Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • not interested in silly letter   the CCa return please   dx  
    • This is interesting as I was not aware that there was a difference in the PPI claims/calculations.  Long story: I asked for this PPI reclaim over 5 years ago.  The Woolwich loan was taken out when I had a Woolwich current account.  The banking sort code for Woolwich was deleted off the banking system when Barclays inherited it hence they could not find my current account let alone the loan.  They had told me that I had provide proof of the loan as they could not locate it.  I did the FCA deadline search and it still was not located.  As this was the last resort, I had to go into the loft and found it by chance.  They changed the new reference number from the seach and attached it to the old past reference number as the complaint was still on their system.  Even speaking to them about their calculations and the one I got from the on-line calculators, no one can explain the difference, they just keep saying that they cannot speak to the PPI calculations team, they have to email them!  Also I thought the Plevin paragraph was standard information.  So this is where the mystery lies, I can reject the Plevin calculation and ask for calculations based on my actual PPI sums paid, would this then be in line with your calculator?
    • so who remembers this utter cobblers spun by the right wing (which was of course denied by Nissan - as it was cobblers)   https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7962367/Nissans-Brexit-boost-Car-giant-secret-plan-close-EU-factories.html
    • If only that was his worst .. absolute peanuts compared to his recent wastes though ..   £500 million to tory pals in failing to collect a couple of hundred spit samples a day £12 Billion on Trace a test which has largely collapsed at the very start of the winter upsurge £88-100 Billion+ on Brexit as of earlier this year just in lost growth (from memory) Over a £Trillion in assets fled to the EU (Including Redwood and Ress Mogg) £288 million a week ongoing for Brexit and post brexit customs bureaucracy - whenever they get the systems running Nissan and Toyota saying UK taxpayer pay any Brexit tariff bills or Plants including Sunderland are unsustainable   How much are the lorry parks costing?   ... and he still REFUSES to feed hungry UK kids  
    • If the windows had already been made and were ready to install, he would surely have offered to do it without further delay.   Instead of arguing the toss with you, why is he not trying to sort a day to install and rescue the situation.   Despite the good reviews for the company, I'm not impressed but see what Bankfodder suggests.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Halifax - dodgy default - agreement now terninated, help!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3668 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

UPDATE: New letter from iQOR.

 

They're offering me a great discount to clear the debt butr I have to call them to find out what it is. If I don't call within 72 hours they are sending the boys round to discuss full payment.

 

*gulp*

:)

 

i suspect they are offering you nothing- simply trying to get you on the end of the phone

 

write and tell them to put their offer in writing and you will consider it

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE: Their offer is a £700 discount from current total of £3,600. If they haven't purchased the debt are they authorised to make this offer on behalf of Halifax?

 

Out of work and not in a position to pay right noe--plus the dodgy default and them terminating the account several months ago.

 

They also requested a break down of my I&E - as if :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
UPDATE: Their offer is a £700 discount from current total of £3,600. If they haven't purchased the debt are they authorised to make this offer on behalf of Halifax?

 

Out of work and not in a position to pay right noe--plus the dodgy default and them terminating the account several months ago.

 

They also requested a break down of my I&E - as if :)

 

dear sirs

 

Your Ref XXXXXXXXXXXx

 

i note your offer to reduce the alleged debt from 3600 to 2800 on behalf of your client

 

I am not in a position to offer your client this sum in settllement of the alleged debt

 

were i to be in a position to do so, and being unemployed i am not, i would be looking to offer only a token payment of £250 in full and final settlement purely to rid myself of the nuisance value of your clients claim

 

yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i would personally (which is why i rit it!!)

 

but then again i am prepared to "put my money where my mouth is"

 

i have had no personal dealings with this guy but if i did- given his reputation- i would certainly be wanting to put him back in his box!

 

a little humour never hurt anyone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diddy--sent that letter as per your suggestion.

 

Today a letter from Geoffrey, Parker, Bourne Solicitors saying iQor contacted them and instructed them to take action unless I contact IQOR with an offer of payment. They say they have been instruted not to talk to me direct.

 

Ever heard of them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...

Quick update: Robinson Way now chasing. Sent me original agreement, and old statements.

 

Did anyone ever come up with a decent letter to send when DCAs chase alleged debts where the bank has terminated following a dodgy default?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Robinson Way dealing with my Halifax CC. I sent them this letter:

Dear Sir,

 

Re: a/c ref. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

 

I refer to your letter of xx xxxx 2010 regarding the above account.

 

I wrote to the Halifax bank on xx xxxx 2010 regarding the default notice issued by them and accepting their unlawful recission of the agreement. The legal situation regarding this is set out in the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

CCA 1974, Section 88 (as amended):

(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 fourteen days after the date of service of the default notice…

 

The definition of service, in these instances by second class post, is laid down in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (updated 16th April 1985):

 

1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday…

 

The failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which not only prevents the court from enforcing any alleged debt but also gives rise to a counter claim for damages (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

 

The default notice was dated xx xxxx 2009 and sent by second class post. The date of service was therefore xx xxxx and, after allowing the required fourteen days, the earliest date for breach permissable under CCA 1974 was xx xxxx 2009; their default notice gave a date of xx xxxx 2009 and therefore was defective. Consequently the subsequent demand for full payment of the alleged debt was an unlawful recission of the agreement. This I accepted by post on xx xxxx 2010. I also requested the amount of arrears due at the time of the unlawful recission but have received no response.

 

I trust that explains the situation adequately and look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Please note that I will not respond to any phone calls or email correspondence. Furthermore I revoke licence under Common Law for you or your representatives to visit me at my address.

 

Yours faithfully,

Robinson Way subsequently closed the account and returned it to Halifax. (A couple of months later it was passed on to Moorcroft.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

You have accepted their unlawful REPUDIATION (not recession ... there is a thread on here regarding the diff between the 2 .. it may actually be in Pinkys DN thread if you have a search through ... ).

 

Anyhoo, I have a similar situation with my bank regarding a credit card - I simply wrote to them advising that they had unlawfully repudiated the agreement, further to their issue of a defective DN and subsequent termination of the account. But I didn't tell them why the DN was defective ... as I didn't want to give them any heads up on why it was defective ... which may give them the idea of issuing a replacement correct DN. I also didn't tell them that they were entitled to the genuine arrears ...(I'll let them find that out for themselves without me giving them tips ... !) ... But I did tell them that they had lost all future benefits under s87(1) as a result of their unlawful action.

 

I haven't heard anything from them .. just a DCA chasing who has been told the account is dispute due to defective CCA, and unlawful repudation to boot !!

 

Abs x

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to bear in mind that following the amex v brnadon case lawyers are not being prepared to argue the invalid DN route and so if you want to do so you will need to take it on yourself

 

the consensus seems to be that as the DN was invalid then so was the termination

 

whilst i understand the arguments i still personally disagree- the law does operate to take account of an unlawful action and it remains my opinion that if a (sophisticated) creditor tells an unsophisticated) debtor that an agreement is ended - he is entitled to take that at face value and the creditor is bound by his word

 

If parilaiment intended that an invalid dn was of no consequenmce then it would not have drawn up such strict guidance as to how the creditor must word it and would instead have said " the creditor may write to the debtor and serve a default notice giving 14 days to remedy" - if the creditor gets it wrong then he may try againb, and again and again until he gets it right and the debtor may remain confused as to what the creditors true intentions are- therefore there is no fixed format for a DN

 

what a load of crap- i understand brandon is being appealed

 

i still intend to fight this argument myself

Link to post
Share on other sites
you need to bear in mind that following the amex v brnadon case lawyers are not being prepared to argue the invalid DN route and so if you want to do so you will need to take it on yourself

 

the consensus seems to be that as the DN was invalid then so was the termination

 

whilst i understand the arguments i still personally disagree- the law does operate to take account of an unlawful action and it remains my opinion that if a (sophisticated) creditor tells an unsophisticated) debtor that an agreement is ended - he is entitled to take that at face value and the creditor is bound by his word

 

If parilaiment intended that an invalid dn was of no consequenmce then it would not have drawn up such strict guidance as to how the creditor must word it and would instead have said " the creditor may write to the debtor and serve a default notice giving 14 days to remedy" - if the creditor gets it wrong then he may try againb, and again and again until he gets it right and the debtor may remain confused as to what the creditors true intentions are- therefore there is no fixed format for a DN

 

what a load of crap- i understand brandon is being appealed

 

i still intend to fight this argument myself

 

 

 

 

Hi

I have said this before but the function of a default notice is to give the debtor an accurate picture of what he needs to do in order to cure a breach made by him to prevent enforcement.

If this information is incorrect it makes the notice invalid that is all it does, why should the act enable it to do any thing else, just because the notice is incorrect does not make the breach by the debtor disappear.

It does not remove the creditors rights to recover his funds.

You are looking for a loophole here and there is not one.

Why shouldn’t the creditor be able to correct the mistake and after further period prosecute.

It is not a test , it is not the execution of an agreement it is a notice of action.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
you need to bear in mind that following the amex v brnadon case lawyers are not being prepared to argue the invalid DN route and so if you want to do so you will need to take it on yourself

 

the consensus seems to be that as the DN was invalid then so was the termination

 

whilst i understand the arguments i still personally disagree- the law does operate to take account of an unlawful action and it remains my opinion that if a (sophisticated) creditor tells an unsophisticated) debtor that an agreement is ended - he is entitled to take that at face value and the creditor is bound by his word

 

If parilaiment intended that an invalid dn was of no consequenmce then it would not have drawn up such strict guidance as to how the creditor must word it and would instead have said " the creditor may write to the debtor and serve a default notice giving 14 days to remedy" - if the creditor gets it wrong then he may try againb, and again and again until he gets it right and the debtor may remain confused as to what the creditors true intentions are- therefore there is no fixed format for a DN

 

what a load of crap- i understand brandon is being appealed

 

i still intend to fight this argument myself

 

 

 

 

Hi

I have said this before but the function of a default notice is to give the debtor an accurate picture of what he needs to do in order to cure a breach made by him to prevent enforcement.

If this information is incorrect it makes the notice invalid that is all it does, why should the act enable it to do any thing else, just because the notice is incorrect does not make the breach by the debtor disappear.

It does not remove the creditors rights to recover his funds.

You are looking for a loophole here and there is not one.

Why shouldn’t the creditor be able to correct the mistake and after further period prosecute.

It is not a test , it is not the execution of an agreement it is a notice of action.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

it may well not be a test, but if the creditor accidentally or otherwise terminates the agreement- in circumstances where he was not entitled then he has stepped outside of the act into general contract law- and...having unlawfully envinced the intention to repudiate his obligations- and by placing that in writing to the debtor he is (being a man of ordinary prudence) bound by his word

 

in other words he should not have written and unlawfuilly terminated if he did not intend to do so.

 

if a person throws in a real boy in response to a call from the water to "throw in a lifebouy" and that boy drowns - instead of what it was intended-that he throw into the water - he cannot pretend that the consequences of his actions never happened and that he can just ignore the fact that the boy drowned and then "have another go" at throwing in the real thing!

 

The lords have ruled already that the onus is upon the creditor to be accurate and precise and that it was intended that whilst in some circumstances an individual could have gained from the creditors actions whereas in normal commercial disputes that may not happen- - that it was in the wider interest of consumer protection, even if in certain circumstances the monies owed had been accidently "gifted" to the individual by the creditors actions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well said Diddy - if the creditor says that a debtor has breached their contract they terminate without discussions or giving you a truly realistic chance of putting it right - so rules is rules and that works both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it may well not be a test, but if the creditor accidentally or otherwise terminates the agreement- in circumstances where he was not entitled then he has stepped outside of the act into general contract law- and...having unlawfully envinced the intention to repudiate his obligations- and by placing that in writing to the debtor he is (being a man of ordinary prudence) bound by his word

 

in other words he should not have written and unlawfuilly terminated if he did not intend to do so.

 

if a person throws in a real boy in response to a call from the water to "throw in a lifebouy" and that boy drowns - instead of what it was intended-that he throw into the water - he cannot pretend that the consequences of his actions never happened and that he can just ignore the fact that the boy drowned and then "have another go" at throwing in the real thing!

 

The lords have ruled already that the onus is upon the creditor to be accurate and precise and that it was intended that whilst in some circumstances an individual could have gained from the creditors actions whereas in normal commercial disputes that may not happen- - that it was in the wider interest of consumer protection, even if in certain circumstances the monies owed had been accidently "gifted" to the individual by the creditors actions

 

HI

Interesting

 

Could you point me to this ruling. and indicate if possible where its relavance to consumer law has been demonstrated.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
HI

Interesting

 

Could you point me to this ruling. and indicate if possible where its relavance to consumer law has been demonstrated.

 

Peter

 

Sorry some times i have to read your posts a few tmes before they sink in ( not a critisism ).

 

You say not intentianally terminated, is this an offence or breach?

 

THe creditor can terminate whenever he likes , i thought we had established that. I can see no reason within the act that he cannot even demand payment, but at least we know that he can terminate. How can this be a breach

 

Plase the other stuff about contract law is not a realistic defence is it? would this stand up in a court . I have been involved in a lot of hearings like this and have read about a lot more and have never heard of a court placing any relavance in this kind of testimony , usually it is just down to analysis of the act , if i am wrong please point me to documented evidence, i would welcome the sight of it.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not aware that we have "established" that the creditor can terminate when he likes quite the opposite

 

i have always been of the opinion that whilst the creditor may terminate the agreement under a clause in the contract (as can the debtor)- he CANNOT do so if the debtor is in arrears of payments-- my argument- which i still maintain is correct.........is that once the debtor is in arrears- the CCa acts to give him "another chance" and in that respect the creditor must then use s87/8 to terminate and that this overrides any other clause in the contract

 

As i understand (havent read the whole thing) amex went down the s87/8 route and then CHANGED their tack when this was proved defective and "fell back on another clause in the agreement

 

all agreements start with the words

 

 

This agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 etc

 

it therefore seems to me that this clearly means that the agreement may not contain any clause or term which attempts to override, weaken or obviate any part of the regulation contained in the CCA

 

it seems to me that the judge in brandon failed to recognise this fact, and give little though to the fact that the CCa is an act for the protection of the consumer and not an act that seeks to provide equality between the parties

 

hence the acts purpose to allow a second chance to consumers who may breach the agreement- whilst at the same time showing no leniency towards creditors who cannot be factual and precise- despite their overwhelming superiority in terms of financial and legal armoury

 

the amex brandon result was one of those anomolies that hopefully will be appealed and put right

Link to post
Share on other sites
i am not aware that we have "established" that the creditor can terminate when he likes quite the opposite

 

i have always been of the opinion that whilst the creditor may terminate the agreement under a clause in the contract (as can the debtor)- he CANNOT do so if the debtor is in arrears of payments-- my argument- which i still maintain is correct.........is that once the debtor is in arrears- the CCa acts to give him "another chance" and in that respect the creditor must then use s87/8 to terminate and that this overrides any other clause in the contract

 

As i understand (havent read the whole thing) amex went down the s87/8 route and then CHANGED their tack when this was proved defective and "fell back on another clause in the agreement

 

all agreements start with the words

 

 

This agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 etc

 

it therefore seems to me that this clearly means that the agreement may not contain any clause or term which attempts to override, weaken or obviate any part of the regulation contained in the CCA

 

it seems to me that the judge in brandon failed to recognise this fact, and give little though to the fact that the CCa is an act for the protection of the consumer and not an act that seeks to provide equality between the parties

 

hence the acts purpose to allow a second chance to consumers who may breach the agreement- whilst at the same time showing no leniency towards creditors who cannot be factual and precise- despite their overwhelming superiority in terms of financial and legal armoury

 

the amex brandon result was one of those anomolies that hopefully will be appealed and put right

 

Hi

So the creditor cannot terminate if the debtor is in arrears, interesting is this mentioned in any legislation anywhere?

 

Does this mean that if the debtor is in arrears the crediotr must either default or continue supplying funds?

 

Must admit it is a new one on me.

 

I may have seen this legislation you reffered to earlier but otheres havent and i amsure we would all like the chance to discuss and see its worth

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...