SB100 v HFC - is this default compliant? Court/Restons ***WON***

[citizenB]

Ummm, didnt they take you to court.. then discontinued... Surely by doing that the agreement has been terminated ?

 

I think you might want to have a look at fairbyblue's thread. I think they tried to reissue more than one default notice and failed:)

[SB100]

This is NatWest cb. Just put it on the old thread as I couldn't get an answer anywhere else and the help I was given for HFC was excellent!

[SB100]

Hi SB

 

If you are not trying to hide the details with the ###### then it must be defective. However, you are probably aware that they need to terminate the agreement or they will be able to re-issue it.

 

What date was it issued. Did they allow the correct time?

 

Pedross

 

That's exactly as it was sent- less personal details, of course. I suspect they have a printing format error- a very expensive printing format error. The dates appear to be ok. There are a couple of small formatting errors, but nothing I'd want to hang my hat on in court to be honest.

[SB100]

it is not strictly necessary for the bank to issue a termination notice

however,

 

assuming that you have not blanked out the figure then the DN states that you pay NOTHING in order to remedy the breach

 

at the very worst, the dn is not clear as to what you must do to remedy the alleged breach and therefore in default - as it does not state what you must do (pay) to remedy it- then you would have to do precisely nothing in order to comply

 

which i take it is what you did.

 

since you have (automatically) complied with the DN - if after 8th March the bank has/does issued a demand for you to pay the full outstanding balance of the account (which will include sums not yet due- without first serving a DN - then they will have unlawfully terminated the agreement

 

DD, if you have a spare min could you help me with a letter confirming my acceptance of their termination please? I have the letter you did for me for Halifax, which worked a treat, but that referred to the dates being wrong.

 

Thanks

[middenmess]

There are a couple of small formatting errors, but nothing I'd want to hang my hat on in court to be honest.....That's exactly as it was sent.

 

 

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these

Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

 

Parties to agreement

2

(1) The name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

IMO..These omissions together with the ##### fault might well be fudged over by a Judge whose knowledge of such requirements is lacking but they are mandatory as laid down in the act pased by Parliament---possibly not the biggest arrows to add to your bow but arrows all the same.

[SB100]

Noted, thanks for that

[exchange]

IMO..These omissions together with the ##### fault might well be fudged over by a Judge whose knowledge of such requirements is lacking but they are mandatory as laid down in the act pased by Parliament---possibly not the biggest arrows to add to your bow but arrows all the same.

 

Sorry, but IMHO how can a judge or anyone 'fudge over' a default notice which doesn't ask you to pay anything? How can you comply with it? It is complete nonsense and I do not understand how anyone can think otherwise. This sort of thing makes me fume.

[middenmess]

Reading around these forums will reveal that some judges have made up their own rules when dealing with non compliant default notices and ignored the legal requirements of such notices as laid down in the CCA.

 

Going to appeal on these matters is a cross to many for some LIP's to bear unfortunately.

[exchange]

Reading around these forums will reveal that some judges have made up their own rules when dealing with non compliant default notices and ignored the legal requirements of such notices as laid down in the CCA.

 

Going to appeal on these matters is a cross to many for some LIP's to bear unfortunately.

 

middenmiss, I am fully aware of some of the ridiculous bad decisions made by biased judges which have appeared far too often on this website, but not including an amount to pay on a DN is beyond belief, and cannot be upheld by even the most prejudiced judge. Having said that I know that it could be, because anything can happen, but you would have to be in a very strange situation in a court room where a ruling is made that you failed to pay nothing when nothing was asked for! All seems very Monty Python to me.

[diddydicky]

DD, if you have a spare min could you help me with a letter confirming my acceptance of their termination please? I have the letter you did for me for Halifax, which worked a treat, but that referred to the dates being wrong.

 

Thanks

since sending that DN have they:-

 

terminated

 

demanded the payment of the full balance

 

started court proceedings

 

have you................

 

made any response to it

 

paid them anything

[SB100]

Sorry, only just noticed the responses.

 

Yes, they have terminated in writing then demanded the full balance.

 

I haven't responded or paid them anything.

 

As it was, in effect, a fixed term loan that they'd said they would renew then didn't, I'm guessing the full amount would be repayable.

 

Therefore, if the DN was defective, as it certainly appears to be, all they'd be entitled to recover would be the amount it arrears- which could be considered to be the full balance?

[diddydicky]

then if the DN is defective and they have terminated i would write and accept their unlawful termination and that you now consider yourself releived of any continuing obligations under the agreement

 

please would they advice you of the genuine amount of arrears that were outstanding at the time of their unlawful termination- against which you may have a counterclaim for unlawful repudiation and assuming that any agreement was valid