default notice from abbey RE:lOAN NOW capquest chasing

[everton2005]

bump

[everton2005]

bump

[everton2005]

please

[PGH7447]

anytime you like

[everton2005]

any help on what grounds the default is defective:confused:

[cerberusalert]

They stated that you had 14 days from the date of the notice which is wrong. The notice has to be date specific and it must give you 14 days from receipt of the notice, they haven't allowed for postal service which is assumed to be second class and takes four days.

[everton2005]

any chance of putting a letter up please mate

[cerberusalert]

I don't have a letter but I think diddydicky has. If you PM him at Link I'm sure he'll help out.

[diddydicky]

ok, the DN did not state that you had 14 days from the date of the DN- it said you had 14 days from the date of service.

 

However since when they wrote the DN they could not possibly have known when the DN would be "served" (unless they hand delivered it the same day) then clearly, and not withstanding that the date should be a "date" (not less than 14 days etc) it is (or should have been)obvious that the DN was never going to be effective from the moment they put it in the post

 

Also i think that the layout of the DN is not as prescribed.

 

Personally i would write along these lines

 

 

Dear sirs

 

I note that to date you have failed to comply with s78 of the consumer credit act which requires you to send me an "Easily legible" true copy of an executed credit agreement together with copies of any document referred to within the executed agreement. The documents that you eventually sent to me are not just "not easily" legible they are quite simple illegible therefore you have still not complied with the requirements of s78. I would note that the regulations offer no relief to you in this respect.

 

Although doubtful, if what you have sent to me is a photocopy of the original agreement then clearly the original agreement itself is illegible since modern photocopiers produce extremely lifelike images.

 

 

I suspect in fact that what you have sent me is not a true copy of an executed credit agreement, rather a true copy of a copy of an executed credit agreement

 

Being unable to read the document i am unable to confirm one way or the other if it is properly executed.

 

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and most importantly your client, in direct contravention of the consumer credit act commenced enforcement action whilst still having failed to provide anything in response to my s78 request,

 

 

Further and again, notwithstanding the foregoing, i would remind you that in order to claim entitlement to the benefits of s87 your client is required to issue an effective and valid default notice setting out details of any alleged default and providing me 14 clear days from the date of service of such a notice in which to seek advice and/or remedy the alleged breach

 

Your client has failed to do so to date and therefore has no cause of action.

 

Further, you client, having failed to supply the above mentioned Valid default notice then went on to unlawfully rescinded the agreement, a termination which i have accepted.

 

As a result your client cannot now, or ever issue a valid Default Notice since to do so would perpetuate the myth that the agreement which your client himself rescinded, still endured.

 

 

Your client is entitled to claim from me the genuine arrears outstanding at the time of termination (but not including interest and charges unlawfully added to the account whilst you were in default of s78) and i look forward to the receipt of your advices in this respect, however i will set against any arrears due, my counterclaim for unlawful rescission.

 

I am unsure as to whether your letter is a bona fide " Letter Before Action" or simply intended to "put the frighteners on"

 

perhaps you could familiarise yourselves with the guidance given by the OFT to lenders with regard to the practice of threats of legal action that are not actually intended

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Yours sincerely

[NGEddie]

Quick question, had this account not got as far as court action yet?

 

Once default is sent, if they dont send a termination notice, but go for a CCJ, how does this stand? Am I correct in thinking that if they go for a CCJ for the whole amount, this automatically terminates the account?

 

Impressive amount of knowledge you guys have

[diddydicky]

Quick question, had this account not got as far as court action yet?

 

Once default is sent, if they dont send a termination notice, but go for a CCJ, how does this stand? Am I correct in thinking that if they go for a CCJ for the whole amount, this automatically terminates the account?

 

Impressive amount of knowledge you guys have

 

yes, any demand to pay the full balance of the account (which would then include sums not yet due) would amount to a termination since the other side is clearly indicating that the agreement is at an end

 

the only exception being if the amount of the arrears outstanding equals the balance of the account

[NGEddie]

Thank you sir

[everton2005]

thanks for your help diddy

[diddydicky]

nwf:D

[everton2005]

nwf:D

?????? lol

[NGEddie]

no worries friend?

[diddydicky]

No wuckin Furries!!

[everton2005]

lol;)

[everton2005]

here is the latest http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/everton2005/lastscancap.jpg

[diddydicky]

file and ignore

[everton2005]

here is the latest http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/everton2005/capabbeyagain.jpg

[everton2005]

bump

[diddydicky]

file and ignore yet again

[everton2005]

lol thanks pal

[diddydicky]

if they terminate after the dodgy DN it is useful to accept their unlawful repudiation whether you can get away with that 12 months after the event i am not sure

 

Any default notice that uses the words "within 14 days" can NEVER be compliant because it can never give you 14 days after service to comply- not even if it is served in person on the day it is issued.

 

However, whilst i accept that "date" does indeed mean date"

 

i would suggest that if you get a DN and the ONLY defect is the use of the term "within 17 days" (provided the dates fit) 21 days or 28 days i would venture to suggest that this alone will not be sufficient to win the day

 

many caggers disagree with me and say it is black and white

 

 

I say, show me a trial where the defendant has defeated the DN on this point alone

 

all i am saying here is don't put all your eggs in this one basket