Invalid Default Notices

[Pinky69]

That's what this post is all about - it was me who started the thread. I have court cases prepared to take 2 banks to court to have the defaults removed from my credit reports. I have had to delay because the courts expect you to have tried everything else first. I have had a default removed by a bank so they were Bank 1. Bank 2 entered 2 defaults and at the moment the bank's CEO department are reviewing my claim to have the default removed and the ICO are also investigating. Bank 3 have refused to remove their default so it is now with the ICO. I am making a 2 pronged attack in both cases - nowhere on the application forms did I give either bank permission to process my data and there are no Terms and Conditions for either so they never had my permission to process my data at any time. Secondly, rescission, and in Bank 2 's case they entered the defaults after the accounts had been written off and had zero balances. Bank 3 breached the Companies Act in their application form and had no address on it so it isn't even a lawful application form. I am also going to sue a DCA for a default (now fallen off) for an alleged debt without a scrap of paperwork and a bank for taking money from CCCS after they sold that non-debt to the DCA. Those cases I am going to lodge in the New Year. The CRAs are currently trying to get information from Bank 2 in the light of my telling them recently that on the day they were entered the alleged accounts had zero balances. They have all written to say if Bank 2 doesn't reply they will suppress the defaults after 28 days and they will stay suppressed until Bank 2 replies (Equifax have already suppressed one) - the 28 days will be up just before Christmas. However, if the bank doesn't take the defaults off I will have to go to court to get them removed permanently.

[diddydicky]

blimey pinky you've got a busy new year ahead

 

i wish you great success!

[InformedSearcher]

'Pinky69'

 

Okay DCA's - of the main two I'd say Experian were the more understanding. Equifax are like 'it's not our problem and 100% up t our clients what they do' attitude. However CRA's also have data controllers who are supposed to oversee that their systems are being used lawfully and not in an adhoc fashion(as in searches on another thread of my own).

 

If we go to say my own situation. On one hand we have HSBC entering an invalid DN and on the other 'Clarity' entering 3 searches, all of which are statute barred. HSBC replies to totally ignore my invalid DN entry and Clarity says the searches are valid (which they are 100% not!) totally ignoring my request for removal.

 

The whole singular problem with everything is time. We have all these companies entering what often is invalid data in a second. We have people like you and me saying they should be removed. Then we have CRA's hiding behind some invisible shield trying to distance themselves when they themselves should act.

 

You complain to the CRA only to find they say 'contact their client'. That's well and good but all this time that data is available and often entered without correct authority. Your choices are all the govental quango's and County Court. These (I will call them) 'characters' in the meantime ignore you in the belief you'll do nothing because so often you cannot afford the court fees. They treat you as some kind of alien being and some newly appointed recently left uni junior sends you 'silly' replies.

 

So what do you do? The court action can take many months, waiting for you to have done the 'right' thing when in fact you know the answers before they all take their 14/21/28/40 days to reply. The frustration is annoying and all the time these companies think they are wearing you down and you'll go no further.

 

Michael

[Pinky69]

Thanks DD.

 

Yes, it is a lengthy process and the choice is yours whether you take it on or not. Silly them for thinking they have the better of you - they will think twice when they get a summons. I've prepared all my own paperwork for court and it will cost me £65 per case, which I will reclaim as part of the case.

[egg-sterminator]

Hi Diddy/pinky could you offer an opinion on post 544 above and have you checked out Vints thread CRA'S &oc's credit ref reporting-discussion ? alot of relavant stuff

[Pinky69]

I answered you in Post 546.

[egg-sterminator]

I answered you in Post 546.

sorry pinky, waiting for new glasses . Do check out those threads though it sort of dovetails with work you have already done . and thankyou And just read your reply mercers realy have shot themselves in the foot . I'll have to post it up the 14 days is the only thing they got right . Do i follow the advice on writing to them to accept termination ?

[vint1954]

Just to expand a little, the DN is only a pre cursor to termination, in one form or another and is\should not be termination. If the DN seeks to terminate an agreement by asking for the ballance in full, then it is faulty.

 

Termination comes as either a letter of termination or an act of termination such as demanding the ballance in full, selling the debt on to a third party or court action. A letter of termination is solid proof of that action, although I have had a creditor deny that the account was terminated, even though I have a letter stating that. The other areas of termination are subject to argument by the creditor, when and if it getys to court. That is why you need to possitively accept termination as described by DD.

 

Knowing the shambles that all of the banks work in, I would suggest written acceptance of unlawful termination in all cases, even if you have a letter.

 

As Pinky has said, A DN itself is not termination and its registration with the CRA's is not an act of termination.

 

The DN may say if you fail to rectify by xxx date, then your account WILL ( not may ) be terminated, in which case you will also need to accept that action as unlawfull rescission.

[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:

[vint1954]

You get all of the luck lexis:D

[lexis200]

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

[vint1954]

We know, we know. How are your windows these days, any more added. Hope the press have held off!

[diddydicky]

sorry pinky, waiting for new glasses . Do check out those threads though it sort of dovetails with work you have already done . and thankyou And just read your reply mercers realy have shot themselves in the foot . I'll have to post it up the 14 days is the only thing they got right . Do i follow the advice on writing to them to accept termination ?

 

so did i in 547- thats two pairs of glasses you need:D

[diddydicky]

Just to expand a little, the DN is only a pre cursor to termination, in one form or another and is\should not be termination. If the DN seeks to terminate an agreement by asking for the ballance in full, then it is faulty.

 

Termination comes as either a letter of termination or an act of termination such as demanding the ballance in full, selling the debt on to a third party or court action. A letter of termination is solid proof of that action, although I have had a creditor deny that the account was terminated, even though I have a letter stating that. The other areas of termination are subject to argument by the creditor, when and if it getys to court. That is why you need to possitively accept termination as described by DD.

 

Knowing the shambles that all of the banks work in, I would suggest written acceptance of unlawful termination in all cases, even if you have a letter.

 

As Pinky has said, A DN itself is not termination and its registration with the CRA's is not an act of termination.

 

The DN may say if you fail to rectify by xxx date, then your account WILL ( not may ) be terminated, in which case you will also need to accept that action as unlawfull rescission.

 

i'm pretty sure that a defective DN is an unlawful repudiation (termination) in itself , the more so if it does ask for the full balance!!

[diddydicky]

The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

[vint1954]

i'm pretty sure that a defective DN is an unlawful repudiation (termination) in itself , the more so if it does ask for the full balance!!

Yes, you are probably right there DD, given woodchester.

 

Could still be worth written acceptance. Belt and braces.

[egg-sterminator]

Just to expand a little, the DN is only a pre cursor to termination, in one form or another and is\should not be termination. If the DN seeks to terminate an agreement by asking for the ballance in full, then it is faulty.

 

Termination comes as either a letter of termination or an act of termination such as demanding the ballance in full, selling the debt on to a third party or court action. A letter of termination is solid proof of that action, although I have had a creditor deny that the account was terminated, even though I have a letter stating that. The other areas of termination are subject to argument by the creditor, when and if it getys to court. That is why you need to possitively accept termination as described by DD.

 

Knowing the shambles that all of the banks work in, I would suggest written acceptance of unlawful termination in all cases, even if you have a letter.

 

As Pinky has said, A DN itself is not termination and its registration with the CRA's is not an act of termination.

 

The DN may say if you fail to rectify by xxx date, then your account WILL ( not may ) be terminated, in which case you will also need to accept that action as unlawfull rescission.

Thanks as always Vint, mercers followed the DN with a demand for full payment i,ll get round to posting up DN just to give everyone a laugh . That point of will/may terminate is interesting as a DN from crapital one doesn't have a date by which action should be taken, but does give 28 days from date of service so DD doesn't think the invalid approach would work with the judge on that issue alone . They have added late payment charges and interest on top to amount in default but dont know if that holds any water .

[egg-sterminator]

so did i in 547- thats two pairs of glasses you need:D

Luckey i ordered 2 from Tesco optitians 2 weeks ago one for Pinky's posts and one for Diddy's . Since OH sat on my old pair being long sighted the wireless keyboard is out of range by the time i can see the screen .:grin:

[vint1954]

Thanks as always Vint, mercers followed the DN with a demand for full payment i,ll get round to posting up DN just to give everyone a laugh . That point of will/may terminate is interesting as a DN from crapital one doesn't have a date by which action should be taken, but does give 28 days from date of service so DD doesn't think the invalid approach would work with the judge on that issue alone . They have added late payment charges and interest on top to amount in default but dont know if that holds any water .

Although thechnically incorrect, that on its own would probably not convince a judge to dismiss the DN. It is a case of adding to the list of problems with the DN, such as format and a significantly incorrect arrears figure. Charges within the arrears will alter the figure that they should claim.

[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.

[vint1954]

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.

I would imagine that if any of the charges are unjust or unlawful, then they would be included as part of the mis-statement of the sum in arrears, including charges relating to issueing the DN.

[egg-sterminator]

Forgot to mention guys the capital one default default came a month after they returned their defence months after proceedings were issued and case was on stay awaiting rulings from manchester case ?

[vint1954]

Don't think that they can issue a DN after the action has begun.

[egg-sterminator]

Don't think that they can issue a DN after the action has begun.

Their defence was in by early Oct and DN late Nov is this grounds for a complaint to OFT, FOS, trading standards or all ? as it would seem at least to break banking code .

[vint1954]

Their defence was in by early Oct and DN late Nov is this grounds for a complaint to OFT, FOS, trading standards or all ? as it would seem at least to break banking code .

You can complain, but it will be part of your defence that there was no DN issued at the time of court action.