Jump to content


Default Notices - must they give a numerical date for action?


mkb
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4669 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

Having read & re-read about invalid DN's, I'm still not sure what exactly what the legalities are :eek:

 

Is it valid if a DN says that action must be taken within 17 days of the date of the DN, or MUST it say an actual date for action ie if date of letter is 1st (and allowing 4 days for service) then date for action should read by 18/10/09

 

Hope my question makes sense :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mkb,

ive seen this quite a few times on the site and in truth it appears that if this is your ONLY line of attack, then its a not a very strong one, but it can 'fluff out' other aspects. technically i think its correct but getting a DJ to take that on board, in isolation, in reality may prove much more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read & re-read about invalid DN's, I'm still not sure what exactly what the legalities are :eek:

 

Is it valid if a DN says that action must be taken within 17 days of the date of the DN, or MUST it say an actual date for action ie if date of letter is 1st (and allowing 4 days for service) then date for action should read by 18/10/09

 

Hope my question makes sense :-|

 

Hi mkb

 

Good advice above from r&b, but if you are giving the actual dates involved in your example, and the letter was sent by non-1st class Royal Mail, then the DN would be deemed invalid, due to the 4 working days required for deemed service for 2nd class post taking until 7th Oct.

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was for general interest as well as a possible point scored if Tesco take me to court ;)

 

IMO I think they have unlawfully rescinded the a/c so just storing info for the time-being.

 

Thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218671-tesco-rbs-dn-opinions.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mkb

 

Good advice above from r&b, but if you are giving the actual dates involved in your example, and the letter was sent by non-1st class Royal Mail, then the DN would be deemed invalid, due to the 4 working days required for deemed service for 2nd class post taking until 7th Oct.

 

Cheers

Rob

 

hi rob,

as an addition your post, ive just had a hearing where i relied on the PD that states the above which was shot down pretty hard by the DJ stating that as its from 1985 he was sure the CPR 6.26, put fwd by the other sides barrister, took precedence. first time ive heard it but have a look and see what u think. its potentially an argument that may cause probs regarding service of docs such as DNs.

not trying to put a dampener on things but certainly something to be aware of so u are ready for the point should it surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
hi rob,

as an addition your post, ive just had a hearing where i relied on the PD that states the above which was shot down pretty hard by the DJ stating that as its from 1985 he was sure the CPR 6.26, put fwd by the other sides barrister, took precedence. first time ive heard it but have a look and see what u think. its potentially an argument that may cause probs regarding service of docs such as DNs.

not trying to put a dampener on things but certainly something to be aware of so u are ready for the point should it surface.

 

Hi r&b

 

Sorry :oops:, I've only just seen your reply, but I don't quite see what you're saying :confused:.

 

Don't CPR part 6.2 and 6.26 when read together say what you and I both understand? :confused:

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi r&b

 

Sorry :oops:, I've only just seen your reply, but I don't quite see what you're saying :confused:.

 

Don't CPR part 6.2 and 6.26 when read together say what you and I both understand? :confused:

 

Cheers

Rob

 

hi rob,

in all honesty id posted that just after my hearing (mistake) before id had chance to look into properly so apologies for that error of judgement.

it appears from what i can find out (and shall be using in my own case) that the CPR can be shown to relate to Court documentation only and have no bearing on documents under Statute, where the Interpretation Act 1978 clearly states that it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi r&b

 

Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't realised the significance of the Interpretation Act definition as I'd thought the CPR 6.2/6.26 covered the same thing.

 

I guess 'for the avoidance of doubt', as ignorant LiPs :rolleyes:, we could include references to both in some situations (where it suits us), as a bit of a 'belt & braces' approach ;).

 

As I see it, the Interpretation Act definition/method is open to abuse by some unscrupulous creditors lying in an affadavit and claiming 1st class post was used when it wasn't :mad:, which I think I've actually seen an example of on here in the past week or two.

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...