Jump to content
mkb

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3938 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

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 :-|

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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IMO I think they have unlawfully rescinded the a/c so just storing info for the time-being.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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...