Me V MBNA, last credit card

[citizenB]

Sorry to hear what happend, so if the amount if higher does that count better for the defective default? and what does a De Minimus issue mean?

 

de minimus = is considered a "trifle" of no real significance.

 

However, the default notice issue is not de minimus and should really have been sufficient in this instance to see MBNA off.

 

The lack of a Notice of Assignment from MBNA to the first company should also have been sufficient in it's own right.

[NGEddie]

Oh I understand now, so is it often the case defaults are seen as this de minimus, im sure I read somewhere they are not allowed to be?

[citizenB]

Oh I understand now, so is it often the case defaults are seen as this de minimus, im sure I read somewhere they are not allowed to be?

 

MBNA/REstons and another Bank Amex are trying to get dodgy default notices reclassified as de minimum issues.. and some judges appear to be supporting them in their quest

[Docman]

I have used the following paragraphs in a defence which refuted the default notice.

“A default notice is a required by S 87(1) of the Act before a creditor can become entitled to take any action in respect of a regulated credit agreement.

Furthermore s 88(1) of the Act requires that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The prescribed format for a default notice is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and subsequent the amendment regulations [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)].

By Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

By S 88 (2) of the Act, as amended by s14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as from 1 October 2006, the specified date must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the default notice. “

If the judge had then tried to argue the ‘de minis’ idea, I would have pointed out that parliament thought the issue was so important that it took the unusual step of extending the period from 7 to 14 days in the Act itself, rather than the usual changes to secondary regulations. If the judge was still of the ‘de minis’ mind, I would have said, “OK, please make that clear in your judgment so the circuit judge can overrule you on my appeal.

[supasnooper]

I have used the following paragraphs in a defence which refuted the default notice.

“A default notice is a required by S 87(1) of the Act before a creditor can become entitled to take any action in respect of a regulated credit agreement.

Furthermore s 88(1) of the Act requires that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The prescribed format for a default notice is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and subsequent the amendment regulations [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)].

By Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

By S 88 (2) of the Act, as amended by s14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as from 1 October 2006, the specified date must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the default notice. “

If the judge had then tried to argue the ‘de minis’ idea, I would have pointed out that parliament thought the issue was so important that it took the unusual step of extending the period from 7 to 14 days in the Act itself, rather than the usual changes to secondary regulations. If the judge was still of the ‘de minis’ mind, I would have said, “OK, please make that clear in your judgment so the circuit judge can overrule you on my appeal.

 

 

Well pointed out docman.

 

.......and that's why an appeal may be worth considering.