OH v Cap 1 & Rob Way *** WIN ***

[angry cat]

Wishing you all the best of luck;

my OH is in a similar position re: HF/Capone;

HF have not yet issued;

OH sticking needles in HF look-alike voodoo doll;

Mexican stand off, at present: (disclosure docs. have been requested 22 times)

 

AC

X

[angry cat]

by CB:

"The POC is Carp"

 

Would that mean pooh or Fish CB?

[angry cat]

 

The former, AC and not the bear either :D

 

I live right near to Pooh Bridge;

maybe, we could all play pooh sticks with the Carp Capone so-called agreements and send them down the river!

 

Good Luck and will be watching your progress;

Go Get 'Em...

 

AC

[angry cat]

You make three court bundles, Cym.

[angry cat]

Oh Dear, soul destroying, isn't it!

 

I have had exactly the same after spending hours preparing three court bundles, that were not even looked at, spent a fortune at Rymans;

my one moment of triumph though, was when I told the solicitor:

'you can wipe that sardonic smurk off your face, this is no laughing matter!'

 

The DJ looked at me over the top of his glasses but said nothing:)

 

However, I did suceed on round two; this time the DJ was more conciliatory;

I won.

 

Advice: your OH must become more involved, otherwise they will slaughter him.

 

AC

[angry cat]

"Pursuant to the t & c of an agreement..." !?

[angry cat]

As you are no doubt already aware, the NoA is not sufficient, (especially a knocked-up template job)

You must obtain sight of the Deed of Assignment and Deed of Sale!!!

 

Moving on to your DN, in my experience Cap 1 did not keep copies of DN's nor proof or service of same.

 

I have actually had sight of a template C1 DN circa 2004, which was totally ineffective, interestingly enough C1 confirmed that it was an exact copy of the original that they claim was sent!?

 

Caution here though because, unless the account was terminated, the ineffective DN can be rectified;

However, they will not be able to rectify unless they cease court proceedings, as that would be an abuse of process.

[angry cat]

88 Contents and effect of default notice

 

 

 

(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify—

 

 

 

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

 

 

 

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;

 

 

 

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid.

 

 

 

 

 

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than seven days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those seven days have elapsed.

 

 

 

(3) The default notice must not treat as a breach failure to comply with a provision of the agreement which becomes operative only on breach of some other provision, but if the breach of that other provision is not duly remedied or compensation demanded under subsection (1) is not duly paid, or (where no requirement is made under subsection (1)) if the seven days mentioned in subsection (2) have elapsed, the creditor or owner may treat the failure as a breach and section 87(1) shall not apply to it.

 

 

 

(4) The default notice must contain information in the prescribed terms about the consequences of failure to comply with it.

 

 

 

(5) A default notice making a requirement under subsection (1) may include a provision for the taking of action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) at any time after the restriction imposed by subsection (2) will cease, together with a statement that the provision will be ineffective if the breach is duly remedied or the compensation duly paid.

 

 

 

 

 

89 Compliance with default notice

 

 

 

If before the date specified for that purpose in the default notice the debtor or hirer takes the action specified under section 88(1)(b) or © the breach shall be treated as not having occurred."

 

Please note:

 

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than seven days after the date of service of the default notice.

 

Seven plus four is eleven, therefore a judge may view the one day de minimus.

 

What about the remedy required;

was the amount correct?

were there any penalty charges included in the required remedy amount?

Edited November 22, 2009 by angry cat
error

[angry cat]

If the remedy required is stated incorrectly, the DN will be ineffective.

However, the disputed amount must not be; de minimus.

 

IMO, the agreement doesn't appear to have been terminated, more like they just wanted to claim the oustanding balance.

 

For completeness:

 

"87 Need for default notice

 

 

 

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

 

 

 

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

 

 

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

 

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

 

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

 

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the creditor from treating the right to draw upon any credit as restricted or deferred, and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

 

 

(3) The doing of an act by which a floating charge becomes fixed is not enforcement of a security.

 

 

 

(4) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations."

 

 

:

'Capital One has terminated your right to credit under the agreement with you and you have permanently lost all spending privileges and right to credit with your card'.

 

***(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum ***

 

However, as stated prior, they will not be able to correct the ineffective DN, unless they discontinue proceedings, in order to correct, as this would be an 'abuse of process'!

 

Also, please bear in mind that, the Deed of Assignment and Deed of Sale will reveal much; you must obtain sight of plus copies of these.

Edited November 22, 2009 by angry cat

[angry cat]

IMHO, if the account was either sold or assigned then it was most certainly terminated with the original creditor. Otherwise the account is just being "managed" by RW.

 

I guess you will need to ask to see the Deed of Assignment or Bill of purchase:lol:

 

This is always the $64,000 dollar question:

Equitable or;

Absolute Assignment?

 

The Deed of Assignment and;

Deed of Sale, will reveal all...

 

Capital One and RW will not want you see these documents though! Therefore, you will really have to put the pressure on, in order that you obtain disclosure of these vital documents!

[angry cat]

You will be fine...just be Brave!!!