Invalid Default Notices

[lexis200]

I don't want to be a pain in the bum, but once again realised this is Pinky's thread and really should be kept free of other issues.

 

suzie - have you got a thread you can link to so you can get personalised help rather than it getting lost on here?

[lexis200]

Is the requirement for registered address etc not a fairly recent one? I only ask as we used to do websites for a national company and it was only in the last 2/3 years that we were told to add on those details to all sites (and they were told to add it to letterheads).

 

Or am I thinking of something completely different:confused:

[lexis200]

Ahh, that'll be why it was dinging with me, because it was more recently updated to include websites which is what we were dealing with.

 

I had to go round making up new pages to go on dozens of sites and it bored me silly, which is why I remembered it being in recent years:rolleyes:

[lexis200]

I have a question on DNs.

 

On a credit card how many payments must you miss before a DN is issued?

I was defaulted after one part missed payment BUT I had written to them saying that I was in financial probs so i would be paying considerably less than the due amount. They said to help me they needed to terminate my account before they could discuss reduced payments so therefore needed to issue a DN straight away!!!

Does this sound right?

 

m

 

At least four of my cards did this, but they did all accept reduced payments.

 

Although there is a time that they should wait before defaulting (3 months is springing to mind for some reason?), there is nothing to stop them doing it sooner - it's just not exactly fair play on their part.

 

Essentially the moment you have missed a payment for whatever reason you have broken the terms of their contract (assuming of course that they have one!) and they can then start the default process.

 

Of course as DD says this could be their way of getting you to court sharpish, but it does rely on them a)having an agreement, b) having sent a valid DN and c) having sent a valid TN. I'm sure I'm not alone in not having a single creditor whose managed all three;)

[lexis200]

If they are demanding full payment it is generally taken that that is a termination as they should not be taking that action unless a valid DN has been issued. It also removes your right to pay back small chunks every month as stated in your t's and c's, which is another pointer towards the agreement being kaput.

 

It is termination in all but name;)

[lexis200]

I'm in exactly the same situation with Halifax/Wescot. DN from Halifax (also remedy date 14 days later) and, today, a letter from Wescot demanding full repayment. AFAIK they're acting for Halifax ("We have been instructed by our client to collect the above outstanding balance on their behalf...") but I would think it still counts as termination because of the demand for the full amount.

 

If they're acting 'on behalf of their clients' then you can only assume that that's what Halifax have told them to do really can't you.

 

I do agree with previous posts though - check who actually owns it and deal with them!

[lexis200]

The accept or not argument has been done to death and not reached a conclusion. I don't agree that there is a need for a layperson to have to agree to a termination (how the hell would we know that was necessary unless we knew contract law, and what exactly would happen if we said, 'sorry, but I don't accept your termination?' Would they just shrug and give in?!), but other people feel just as strongly the other way - it's up to you I'm afraid:(

 

And yes to your first statement!

[lexis200]

Also if it states within 14 days then technically they've still not allowed enough time. Within 15 days would be ok, but within 14 suggests you have to pay before the 14 days are up.

 

It's a bit tenuous but if you can add it to a few other things it all adds weight to your argument.

[lexis200]

hmm, probably right, I hadn't thought about it like that. I still think though the language is a tad on the obscure side when they could/should just have a date.

[lexis200]

thats the second time today- youre going the right way for a good "spanking"

 

Ooh Matron:oops:

 

S'ok, I'll disagree with you all today to even things up:D

[lexis200]

>>

 

no I don't, and yes it is just men:D

 

I can't really pull that one off can I? I'm a terrible liar:)

[lexis200]

2 working days for first class, 4 for 2nd class (more likely)

 

therefore date of service for first class would be Monday 23rd - 14 days start from tuesday 24th

 

if second class date of service would be wednesday 25th and the 14 days start from thursday 26th

 

these dickheads increase the days to 17 and then post on a thursday

 

god if they had brains they would be dangerous!!

 

also always keep and check the envelope- it may contain a later poststamp

 

in these organisations it would be as rare as hens teeth for a letter to enter the postal system on the same day it was written!

 

I can beat that - Robby Way sent me a letter (2nd class) dated the 16th of November which arrived.....16th November! Now that's proper customer service that is:rolleyes:

[lexis200]

It's coz I'm so posh and lovely they lay on extra services for me:D

[lexis200]

Ok, with the charges thing on DN's - how does that work exactly??

 

Is it that if you have ever received a penalty charge then in turn that will mean your DN will state the wrong amount and so will be cack, or is it specifically that the arrears shown must include charges (ie it should only show your min payment plus interest, but instead shows min payment plus interest plus a number of £'s of charges)?

 

I've never quite got my head around this and also not seen a straight answer to similar questions.

[lexis200]

The point i was making in this statement.

(lawfully or unlawfully one party cannot terminate only a court can do that

If they lawfully terminate and then claim the benefits of s88 then it is still up to the judge.

 

my case for example they went for possession but the judge suspended it.

they had a right under s88 but the judge didn't grant what they wanted,

so effectively the court ordered that the agreement went on.

carry on making monthly payments same terms and conditions.

 

I think possibly you may be getting a little muddled with this - they can still have terminated the agreement (obviously as they've gone to court with it), but the judge doesn't have to allow them to do what they want off the back of that termination. If their request for whatever - full repayment, possession etc - doesn't seem fair or reasonable, for instance you've made every effort to sort it out and they've obstructed you the whole way (and providing you have that elusive fair and reasonable judge!!) then I don't believe they are bound to allow the creditors carte blanche simply because they've followed the rules of default and termination.

 

ps - I think you're right about the aftershave DD, I can smell you from here. Old Spice isn't it??:D

 

edit - just realised DD has said this in the first part of his post:rolleyes: Must remember not to post before I've fully woken up:)

[lexis200]

Yep, 'fraid I agree with Vint. Sorry frettful:(

[lexis200]

Isn't it against OFT guidelines to have it with two DCA's at once? I realise they don't give a t**s about guidelines, but it may be worth a quick letter to tell them to pick a party to work with!

 

No idea about charges as I need to look into this for myself - we have several grand (I say 'we', what I actually mean is OH as I ran my accounts well until going broke:rolleyes:) owing and I must get on top of it!

[lexis200]

If you're even vaguely thinking of this DO NOT do anything with any DCA's - only with the OC.

 

Even if a DCA does accept it, the likelihood is that the OC will simply turn around and say that they did not agree to it and the rest is still payable.

 

Also, if you do an F+F make sure you make it very very clear that the debt is wiped out and will not be chased by them or any other company at any time in the future, and that you need that in writing from them.

 

I do have a very good letter that BRW penned for me if you decide to try this option. It didn't work with a single one unfortunately, but I was making very low offers....

 

edit - one thing I have been thinking about doing with the banks that OH has substantial charges on is making an offer using those charges. For instance, one of his cards with an enforceable cca is about £7k, but PPI alone comes to about £6.5k and then there's charges of about £1.5k on top. I'm toying with the idea of saying to them that I can either start the claim for charges which will be time consuming for both of us and probably very expensive for them, or they can zero the debt and in all likelihood save themselves about £1000 and a hell of a lot of paperwork. Knowing how illogical the banks are they probably wouldn't go for it, but I'm looking into it all the same.

Edited February 2, 2010 by lexis200

[lexis200]

Hey angel:)

 

I have seen your pm but every time I go to answer it I get called off the lappy:rolleys:

 

I'll reply asap:)

[lexis200]

First of all, I'm sure you know already, but if not make sure you keep the envelope that letter came in (and do the same for any other letters!). The more letters you have showing how they act the better, if not for court then at least for saying to them 'I can show how unreasonable you've been so lets agree something or I'll be taking this to TS'.

 

The delay in writing/sending etc is a standard tactic. I don't think I'd be inviting court action when they have a valid agreement and DN unless you actually want the finality/certainty of a CCJ. I can see how that may be tempting given the run-around you're getting, but just have a think before putting that idea in front of them.

 

If Lowells have bought the debt from SD then why are they saying that neither they nor SD think you're in dispute? Surely if SD have sold the account then what they think is now irrelevant, or have I missed a step somewhere? I think the previous posters are correct and you need to send a letter to one and cc the others asking exactly what is going on, and also stating that until all three answer (and more importantly until all three of those answers correspond!!!) then no-one will be paid.

 

You could put something along the lines of 'I will keep the money that would be used for payments aside, and when you have given me the courtesy of an answer the owner of the account will have these payments forwarded and a payment plan can then be agreed upon'. This at least shows willing on your part and should any of them decide to take court action then that coupled with the mess they've got this into should put you in a favourable light.

[lexis200]

I largely agree with Lexis here - but I do think you need to be careful about admitting to owing anything at all. Perhaps say somethinbg like "I shall keep payments aside to pay anything legally recoverable" ?

 

Can someone else help with a better legal wording that protects the debtor's interests in this?

 

BD

 

True if there are issues regarding enforceability etc., but I thought the agreement and DN were kosher, so there wouldn't be much point trying to be cagey as you've nothing to gain (or lose).

 

Just had a look on littlewoods site and this is on their credit accounts page

 

Littlewoods

 

so I think the 0% is correct unless you had another specific type of account...

[lexis200]

I see the Shadow has just made the same point as me - but much more succinctly;)

 

I would send a longer letter - identical one to all 3 showing cc to the other 2 along the lines:

 

1. I took out a cca on date for £amount with OC name.

2. I was advised by OC name on date that the debt was (assigned/passed) - use word in OC's letter - to DCA1.

3. I was then advised by OC name on date that (whatever next letter said) to DCA2.

4. I believe I am now being pursued by both DCA1 and DCA2 for payment of the same alleged debt, which is contrary to OFT and FOS guidelines.

5. I require all 3 of you to advise me jointly and severallyI'd probably leave that out. They've not helped you with any suggestions so make them work out how they need to sort this out! of the correct status as you believe it That gives them a get out (I'm sorry frettful, but we believed we were correct in telling you xy and z...')of any debt which may be outstanding in respect of any debt taken out or any CCA agreed by me on date from OC.

6. Until I have received confirmation from all 3 and have an identical position stated by all 3 of you, I shall enter into no further communication nor make any further payments but shall retain any payments which may be due pending a resolution as outlined above.

 

Change the words to suit - but keep the message as intended.

 

Good luck

 

BD

 

I'm not too sure you can start with 'I took out a cca' then change to 'alleged debt', especially if they have an agreement which kind of blows the alleged bit away?? Perhaps if you want to keep the alleged bit in you could amend 'took out a cca' to 'applied for an account' or similar.

[lexis200]

What bit in particular?

[lexis200]

Hey Pinky, just wondering how your CRA fights are going at the moment? Just read through the last 15 or so pages after not being on for a while and I've only spotted one or two posts from you:eek:

[lexis200]

Nice of them to tell Cabot that that was what happened but not bother to tell you:rolleyes:

 

I would just write something along the lines of

 

'As I stated in my earlier letter, until each company has informed me of the status of this account I will not be corresponding with any of you. I am still awaiting a reply from one company, and I have yet to ascertain whether all responses match.

 

I will contact you only when I am certain of who owns this account.

 

Love and kisses

 

Frettful'