, making it a discount of 110%:roll: Maybe I should advice them now that they owe US money!!:-D:-D

[frettful38]

I sent Vanquis an Unlawful Recission letter on 30 March 2010 after discovering my DN was faulty. Yesterday I received a letter from Vanquis stating that they had sold the debt to Lowell.

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture005-1.jpg

 

This is the DN Vanquis sent

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture001-8.jpg

 

as you can see no date on DN on page 2

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture002-4.jpg

 

Letter received from Vanquis yesterday

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture003-4.jpg

 

Vanquis sold debt to Lowell

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/Picture004-2.jpg

 

Any ideas what I should respond to this recent letter please? First this account was with 1st Credit Ltd and had been passed on to three different DCA's. I did make a complaint to the FOS, but after writing the unlawful recession letter I withdrew my complaint.

 

 

I posted this a few days ago, maybe a bit easy to understand what happened better.

[chris60]

can someone please have a look,

my account is in dispute since Jan this year, and i recieved this on 2nd July. I know they are not allowed to do this while the account is in dispute but are they legal? there is no date, only 14 days and I believe there should be a date?

 

biccy60 :: welcome default letter july 2010 picture by TammyTheTiger - Photobucket

 

biccy60 :: welcome default july 2010 picture by TammyTheTiger - Photobucket

 

links for documents

 

should i write them a letter? or just wait? any advice greatly appreciated.

 

also original loan was for £17,000 so why does it state £18,000 on the default notice?

[frettful38]

Did Vanquis actually terminated the agreement? I have an account with them as well as my wife. They passed both to 1st Criminals and when I send them a "Prove It" Letter, they let me know they are requesting the information from Vanquis.

 

I also made a SAR for mine and received only printed versions of computer files, getting the impression that they DO NOT keep any paper files, i.e. credit agreement, etc. I requested them to send me the "missing" files or to inform me they do not have the files. I haven't receive an answer back yet but should they not keep paper files, it could be very useful information. They also didn't send a signed agreement when I made CCA requests.

 

It doesn't seem to me that they actually terminated the agreement. The letters from 1st Criminals do ask for the full amount, can I consider this as termination?

 

Actually the letters from 1st Criminals on my wife's account is very generous! They offered a discount of 10%, then 25%, after that a 50% and then again a 25%, making it a discount of 110%:roll: Maybe I should advice them now that they owe US money!!:-D:-D

 

 

Hi LLP, I too was offered a discount. I would not have gone this far with Vanquis to be honest but after numerous and head banging attempts of trying to agree to a repayment plan I never ever once got anywhere and they would never accept. I sent 3 times I & E forms and still not good enough. Then the fault DN came and what was I suppose to do but use it to my advantage.

 

Have you received a DN from Vanquis?

[frettful38]

can someone please have a look,

my account is in dispute since Jan this year, and i recieved this on 2nd July. I know they are not allowed to do this while the account is in dispute but are they legal? there is no date, only 14 days and I believe there should be a date?

 

biccy60 :: welcome default letter july 2010 picture by TammyTheTiger - Photobucket

 

biccy60 :: welcome default july 2010 picture by TammyTheTiger - Photobucket

 

links for documents

 

should i write them a letter? or just wait? any advice greatly appreciated.

 

also original loan was for £17,000 so why does it state £18,000 on the default notice?

 

 

Hi chris, I don't if its my eyesight but this DN is so wonky, it looks like a cut and paste and put together very badly piece of paper. Is this how the DN really looks and how it came, I mean the lines are not exactly straight are they?

 

This DN is faulty IMO, as they have not given time for posting, I am sure that all will agree. Keep this DN very safely as it is very important.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Consequently, as the notice of default was served January 15th 2010, the same being a friday, in the ordinary course of post the same would be deemed to have been delivered on the second day after posting.

 

However, as the second day after posting was a sunday, and was therefore not a business day, the official date of posting was January 18th 2010, the same being the following monday.

 

Hi beyondhope

 

So, they are telling the court that they posted the DN by first class mail and it went in to the postal system in good time on Friday 15th? By 'good time' I mean in order to be delivered for the following Monday (ie, before 4pm or so).

 

As I've never heard of DNs being sent by 1st class mail (but I'm not saying it never happens), I suppose one point is to ask the defendent to swear an affadavit that this was the case, and maybe also rummage around and see if this OC does in fact issue docs by 1st class mail.

 

I think it hugely optimistic to expect a DN to be on your doormat on the Monday following postage on a Friday, even if sent 1st class.

 

In any case, I believe that 'service of documents' is based on 'working days', which I think excludes Saturdays, so even if first class the service date should in fact be Tuesday 19th at the earliest.

 

Elsa has the other bits covered...

 

LA