Jump to content



Halifax - dodgy default - agreement now terninated, help!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3637 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...