Jump to content


Halifax Current Account- Is this a defective Default Notice? Help please!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5028 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

r&b,

 

Thanks for you reply.

 

What has completely confused me is that andyorch has said in his post that default notices do not apply to an overdraft. I thought that a correctly issued default notice was crucial to the creditor.

 

From reading the various posts and trying to make sense of it all, I am now completely confused.

 

I have on the face of it been served a default notice under S87 on 10/08/09 giving me until the 08/09/09 to repay the amount over the overdraft limit. They did not require the full balance.

 

I then received a letter stating that they had terminated my 'credit agreement' dated the 22/08/09 only 12 days after the default was issued.

 

I understand that an overdraft falls into the realms of partV of the consumer credit act, and I understand that 3 months and seven days has to elapse and the creditor has to provide me with details of the annual interest rate etc.

If they do not do this, then they lose the protection of certain parts of partV and have to provide a credit agreement for the amount over the limit.

 

This overdraft was not over the limit until a £35 charge was applied, and then a number of direct debits/standing orders which they paid and charged me £35 each of course.

 

Thus, the amount of overlimit is all down to the Halifax applying charges and in doing so they have indicated a tacit agreement to provide the overdraft.

 

I understand the above parts, which are a bit further down the track for me, but what I don't understand is why andy says the default does not apply, because that is exactly what they have given me followed almost immediately by a termination letter.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited by 3tea
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi 3tea

 

Perfectly understandable you are confused I would be also:confused:However Halifax are even more by issuing the DN.DNs apply to credit agreements ie loans/CCs/HP not overdrafts.Think about it you never signed any ageement by using the facilities of an overdraft therefore any unfair charges brought by the Creditor which puts the facility overdrawn (not in Default) are of their own making.You cant default on an overdraft you cant retify a breach to something you have not agreed to them doing.The only outcome of this is the creditor throwing the dummy out the pram and issuing a Termination Notice which basically calls the overdraft in and terminates the the non agreement facility.

Therefore the DN you have recieved from them them is useless,invalid and incorrect.The only document applicable to cease/modify an OD is a Notice Served uner Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974.

 

I trust that eliviates your concerns

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my Post R&B refers to from his thread on the process of current accounts.

 

Ok there is a set process that they must conform to, to release (legally) the Sec 76(1) 98 (1)

 

Firstly Formal Notice to file a Default and take action to recover

 

This usually allows 28 days to make arrangements ie satisfactory payment /payment plan.This is attached to the Sec 76(1)& 98(1) which itself must give the correct balance re overdraft.Must have theirs and yours full address and postcode.Must be dated and state the date of termination (14 days)

BTW this will state there is a charge for this notice and will be applied to the account before the date shown (another penalty charge:grin:)

 

Formal demand for repayment first listing account numbers and balance

exclusive of unapplied interest which is due or may become due.

 

This gives you the debter the opportunuty to resolve the issues by either

Paying the full amount/or set up a payment plan/or write with your proposals

you would normally be given 10 days to respond before the Claimant can instigate Litigation/pass to a DCA.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Many thanks for taking the time to drop by.

 

I take a bit of time to 'get with the programme' with such matters, and apologise if it's a bit frustrating dealing with me!!

 

I do understand quite a lot of this, and have read in depth the WS that R&B posted up in post 114 of the link you refer to.

 

This post seems to set out in a statement the legal process a creditor must follow in order to be able to demand repayment on an overdraft.

 

You may perhaps understand my confusion in relation to your statement that 'Default notices do not apply to overdrafts' when R&B included the following section in his WS in relation to his alleged overdraft.

 

2. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPERLY SERVED, VALID DEFAULT NOTICE TO LAWFULLY TERMINATE AN ACCOUNT WHILST IN DEFAULT:

1. This account is regulated by the Act.

2. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 correctly serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Running Credit Agreement. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a Regulated Running Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a valid Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

Section 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.

 

 

 

The Halifax have defaulted me in accordance with the above statement and under Section 87(1)

 

Are you now saying that R&B's WS was incorrect in stating that the overdraft was regulated agreement and therefore Section 87(1) applies?

 

I don't know if this makes any difference to things, but one of the conditions of the account was that at least £1,000 was to be credited per month. I can't remember if this was just when the overdraft was being used, or in general.

 

I did get a letter once when I had not paid in enough stating that in order to keep the account in accordance with the terms and conditions, £1,000 needed to be credited each month.

 

I am now wondering whether or not I actually have an 'overdraft' at all and it is in fact a 'credit agreement' similar to a credit card!!

 

They do call it a 'credit agreement' in the termination letter dated 22/08/09.

 

I posted the DN and what seems to be a TN at the beginning of this thread. I don't know if there is anything within either of them which would give a clue....

 

I have read through the CCA 1974, and agree that overdrafts do not conform to Part V of the CCA 1974 as they are exempt.

However, Part V only deals with the 'making of the agreement' and therefore trying to request a copy of an 'executed agreement' to check whether or not it is enforcible falls on deaf ears because there isn't one, as there does not have to be one.

 

My assertion, and please feel free to assert your response in capital letters to get through my thick skull, and smack me down hard if I am wrong, is that an overdraft is still a 'regulated running credit agreement' and does therefore fall within the remit of the rest of the CCA 1974.

 

It does not exempt an overdraft from being defaulted under section 87(1) as far as I can see, which is exactly what they have done.

 

A valid default notice would appear to be necessary before they can demand the part or full balance under Sec's 76(1) 98 (1).

 

Any suggestions?

 

Regards,

 

3tea

Edited by 3tea
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Many thanks for taking the time to drop by.

 

I take a bit of time to 'get with the programme' with such matters, and apologise if it's a bit frustrating dealing with me!!

 

I do understand quite a lot of this, and have read in depth the WS that R&B posted up in post 114 of the link you refer to.

 

This post seems to set out in a statement the legal process a creditor must follow in order to be able to demand repayment on an overdraft.

 

You may perhaps understand my confusion in relation to your statement that 'Default notices do not apply to overdrafts' when R&B included the following section in his WS in relation to his alleged overdraft.

 

2. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPERLY SERVED, VALID DEFAULT NOTICE TO LAWFULLY TERMINATE AN ACCOUNT WHILST IN DEFAULT:

1. This account is regulated by the Act.

2. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 correctly serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Running Credit Agreement. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a Regulated Running Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a valid Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

Section 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.

 

 

 

The Halifax have defaulted me in accordance with the above statement and under Section 87(1)

 

Are you now saying that R&B's WS was incorrect in stating that the overdraft was regulated agreement and therefore Section 87(1) applies?

 

I don't know if this makes any difference to things, but one of the conditions of the account was that at least £1,000 was to be credited per month. I can't remember if this was just when the overdraft was being used, or in general.

 

I did get a letter once when I had not paid in enough stating that in order to keep the account in accordance with the terms and conditions, £1,000 needed to be credited each month.

 

I am now wondering whether or not I actually have an 'overdraft' at all and it is in fact a 'credit agreement' similar to a credit card!!

 

They do call it a 'credit agreement' in the termination letter dated 22/08/09.

 

I posted the DN and what seems to be a TN at the beginning of this thread. I don't know if there is anything within either of them which would give a clue....

 

I have read through the CCA 1974, and agree that overdrafts do not conform to Part V of the CCA 1974 as they are exempt.

However, Part V only deals with the 'making of the agreement' and therefore trying to request a copy of an 'executed agreement' to check whether or not it is enforcible falls on deaf ears because there isn't one, as there does not have to be one.

 

My assertion, and please feel free to assert your response in capital letters to get through my thick skull, and smack me down hard if I am wrong, is that an overdraft is still a 'regulated running credit agreement' and does therefore fall within the remit of the rest of the CCA 1974.

 

It does not exempt an overdraft from being defaulted under section 87(1) as far as I can see, which is exactly what they have done.

 

A valid default notice would appear to be necessary before they can demand the part or full balance under Sec's 76(1) 98 (1).

 

Any suggestions?

 

Regards,

 

3tea

 

Hi 3tea, I am currently trying to work out the same issues as you - we have just been taken to court by Natwest for our O/D which fell into difficulty at end 2003. They refer on our statement to a Default Notice being sent also, so it is very confusing, as I had understood, as Andy has explained, that DN's do not apply to o/ds. My thread in case anyone is interested or can help is:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/219554-help-nawest-taking-us.html

 

Good luck with your own issues,

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 3tea

 

Perfectly understandable you are confused I would be also:confused:However Halifax are even more by issuing the DN.DNs apply to credit agreements ie loans/CCs/HP not overdrafts.Think about it you never signed any ageement by using the facilities of an overdraft therefore any unfair charges brought by the Creditor which puts the facility overdrawn (not in Default) are of their own making.You cant default on an overdraft you cant retify a breach to something you have not agreed to them doing.The only outcome of this is the creditor throwing the dummy out the pram and issuing a Termination Notice which basically calls the overdraft in and terminates the the non agreement facility.

Therefore the DN you have recieved from them them is useless,invalid and incorrect.The only document applicable to cease/modify an OD is a Notice Served uner Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974.

 

I trust that eliviates your concerns

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

 

Andy,

 

Sorry to trouble you again.

 

Given the above advice, I assume that a TN issued under 76(1) and 98(1) should be issued in a prescribed manner and should comply with the relevant periods?

 

ie: Clearly state the overdraft amount etc...

 

As you know, the Halifax issued me with a DN under S87(1) which you say is wrong and should have been issued under 76 and 98.

 

On the 22nd of August they sent me a TN which is pasted up on the thread.

 

I am assuming that if the Halifax rely on the TN to proceed then it will be a defective TN as it is not in the prescribed manner?

 

What do you think I should do? I am tempted to sit tight and wait for their next move.....

 

Regards

 

3tea

Edited by 3tea
Link to post
Share on other sites

@andyorch,

 

I disagree with this statement (Certainly on the facts of this case):

 

Default Notices do not apply to Overdrafts.Termination Notices do or otherwise known as Notice Served under Sections 76(1) an 98(1) of the CCA 1974.

 

Not least because, Halifax is clearly alleging breach of contract on the part of 3tea and:

 

Section 76(6) says:

76(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a right of enforcement arising by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the regulated agreement.

 

and section 98(6) says:

 

98(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

 

The only way to enforce a regulated agreement, including an overdraft, following a breach by the consumer is using the section 87/88 default notice procedure.

 

Section 76/98 can be used where there is no default and the bank wished to end the agreement.

 

If you genuinely believe otherwise, please point 3tea to a statute or case law reference.

 

Dad

Edited by dad
Link to post
Share on other sites

@andyorch,

 

I disagree with this statement (Certainly on the facts of this case):

 

 

 

Not least because, Halifax is clearly alleging breach of contract on the part of 3tea and:

 

Section 76(6) says:

 

 

and section 98(6) says:

 

 

 

The only way to end a regulated agreement following a breach by the consumer is using the section 87/88 default notice procedure.

 

Section 76/98 can be used where there is no default and the bank wished to end the agreement.

 

If you genuinely believe otherwise, please point 3tea to a statute or case law reference.

 

Dad

 

The above seems to make sense as Nwest has also stated on one of my bank statement that a DN was sent following the account falling into difficulties, although they can't prove this it seems

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

overdrafts are credt agreements and are only exempt fom the cca under pat V 74.

 

74.

Exclusion of certain agreements from Part V.

(1) This Part (except section 56) does not apply to

(a)

a non-commercial agreement, or

 

(b)

a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, or

 

©

a debtor-creditor agreement to finance the making of such payments arising on, or connected with, the death of a person as may be prescribed.

 

becausethey allow you to overdrawon the account

 

default notices still apply

 

ida x

  • Haha 1

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Notice of default (Definition)

 

A notification given to a borrower stating that he or she has not made their payments by the predetermined deadline on their credit agreement.

 

All credit applications (Eg personal loans, credit cards or store cards) opened in the United Kingdom are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. This piece of legislation requires that creditors must issue a Default Notice to any customer who has fallen behind with payments to their account, before legal action can be pursued to recover the monies owed.

 

Overdrafts are not terminated by the use of a Default Notice but by the issue of the Notice Served under Sections 76(1) an 98(1) of the CCA 1974 and is used to enforce the debt.Therfore Default Notices do not apply to overdrafts.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Andy, in this instance.

 

Lets see if this helps explain why;

 

To help clarify these matters, this is an extract from a Court case (Coutts & Co v Gabriel Oscar Alan Sebestyen [2005] EWCA Civ 473.) and is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to the effect on overdrafts and the function of the CCA in such circumstances;

 

“The Defendant provided an overdraft on the account;

 

 

The agreement was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of s.8 and s.13© of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of s.10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within an agreed credit limit); and

That, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

 

THE DETERMINATION:

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

 

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

- of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

 

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

The Claimant avers that the OFT Determination applies in the current proceedings and that the Defendant has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down to benefit from such Determination, the effect of which is that the Defendant must be able to show that the agreement complies with the form and content requirement of Part V of the CCA 1974, specifically s.60 and s.61 of the Act.

 

The important bit here is highlighted in red

So, we know that Overdrafts are exempt from Part V of the Act, but they are also, by virtue of Coutts interpretation of the s.74 Determination exempt from the requirement to comply with s.87 (and therefore s.88) by the fact that the parties agree how the agreement will be terminated as a pre-contractrual negotiation, or at least one that takes place shortly after the agreement (overdraft) is entered in to.

 

If the parties agree that the Bank will send the Customer a packet of Marlboro Lights (other brands available!) then the Bank must sent them a packet of those to terminate the agreement. ;)

 

In essence, Default Notices would only be required under the agreement, if they agreement says that one is needed for the Bank to terminate. A Default Notice compliant with s.87/s.88 (i.e., needed under the Act to terminate) is not required to terminate an overdraft agreement.

 

Usually, the overdraft agreement will require a termination notice to be issued, giving the customer a specified period of time to repay the debt in full before termination.

 

I can see why people are confused, but you need to put the requirements of the CCA that overdrafts are exempt from out of your mind to get your head around this one...

 

HTH

  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My oh my, what a useful post this has been. I am learning fast!!

 

I am now wondering if this question could this be as simple as this?:

 

Scenario 1:

 

Bank A provides an arranged overdraft for John of £5,000.

The overdraft is granted for one year.

 

John periodically uses his overdraft and does not go over the limit.

 

After a few months, Bank A decides that their risk exposure to John is too great, and they are going to exercise their right to withdraw his overdraft as per the overdraft conditions.

(It may be that John is over indebted elsewhere)

 

The overdraft John has is a 'regulated agreement' and therefore comes under the CCA 1974, apart from Part V.

 

John has always behaved himself, and has complied with the terms and conditions of the overdraft.

 

In order to terminate his overdraft, the bank has to serve a notice under Section 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974 to call in this (non defaulted) overdraft.

These conditions allow a 14 day plus service?? period to bring the account back into credit, or to negotiate an acceptable repayment plan.

(Makes sense if they are pulling the rug from underneath.......)

 

IN SUMMARY

No breach of overdraft terms and conditions=Termination Notice served under Section 76(1) and 98(1)

 

Scenario 2

 

On this occasion, Bank A agree to provide John with an overdraft of £5000 and the overdraft is, as before, for one year.

 

After a few months, John has an injury at work and is on a reduced income.

He starts to use up his overdraft facility until he goes over the overdraft limit.

The bank immediately write to John and ask him to repay the amount he is overlimit by.

 

John does not have the money to do this, and his problem is compounded by Bank A applying unauthorised overdraft charges and interest, making John's situation worse. (Sound familiar anyone??)

 

One of the terms and conditions of John's overdraft, is that he has to repay all or part of the overdraft upon request.

 

He has clearly breached (defaulted) the terms and conditions of the overdraft, by failing to repay the requested amount and so the bank serves him a default notice under Section 87(1) CCA 1974 for the arrears.

 

IN SUMMARY

Breach of overdraft terms and conditions= Default Notice served under Section 87(1)

 

I think the argument here may come down to what the creditor considers a default to be.

 

Clearly from this thread, most people consider a default to mean a simple failure to repay a fixed regular amount that becomes due.

 

Does everyone think that a default can also mean that you can breach your account conditions, and as soon as you do this then a DN under S87(1) can be served?

 

As Dad says above, 76(1) and 98(1) appear to be for non-default cases, and 87(1) is for 'default cases' as mine is, cos I could not cough up when they asked me to!

 

So, I am wondering if dad and andyorch are both right but for differing reasons?????????????

 

My case is as per scenario 2, so if the above is true, have I defaulted on the overlimit amount only, or the whole overdraft?

And secondly, have they terminated the overlimit amount, or the whole overdraft?

 

 

3tea

 

P.S on a slightly different tack....

In looking through this I dug out the original Halifax letters agreeing to the overdraft and they comply with Part 2(b) of the OFT determination APART FROM the bit about the procedure to terminate the agreement.

 

There is nothing about this at all.........

 

So....failure to comply with the OFT determnation, means Credit Agreement required does it not??

Might be useful for someone, I know it is to me......

Edited by 3tea
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but in both scenarios the Bank doesn't need an overdraft if one isn't required by the agreement itself.

 

In short, the Banks hold all the cards with overdrafts and you should stay away from them if at all possible. (Like with a Basic Bank Account, or one with limited credit facilities available)

 

Easy for me to say when we all know that credit (and overdrafts!) make the World go around! :rolleyes:

 

The good news? There's a very good chance your overdraft is completely unenforceable! ;)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/110184-car2403-barclays-bank-default.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response car2403,

 

What makes you say the overdraft possibly can't be enforced?

 

I was relying on the fact the DN/Termination was defective thereby making the overdraft unenforceable, hence my original post.

 

I didn't realise that this would get so complicated!

 

 

3tea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 3tea

What an interesting thread. I have exactly the same situation as you. Went over the o/d limit due to o/d charges which I know you have to pay monthly but they then sent the DN and didnt allow the 14 days to the TN. Watching your thread with interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can't show they complied with the OFT Determination, (i.e., they didn't send you the right documentation when you entered in to the agreement) the debt could be unenforceable. (Just as mine arguably was, although my dispute was resolved before we actually got a Judgment ;))

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can't show they complied with the OFT Determination, (i.e., they didn't send you the right documentation when you entered in to the agreement) the debt could be unenforceable. (Just as mine arguably was, although my dispute was resolved before we actually got a Judgment ;))

 

Car, which of your threads relates to the above? Be interesting to have a look as Nwest are now taking us to court, with a similar scenario to 3tea's.

 

thanks,

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very rare you will see claims made up of just Overdrfats in entirety they are usually amalgamated into personal loans.Very rare an OC will instigate litigation on these debts,not just because of the the pending OFT case but because they are very difficult to enforce.Nine out of ten are usually sold to butt end DCAs who think they can enforce them:rolleyes: Which of course the OC has already wrote them off and claimed a tax loss against the case, and this is because :-

 

Nobody signs an agreement for an Overdraft

Usually they are made up of unfair charges.

They cant issue a Default Notice.

Most OC dont really know how to terminate the facility (Such as Halifax)

Not worth the Trial costs to claim the debt (in most cases)

Easier to pass to a muppet DCA who thinks you are daft enough to accept judgement

 

I rest my case

 

Andy:D

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very rare you will see claims made up of just Overdrfats in entirety they are usually amalgamated into personal loans.Very rare an OC will instigate litigation on these debts,not just because of the the pending OFT case but because they are very difficult to enforce.Nine out of ten are usually sold to butt end DCAs who think they can enforce them:rolleyes: Which of course the OC has already wrote them off and claimed a tax loss against the case, and this is because :-

 

Nobody signs an agreement for an Overdraft

Usually they are made up of unfair charges.

They cant issue a Default Notice.

Most OC dont really know how to terminate the facility (Such as Halifax)

Not worth the Trial costs to claim the debt (in most cases)

Easier to pass to a muppet DCA who thinks you are daft enough to accept judgement

 

I rest my case

 

Andy:D

 

I think a lot of these banks/DCAs still take people to court assuming it won't be defended (not realising we have discovered this forum!) in which case it is an easy process to obtain judgement, if we defend though, it can make their life very difficult and they are not guaranteed to get the outcome they wished.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Magda very rare the case gets to trial and they will try to bluff you along the way.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

car,

 

so what sould people dowhen they receive default notcies

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

car,

 

so what sould people dowhen they receive default notcies

 

ida x

Nothing absolutely Nothing.Then wait for the DCA unfortunate to buy the debt to contact you.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...