Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, yes they swapped over after a brief period when the bank were sending something over.
    • Fair enough. But I don't understand why they send these letters. Do people really get scared and end up paying them?
    • That's a blessed relief. They would have been withdrawn because, as I said, they have no evidence that you were driving. That comes from the responses to the requests for driver's details which you failed to send. The important thing is that the speeding charges were laid. That makes life much easier (and far more likely to see a successful outcome). You need to make your SD and serve it on the court where you were convicted. The next you should hear is by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" laying the four charges against you again. You will have three options (for each charge): Plead Guilty and do not attend court Plead guilty and attend court Plead not guilty You must plead Not Guilty to all charges. In the section headed “reason for not guilty plea” you can state that you will offer to plead guilty to the speeding charging providing, and only providing, the FtP charges are dropped. This is a procedure well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors) and is carried out up and down the land daily. I’ll refer to it as “the deal”. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to undertake this deal and speak to the prosecutor (the agreement of the prosecutor is required as the court cannot accept it without that agreement).  However, during the pandemic courts aimed to reduce the numbers of people required to attend to an absolute minimum and most courts accepted a written request to do the deal. Local police prosecutors made an agreement with their courts that the magistrates’ legal advisors could accept the deal. In some areas this arrangement has carried on. In others they have reverted to the old process where attendance was required. So your offer of the “deal” with either be accepted in writing and dealt with under the Single Justice procedure or you may have to attend court. In either event it is important to emphasise that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charges are dropped.  There may be slight variations to the process depending on how the individual area works but there is no reason why this should not be successful.    
    • Yes thank you dx, my sentiments exactly.  We don't have access to his credit report to see the CCJ.  We were just told by the Estate Agency who he was trying to act as a guarantor for me.......  I can get a free one for a month I believe.  
    • I would say it's snotty letter time. You can do a search on CAG for examples of what other people have sent. Don't make it too polite. HB
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4969 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I currently have the same situation with Tesco's. They defaulted my account and never told me while on a payment arrangement. Only after 14 month of payments did I get an idea as it appeared on my credit file. Not one missed payment but DN is dated the same month I agreed a payment arrangement with them and they tried to tell me that was normal pratice. Go on an arrangement and they default you. This mob are associated with RBS (84% publicly owned) they bloody cheek of it.

 

Asked for a copy of the default notice and it was faulty so told them if they didn't remove the Default go feck yourself as you won't get another penny from me and see you in court.

 

Get me answer this week from them fingers crossed.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco :cool:

 

I've got this too Scrapper, but with Lloyds. Funny thing is that I have a recording of one of their staff saying that what they sent a couple/3 years ago was not a default and termination, and that some of their stuff does look very formal but isn't, then they've gone and sent me another one now which is remarkably similar but apparently this one is the real thing!

 

I'm about to write to them and kick off, but very concerned as it's a big account and would miss small claims by a long way - I'm really not up for court so it's a big thing for me to do! I also have another account which is enforceable and which (so far) they haven't cocked up on, so I'm also worried they may call that in if I raise a stink with them:eek: I have no truck with arguing the toss with them but I'd rather not do it in court as I'm a big wuss on that front!

 

Have you got a thread on yours as I'd be interested to see how you get on?

 

Lexis :)

Edited by lexis200

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And nowadays you can always get a prepay credit card (no credit checks) to use online. ;)

 

'lo all

 

Regarding the above...

 

My OH recently got one for our holiday so that we didn't need travellers cheques etc, but unbeknownst to me he also got me one, joined to his card.

 

Please please someone tell me this does not mean we now have a financial link??!! I was so careful for years, cancelling everything that joined us financially, and I'm really concerned this may have co**ed it all up:eek:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha now my credit rating is only semi F***ed and one of the biggest problems on there is welcome.

 

To be honest before the bit over the DN came up, I was reasonably happy to keep paying them. However they are screwing up my CR and I want them to stop, and I would like a settlement figure which they seem unable to give me :???:

 

So going back to the DN, can they issue a new DN if the credit agreement is expired?

 

In theory I dont have a valid credit agreement (I dont think) the agreement was for 36 months and ran out last September.

 

I have not signed any new papers since I bought the car in August 2006.

 

What agreement ran out? Do you mean the payment plan that you both agreed on, or was the original agreement that you signed only for 36 months and your final payment was September?

 

If it's the latter then unless you signed a new agreement at any point, your contract with them finished in September. As a DN relies on an agreement being live for it to be valid (all the wording relates to an in use/unterminated agreement and cannot be changed as it is a prescribed format) then they could not re-issue. It's the same premise as if they default you then terminate unlawfully.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no, because if you didn't pay they would default you whilst the agreement was live (as they did, but evidently not very well), not once it had expired. It's not like they'd wait till the end then go 'oh no, we forgot to default him!'

 

This is a quote from x20, a very respected member (sol or barrister as I recall) who used to post on here. He puts it far more eloquently than I could!

 

The service of any second default notice, at a time when the contract is terminated, owing to the wording of the DN in its prescribed form, would perpetuate the fiction that the contract endured.

 

In this case the agreement was finished last Sept, so they are unable to issue a second default now.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, agreed they couldn't issue another DN if the agreement had ended, but if the contract continues by acceptance on reduced payments then surely the debt and therefore the agreement A debt and an agreement are two different things. My agreements are terminated and yet my debt remains. The terms of those agreements stated that monies borrowed must be repaid but allowed them to terminate the agreement prior to that if they had to/wanted to whilst not losing the ability to recover the money they lent. will survive beyond the end date of the agreement, otherwise, again you would just make payments of £1 per month until the end date and then pay no more! It would surely be the case that the agreement end date would be some date in the future when the agreement has been satisfied under these special conditions...Ok, first of all my apologies, I'd not clicked payments were still being made (not sure how I missed that, but I'm also not of the opinion that it's instantly doom and gloom if payments have been made). However, the actual agreement had an end date which complicates it. Simply paying longer than the agreement's life can't re-instate it/keep it going as it has a finite term on it, and I fail to see how they could issue a default on that agreement unless Crockie had signed something to say it was extended. Yes there is still a debt there, but the agreement that they could base another default on is not.

 

In effect by continuing to make reduced payments the original terms of the original agreement no longer applyyes and no. I'm on payment plans with most creditors and in the acceptance letters they all still state that although they'll accept lower payments the terms of the contract are still binding, so they don't just junk it, they modify it. These are running credit rather than fixed term though.; a new "agreement" has been entered into accepted by both parties either expressed or implied by their actions of making and accepting recuced payments, so this new "agreement" must last until the debt is repaid.But that's the thing -can they show a new signed agreement which they can base a default on? All they have is an expired agreement which would mean changing the prescribed terms of a DN to suit, which they can't do. If the debtor then defaults on that agreement then the creditor would need to issue a default notice against this new agreement, not the one which had expired...

 

All imho of course;)

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I'm sure there is a difference. My understanding at the moment is that a non-payment record goes on your CRF, but that isn't a default (in the legal sense). When those non-payment records build up to 6 in a row, then a s87(1) DN is issued. The CRF doesn't record issue of the DN, but it will record a default if the remedy in the DN is not implemented (ie, the debtor doesn't comply with the DN).

 

The eventual default, I guess, merely indicates to other lenders that this person did not pay for 6 months and a default was recorded.

 

(My understanding is that a single non-payment record will not affect your credit rating much, but that your rating deteriorates as these records accumulate and then plummit when the default is recorded).

 

The 6 months seems to be an industry standard, although I have heard of s87 DNs being issued well before that. I think the 6 months comes from the ICO document on defaults. It may be different for secured and unsecured credit.I think they also make up their own rules when you go on payment plans. As soon as I asked to go on plans - and bear in mind I didn't miss any payments until the plans were agreed - I was told by most of the creditors that in order to implement a plan a DN was issued as a 'formality'. Only the co-op told me they wouldn't put me on a plan until I'd missed some payments so that they could default me. Isn't it lovely how they help you when you're in trouble.

 

Anyway, that's my understanding - pls correct me if I'm wrong!

 

LA

;)

 

Isn't there also something that says that if they issue you with a DN (that you don't remedy) that there is a reasonable period of time for them to mark it on your file - 6 months rings a bell - as otherwise you could have the notice and have the big 'D' on your credit file hanging over you indefinitely?

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to hijack the thread...but you have just said something that appears very important...

 

Vint1954 are you in agreement with the Bank defending the unfair charges against Jennfer Sharp in the Govan situation 'that overdrafts do not fall within the remit of CCA 1974''.....''unless linked to another financial product''

pls explain.....

 

This appears to be a different view from a lender itself when posting information on Experian or was it Experian's view

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/237096-overdrafts-covered-ccas-8.html#post3004364

 

 

m2ae:confused:

 

That ship has sailed m2ae, as this is Pinky's thread about her/his fight with 3 banks who marked credit files incorrectly. It was royally hijacked by everyone a few months ago and Pinky has graciously let it carry on;)

 

I don't think it can be hijacked any more than it already has:)

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Lord_Alcohol

 

i understand fully the scenario you have described and imagine it would be quite common

 

alas, i fear that the courts would rule that the DN itself gave advice as to its importance and the need to seek advice if the recipient did not understand its meaning and therefore i think that the plea would fall on deaf ears.

 

 

 

Hi,

 

Could I ask for some clarification please?

 

The scenario above by LA, is very similar to what I have just discovered in regards to my Credit card Account.

 

The account is still with OC.

 

Invalid DN issued 2008( dated 14xx, payment by 28xx)

 

Nov 08 Final Demand issued for total amount.

 

I was ignorant to the repudiation thing then, and I have carried on paying up until recently, when I put the account in dispute due to non compliance of CCA agreement.

I only queried this account due to the stupid amounts of interest being added month by month. (OC refused to stop the interest)

So, looking through this thread, did they then actually repudiate the contract when they issued the Final Demand?

And if so, am I now within my right to write and accept it?

I'm really quite confused by this one.

 

Thank you in advance:)

 

Regards

Molly:)

 

My take on that would be that you are fully understanding of the contents of the DN, as they clearly tell you x, y and z. As such why would you need legal help as you're not an idiot and this document has told you what will happen and when.

 

What you wouldn't know in the first place, and therefore wouldn't know you'd need to get advice for, is that they might not have fulfilled the DN requirements. After all, the DN has informed you that things will happen, so when they do as per that legal document, of course as a lay person dealing with a legal document apparently written by a team of bank lawyers, you will think it is all above board. What part of that would make you think you needed legal advice?

 

Your assumption as a consumer is that large institutions will be acting within legal constraints; only an assumption on your part that they are not in fact trustworthy would make you think you needed legal help to understand a fairly plain and simple DN. I don't think this would be a hard point to put across as a lay person, and for a judge to assume you would have gone immediately to a lawyer is for them to assume you are a)not capable of understanding the terms of a DN or b)that you for some bizarre reason would have known the intricacies of contract law before being served with the DN and so knew to get it checked.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not default stuff chaps but this member could do with some help. A DCA has started court action against them after sending only an illegible agreement and whilst the member was dealing with a different DCA.

 

I'm not up on court procedures but he/she could do with advice, so if anyone can pop in I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/266902-legal-help-needed-what.html

 

Thanks x

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not quite,

 

the OC may not ENFORCE a debt whilst in default of s87

 

it has already been ruled that demanding payment (even commencing court proceedings) does not constitute enforcement!

 

What would I wonder? Kneecapping perhaps?

 

Seriously, does anyone have a case they can give that states what they consider enforcement to be? I know demanding payment etc isn't deemed to be enforcement, but if starting legal action isn't either, really what is left?

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'lo all:)

 

Anyone know if it makes a difference if a default on a CRA file is listed as a loan rather than the c/c it actually is?

 

I've finally got my OH to get his credit file and 1st Credit have listed it (the default that shouldn't have been placed due to no agreement!) incorrectly. Just wondering if it's even worth me having a pop at them/Experian about this or if it means nothing...

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's interesting DM, as OH was sent in the ordinary post an SD from Connaught on behalf of 1stCrudit. This was before I knew about any of the debt stuff and he apparently just ignored it completely.

 

What I find strange (although maybe I've got how they work wrong.?) is that nothing ever came of it. There is nothing on his file, he never had court papers sent, nada. I thought that if they issued a SD they had to be preparing/prepared to go ahead with the threat??

 

I'm going to do as Elsa suggested though and have a pop at Experian, you never know.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also thought that they can only remedy a defective DN (i.e correct what they got wrong in the first one) ... if they issue a further DN BEFORE the expiry date of the original DN ...if that make sense ... !!

 

Once the expiry date of the original (defective) DN has expired i.e exceeded the amount of days they gave you, or the actual date quoted .. then it cannot be rectified by a 2nd DN, as the account is already in default as per their original notice .... Sorry, no. They can issue as many DN's as they like until they terminate your agreement. There is a possibility that you could convince a judge that it was terminated once the remedy date was passed, but without some sort of actual termination (either in letter or demand for full balance) you'd be playing with fire to try it.

 

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong ... but pretty sure the above is correct from my own readings etc ... :)

 

TB

 

I think you are right Threadbare - my readings confirm the same. The only way they can issue a 2nd (correct) DN is if I agree to it! Something in the circumstances that I am quite unlikely to do! As above, if they've not terminated they can issue cra**y DN's until the cows come home. If you point out the DN is faulty before they have terminated you may simply risk them (if they are at all on the ball) sending out a legit one.

 

I'm trying to find the wider picture though as if NW have changed their DN policy then it will add weight to everyone's argument who have had one of the old type ones.

 

Of course that's if you have to accept at all. As I've said before,

IMHO having to do that relies on us having knowledge of complicated contract law, which as laymen I find it hard to believe would be expected (as did x20 if you continue reading his later posts). There has been (to my knowledge) one case which has had issues because of not accepting the termination, so if you've not done it I don't think you need to be desperately concerned about it! Not that it's going to do any harm if you do accept though - as long as it's been terminated. If that's not the case (ie you have the dodgy DN but no concrete termination), personally I believe you are better off keeping schtum and waiting for their error to materialise.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are relying on the "21 days" instead of a specific date i am afraid you will be dissapointed as it is more the likely that this would be accepted by a judge

 

Absolutely in agreement with you DD.

 

I'd personally also assume that if the only thing wrong with a DN is that the underlining isn't right or it isn't bold where it should be (or something similarly minor), then that will also in all probability not cause the creditor a problem. It should if the letter of the law is to be followed, but I wouldn't be basing a case on it.

 

If there isn't an issue of not enough remedy time (whether set by a date or a 'pay in x days' format) or incorrect balance/arrears, imho the rest of it won't be considered by anyone but the most old school of judges.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're right. They have to keep details of when they were sent (not sure if they have to also note what service was used to post them?), but unless you SAR them for the info they don't have to give it to you.

 

It's because the DN's are generic templates and they'll just stick your details onto it, so there won't in all likelihood be another copy other than the one they say they've sent.

 

I'd SAR them for it and hope it's been included in your file notes, but I suspect the best you'll get if you do that is a date that it was sent.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I had accounts with Egg, who apparently sold the account to Apex, and Cap 1 who have sent the account to be managed by Freds. I was on payment plans with both, and am still paying that money to the OC not the dca as they never requested it to be changed.

 

Added to that is the fact I was arguing with the OC's about various problems before they turfed me off, so until those problems are sorted with the OC I simply refuse to pay anything to the dca. I don't ignore them, but I do tell them there are problems with the accounts and I will not deal with them. After a couple of letters, if they don't burger off I inform them letters will be noted and filed but not responded to as they clearly aren't willing to check the status of the account. This way I don't have to deal with them but I have shown myself to be reasonable.

 

I've done a similar thing with a couple of OH's accounts. To date (and touch wood!) no-one has attempted court of the back of it. If they don't have a reason they don't have a reason, no matter how much they huff and puff that you have to deal with them.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4969 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...