Invalid Default Notices

[GeoffreyAlby]

Several of my UK Mail envelopes have had no date stamp on them, BTW.

 

 

 

Incidentally, I don't see how the envelope can show that it was delivered on the 16th. The franking date will be when Royal Mail received it from UK Mail, won't it, not when it was delivered?

 

 

UK Mail will not have a frank, but UK Mail is second class , so according to Ministry of Justice Civil Procedure Rules it is deemed to be served 4 working days after the date of posting, which would be the date on the enclosed letter.

[nks22]

Yes but I don't understand how LTP's retention of the envelope could be used to show that the DN had arrived after two days.

[nks22]

Anyway, my thought about undated UK Mail envelopes was that if, in your confusion, you'd not kept the original envelope but had inadvertently attached a different, undated, UK Mail envelope (received from the same creditor) to your DN as evidence that it was sent second class, would anyone know how confused you'd become?

[GeoffreyAlby]

Anyway, my thought about undated UK Mail envelopes was that if, in your confusion, you'd not kept the original envelope but had inadvertently attached a different, undated, UK Mail envelope (received from the same creditor) to your DN as evidence that it was sent second class, would anyone know how confused you'd become?

 

 

Why would the same creditor be sending a letter within 2 or 3 days of sending you a DN?

 

 

You hit the nail on the head , how would the creditor prove they had sent the DN 1st Class when every other correspondence has been 2nd Class via UK Mail?

[diddydicky]

Several of my UK Mail envelopes have had no date stamp on them, BTW.

 

 

 

Incidentally, I don't see how the envelope can show that it was delivered on the 16th. The franking date will be when Royal Mail received it from UK Mail, won't it, not when it was delivered?

 

forget all about what the envelope shows

 

the poster made an "admission" that HE received the DN on the 16th

 

if it were to be shown in court that the poster and the defendant were one in the same and that in evidence the defendant had misled (lied) to the court in this respect- he would be in deep doo doo

 

I don't intend to engage further on this- i was merely attempting to point out that posters should not make such admissions on the forum .

 

you can lead some people to water..................

[nks22]

Why would the same creditor be sending a letter within 2 or 3 days of sending you a DN?

 

It doesn't need to be, since it's undated. It could be one that came weeks before or after. I assume it couldn't be shown not to be the one that came with the DN.

[GeoffreyAlby]

I think this is important...

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part06.htm#IDAUNJAC

 

 

 

6.3

 

It would seem that a DN sent second class breaches Civil Procedure rules?

Edited July 28, 2010 by GeoffreyAlby

[GeoffreyAlby]

It doesn't need to be, since it's undated. It could be one that came weeks before or after. I assume it couldn't be shown not to be the one that came with the DN.

 

 

But then the burden of proof is on the Claimant?

[penmarine]

Hi there been reading through the posts, i've got DNs but I'm still unsure as to whether or not they are pukka. Could someone have a look and tell me, I have another thread on here but this looks like a better place to pose the question. Also some of the DNs are a few years old does this make a difference. Cheers PM

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy115/penmarine/CrapONE2s0001.jpg

CrapONEPG20001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy115/penmarine/CrapONEDefaultpage1c0001.jpg

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy115/penmarine/CrapOne1s0001.jpg

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy115/penmarine/vanquispg10001.jpg

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy115/penmarine/vanquispg20001.jpg

Edited July 29, 2010 by penmarine
And again I try to link different DNs. Sorry guys n girls!

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi PM,

They are all the same pic...

It's not actually a Default Notice, it's an Arrears Notice, which is just sent for information purposes only and is not a demand for payment.

 

DN's start off:

Important, You should read this carefully

Default Notice served...etc etc..

 

Elsa x

PS if its an error and you manage to sort it I'll take a look and edit this response.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa

[lord_tiger_putin]

just to get this absolutely straight

 

the "rules" do indeed state that it will be assumed that second class postage has been used unless evidence as to first class postage is presented

 

HOWEVER

 

if you admit that you have received the document earlier than the 4th working day from the date of posting then the DN will be deemed to have been served on the day you state that you received it and NOT the fourth day.

 

the "purpose"" of the legislation is to "serve" the DN on the debtor

 

and the admission by the debtor that he received it on a particular day overrides the time for service that was "deemed" if that is an earlier date

 

i thought that you had admitted in an earlier post- receving the DN two days after it was posted (16th)- given the public nature of the forum i would advise that it would be very foolish to later declare otherwise

 

Several of my UK Mail envelopes have had no date stamp on them, BTW.

 

Incidentally, I don't see how the envelope can show that it was delivered on the 16th. The franking date will be when Royal Mail received it from UK Mail, won't it, not when it was delivered?

 

forget all about what the envelope shows

 

the poster made an "admission" that HE received the DN on the 16th

 

if it were to be shown in court that the poster and the defendant were one in the same and that in evidence the defendant had misled (lied) to the court in this respect- he would be in deep doo doo

 

I don't intend to engage further on this- i was merely attempting to point out that posters should not make such admissions on the forum .

 

you can lead some people to water..................

 

The main purpose of my statements was to illustrate that it is doubtful that keeping the envelope is really beneficial, for 2 reasons:

 

 

• You can basically shoot yourself in the foot by keeping the envelope and noting the date of service. By doing so you could very easily bring “forward” the date you could have used should you not have kept a record. Whatever we think of RM, these letters do arrive well within the given timeframe on many an occasion.
  
• As been pointing out by nks, the envelope will only reflect the date on which RM received the letter and not the date of service, proving the date of service will only be beneficial if there is a significant delay between RM receiving the letter and the date that you receive it (which is where most delays occur), and it seems that the envelope will fail to do just that. It will, however, proof the type of service been used.
  

 

So, my conclusion is that the only benefit of keeping the envelope is to proof the “Type of Service” but then you should have a record of the date of service anyway, unless you haven’t note the date and you are really unsure about the date, you can then use the arguments about date of service.

 

Just to make it clear, I have no intention to make any false statements about receiving this specific letter, I have enough other stuff, starting with the CCA, PPI, charges, etc. Because I have no such intention I decided to use it as an example (with the dates) to illustrate that by keeping the envelope and noting the date of service can backfire and the only way out of it would be to lie, which you should not do. Therefore, keeping the envelope and noting the date of service was a bad idea in this instance.

 

[lord_tiger_putin]

Hi PM,

They are all the same pic...

It's not actually a Default Notice, it's an Arrears Notice, which is just sent for information purposes only and is not a demand for payment.

 

DN's start off:

Important, You should read this carefully

Default Notice served...etc etc..

 

Elsa x

PS if its an error and you manage to sort it I'll take a look and edit this response.

 

They do use the term "Default Charges" often, which is actually strange to me. Default charges would really mean that you will incur it by default, no matter waht you do. Maybe it is a reflection of their point of view?:eek:

[lord_tiger_putin]

Your DN insufficiently identifies the agreement!!!

 

A description of the agreement sufficient to identify it, i.e. Account Number.

 

 

 

i.e. Account Number – for an example an account number, will be sufficient for a credit card agreement, (they have to provide the name and address of the creditor anyway).

 

Other examples:

The description needs to be sufficient to identify the agreement, not the account, therefore it should be something to identify the agreement, something like “This notice refers to a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 under Account No. xxxxx”, therefore the agreement related to a specific account.

 

There could be more examples.

[lord_tiger_putin]

I do have this question in the back of my mind for some time now:

 

Does a Default Notice served on the back of an un-enforceable credit agreement have any value to the creditor? The purpose of the DN is after all to place them in a position to enforce the Credit Agreement. Doesn’t an un-enforceable credit agreement makes any DN served invalid anyway?

[nks22]

It's not actually a Default Notice, it's an Arrears Notice, which is just sent for information purposes only and is not a demand for payment.

 

They're not all the same. The fifth one is a default notice:

 

CrapOne1s0001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

And the third one terminates the account:

 

CrapONEDefaultpage1c0001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

The DN, sent on 19/6/09 gives 28 days "from the date of this letter" to remedy the breach and the termination was sent by Capital One on 25/6/10.

 

This one is a DN from Vanquis but there's only one date visible on it. Was the account assigned (sold) by Capital One?

 

vanquispg20001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

[nks22]

The main purpose of my statements was to illustrate that it is doubtful that keeping the envelope is really beneficial

 

Isn't the sole purpose so that you can disprove any claim that the DN was sent Second Class? (And we know they invariably are sent Second Class).

 

you should have a record of the date of service anyway, unless you haven’t note the date and you are really unsure about the date, you can then use the arguments about date of service.

 

Why should you have a record of the date of service? (I don't record when my letters arrived.) No-one can prove the date of delivery and why would you remember the exact date anyway? And even if you do, why would you announce it in court if it's to your disadvantage?

[nks22]

This one is a DN from Vanquis but there's only one date visible on it. Was the account assigned (sold) by Capital One?

 

Actually the Vanquis remedy date is the day befote Capital One's DN so presumably they're different accounts. The Vanquis one doesn't have a date of issue, though, and can Vanquis issue a DN, anyway?

[lord_tiger_putin]

Isn't the sole purpose so that you can disprove any claim that the DN was sent Second Class? (And we know they invariably are sent Second Class).

 

Why do you want to disprove that it was 2nd class? Do you mean disprove 1st class?

[lord_tiger_putin]

Actually the Vanquis remedy date is the day befote Capital One's DN so presumably they're different accounts. The Vanquis one doesn't have a date of issue, though, and can Vanquis issue a DN, anyway?

 

It is 2 different accounts in fact, as you suggest. CrapOne and Vanquis. Vanquis do not have a date on the Notice itself but do send a letter attached to it with the date. You can argue (how successfull I am not sure) that the notice do not have a date on it and that the date on the letter shouldn't be use as part of the DN.

[nks22]

Why do you want to disprove that it was 2nd class? Do you mean disprove 1st class?

 

Yes. My point remains the same, though.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Yes. My point remains the same, though.

 

Yes, recording the date in unnecessary and the envelope only serves to prove that it was send 2nd class.

 

That is my understanding now.

[Undercover-Elsa]

They're not all the same. The fifth one is a default notice:

 

CrapOne1s0001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

And the third one terminates the account:

 

CrapONEDefaultpage1c0001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

The DN, sent on 19/6/09 gives 28 days "from the date of this letter" to remedy the breach and the termination was sent by Capital One on 25/6/10.

 

This one is a DN from Vanquis but there's only one date visible on it. Was the account assigned (sold) by Capital One?

 

vanquispg20001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

Hi NKS,

How strange! They aren't the same links as I am seeing in the post, what I'm getting is listed below. I've just checked each one again and I'm getting all identical Arrears Notices (probably some glitch from when PM edited as he does state he originally copied all the same one):

 

CrapONEPG20001.jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

CrapONEDefaultpage2c0001. jpg picture by penmarine - Photobucket

 

Elsa x

[nks22]

what I'm getting is listed below

 

Those also all give me different documents! Probably a cache issue.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Whoever drafted the DN in your first link cant even spell JUDGEMENT. Dear me. Our lives in their hands.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ahhh...I'm getting "CrapONEdefaultpage2c0001.jpg" over and over again.

 

I rest my cache