Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've used payslip, passport, driving licence, still can't identify me, everything is upto date address etc, 1 attempt left then it blocks me H
    • Thanks for the replies and sorry, as it seems I haven't communicated my question clearly. I'm not after advice about how to deal with the situation I'm in. I'm on top of that and sent a SAR to Scottish Widows the day before I sent one to the FOS. My query was around the FOS interpretation of personal data and the extent of their obligations under GDPR, hence the original title They have said that "personal data is defined as any information relating to an [...] identifiable natural person (‘data subject’)" They then define an identifiable natural person as "one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as [...] an identification number. My view is that I have a complaint reference number, which identifies a complaint raised by me about the administration of my pension so it therefore indirectly identifies me If I'm right, then I believe that all the data related to my complaint is personal data about me, including the screen shot that purportedly establishes that I received my statements. I was hoping there might be someone with better knowledge of GDPR that can clarify whether I'm right or wrong before I react to the FOS's failure to disclose  
    • Please bear with me here i shall try and make this short but with all the detail, but i need help ASAP as there is limited time allowed for this process. I have been with my company 4 years and have advanced through the technical ranks to my current position,  we have an annual report which goes from 0-4 and for three years i have never scored lower than a 3. I was promoted to the role i am in now as an area quality assurance lead and the location was for the NE ( i live in the NW) eventually a similar role became available for another role in the NW. I asked my line manager if he minded me applying for it and he had no issues, i applied sat the multi stage interview and was given the role. My role is now classed as "at risk" of redundancy as we are moving from 4 regions to two which means they are also moving from 4 roles to two roles in my position. Two people are considered safe and myself and another at risk, my question is what is the criteria to separate safe from at risk . In the documentation received from my company it is below, i have zero issues and i know cv against cv mine wins, i was even selected by the company as a company mentor because of my experience in engineering and leadership. This is a closed group of maybe ten people and i am the only non senior executive included.    ·         Performance and Behaviour : I have zero behaviour issues, no issues with performance from my current line manager.  ·         Performance Improvement/ Disciplinary Records   : Zero disciplinary's and no performance issues, in fact my line manager on record has said I'm forthcoming ·         End Of Year Rating : Issues explained below Now my line manager was leaving the company and he did tell me "there was some politics involved with you getting that role, the city build manager and head of area build had promised it to their lead engineer (something they had no right to promise as it has to go though the process ) anyway from day 1 it became very clear that i would not be accepted for this reason within their community although i did just try to help them achieve quality and specification as that was my role. After a few weeks it became very apparent as to why the role had been promised to their man, i found issues where properties had been signed off as ready to accept subscribers when they were not ready (for bonus and stat reasons) and several quality issues i discovered which we could remedy and improve our productivity (unfortunately this would highlight that these issues had been there and not dealt with) My new head of area build (part of this trilogy of him, city build manager and lead engineer)  clearly did not want me there (for the reasons stated) but paid lip service, i had highlighted that i needed to walk off some structured with our canter of excellence counterparts ( as this was part of my role to link in with them for national issues) and he responded by saying i am not to walk them off, and that we have sufficient engineers to do that task (by saying this he could make sure that the engineers would take them round to structures that are A not the ones i have highlighted, and B would have very minor issues) This battle went back and forth over the months where i tried my best to build up the relationship with  them, my attitude was ok you have made some mistakes here, but we are all a team and even though you have hidden issues i can help you remedy them and hopefully we can do so and keep them off the radar,  but they just never did, So moving forward to October last year (2023) this is getting near to annual review time, now i had helped the company out massively by working a substantial amount of weekends and nights to fix issues, and i said i would take most of the time as TOIL ( as agreed with by my previous head of area build) this was 30 days. My current head of area build said i needed to put my leave in as it had been flagged as having a large amount. When i did input the leave (it would result in me taking all of December off) he was unhappy with me and was extremely curt in his responses as he could find nothing on the system for my TOIL , i explained the situation, my line manager would ask if i could work the hours, i would, and when i wanted leave he would authorise (we had an good working relationship, he was an excellent manager) he ended up going to HR to ask their advice and a teams call was set up with myself, head of area build and HR, it was confirmed by HR that it was a company error, when you want to input TOIL there should be a dropdown option in the leave menu and one of the options would be TOIL, this had not been setup on mine. So the company authorised the leave explaining that this should have been done and hadn't, i did say that this is the way it had always been and pretty much everyone on my team then operated this way, TOIL had never been discussed and none of had this option available. So i entered my leave from 4th December - 2nd January,  My line manager was an outside contractor and was leaving the company on the 15th December. On my return i found that we had a new head of area build, it would be a temporary position as they were not going to fill the position permanently and he would be covering his role (Scotland) and this role (NW). I contacted him to say that i had not received my end of year report yet and when would this happen as i had not sat with my line manager tor mine. A little over a week later my HoAB and i had a teams call, it was a introduction meeting and end of year report, he said that he had received feedback from the outgoing manager and he had given me a 2 (i have as explained before never scored lower than a 3) he asked hoe long i had been in the current role (just over a year) as this grade can mean you are new to the role and need a little supervision, haven't built up relationships with stakeholders etc. So he explained what my grade and bonus would be and if i had any feedback, i explained that this was unfair, i had proof that i had not met my targets (i say targets as there were never really any set, but going from emails and conversation we have had, and the job description) i had even created Powerpoint presentations which were very complex into how our network works from beginning to end  as there was distinct lack of knowledge here and i am a lead trainer / assessor (this btw he was extremely impressed with) He did say he had spoken to people in the centre of excellence which o believe was the head of operations, and he did look confused as to the disparity in feedback from them and the original manager that wrote my report. I contacted HR to raising my concerns that i had not sat with my line manager to go through my report,  had i had the chance to do so, i could have rebutted anything said as i had proof of my achievements even though he had set no defined targets, i could prove that i had been extremely active in identifying and remedying issues, HR did come back to me and these are their comments  1) "Your rating was submitted by your manager at the time xxx xxxxxx and he should have carried out an EOY review with you. The rating would not have been provided in this review but feedback should have been shared" [this never happened] 2)  Initial ratings where then discussed and reviewed during a calibration process (for your team) this will have included HOABs and RDs. During this session ratings can be challenged and changed. I can confirm that your rating was not changed as a result of this session and it remained at the rating that xxx submitted. 3) xxx did provide thorough feedback to xxx xxx in a handover so if not already done so it may be worth speaking with him to understand that feedback further.   4) In terms of reputation and the concern you share – ratings are not made public and are private to each individual. 5) And this first line obviously is incorrect " As far as i can see this would be the only separator they could have measured me on to separate safe from not safe, and if so the company did not follow its own procedure. My current line manager said " an error had occurred as you had not received the option to  sir with your manager for your review, and the company needs to make sure this error does not happen again) Well then they are admitting there was an issue and it needs remedying not sweeping under the carpet. All of this is documented. To remind the rating of a 2 is not a concerning grade. Please see descriptor below Generally, needs little supervision but does on occasion require direction/supervision. Does not always anticipate changes to the work environment and could adapt more quickly. May be seen as a strong performer in certain situations or by some audiences but may not perform at that level in all situations. May need some development or guidance to carry out some elements of role. May not consistently demonstrate the right behaviours. May have been on Performance Improvement during the year but has since shown strong improvement        
    • Also, what is the value of the dress and have you refunded the purchaser?
    • Simon Case was at the Covid inquiry yesterday. Finally. ‘Eat out to help out’ launched without telling official in charge, Covid inquiry hears | Covid inquiry | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Simon Case, who was responsible for Covid policy at time, calls Boris Johnson’s Downing Street the ‘worst governing ever seen’  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Crap One invalid Default notices


vengeancedemon
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4966 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

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Amend this to suit:

 

 

The Data Controller

Capital One Bank (Europe) plc

PO Box 5616

Nottingham

NG2 3JU

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your ref:

 

 

I am writing in connection with an alleged credit card agreement with the above reference which is in dispute. The alleged agreement was terminated on (date). I do not acknowledge any debt to Capital One Bank (Europe) plc or any companies affiliated to Capital One Bank (Europe) plc.

 

Capital One issued a Default Notice on (date) prior to terminating the alleged account on (date). This Default Notice is unlawful and in terminating the alleged account without issuing a lawful Default Notice, Capital One unlawfully rescinded the alleged account.

 

The Default Notice is unlawful for the following reasons:

 

The Default Notice must contain all of the necessary information under the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983

 

(2) (1) (b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of;

 

I could not have been expected to know what “clause 8 of the agreement” is. There is no agreement for this alleged account so I had nothing to refer to. All there is is an application form (which completely lacks all the prescribed terms required of an agreement) and current Terms and Conditions that were not extant at the time of the agreement. There are no original Terms and Conditions which state that Terms and Conditions can be varied so current Terms and Conditions are irrelevant. Capital One did not issue me with an agreement (Capital One staff have shown in correspondence that they either do not know what an agreement is or pretend to not know what an agreement is) and did not retain the Terms and Conditions that applied at the time of the alleged agreement.

 

 

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date being a date [not less than

fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken;

 

3) A specific date for the alleged breach to be remedied must be given – it is not sufficient to say “ within 28 days of the date of this letter”. There is no provision in the Act for an unspecified date to be set with reference to a number of days after the date on any “letter.” Everything must be precise and clearly understood.

 

 

(2) (2)The prescribed terms of the alleged arrears must be specified in the section dealing with what must be paid to remedy the alleged breach. It is not sufficient to refer to a sum of money situated above the Notice heading. The amount required to remedy the alleged breach must be stated specifically as a sum of money in this section as being required to remedy the alleged breach.

 

 

(5) Where any statement is required to be in a form specified in a Schedule to these Regulations and is reproduced in the notice, then apart from any heading to the notice, trade names or names of parties to the agreement--

 

(a) the lettering in the statement shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in the notice; and

 

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

 

The Notice fails to give more prominence to the words underlined. This is the correct format below (note the correct use of bold type):

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH”

 

 

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]"

 

By putting everything in bold capitals, Capital One failed to give more prominence to the words underlined. This is not a De Minimus matter as the Regulations require the words underlined to have yet more prominence than the rest. There is no leeway in this – it must be exactly as laid down in the Regulations.

 

5) In the section which states “You must pay the whole balance immediately”, the whole balance which would require to be paid under the alleged agreement must be stated specifically as a sum of money. I could not have been expected just to guess what this was. Everything in the Notice must be specified so that it is easily understood.

 

6) Capital One refer to claiming “reasonable” costs for recovering the alleged amount owed. The term "reasonable" is purely subjective and everything in the Notice must be clear and easily understood. There are no costs specified in the non-existent agreement and any other costs agreement would have to be determined by a court.

 

 

7) Capital One state that they may "pass" or "sell" the alleged agreement to a debt collection agency. The Regulations state that what will happen in the event of an alleged breach not being rectified must be stated clear and easily understood. An either/or situation is not clear.

 

 

On (date) Capital One entered an unlawful default entry on my credit reference reports on the disputed account in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Bank had already unlawfully rescinded the alleged agreement as described above so no agreement existed, alleged or otherwise, between me and Capital One on (date). The Bank did not have my permission to process my personal data on the date the default was entered and it doesn’t have my permission to continue processing my data following the rescission. The Bank are now required to remove all unlawful default entries on my credit reference files immediately and to cease any further processing of my personal data with immediate effect.

 

Case law has sanctioned damages where an unlawful entry has been registered with credit reference agencies that affected the creditworthiness of an individual who is a non- trader. The damage does not have to be quantified – it is sufficient that creditworthiness was damaged.

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 would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but gives a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

 

 

The Bank has 21 days to reply and action as necessary. Failure to do so will result in further action from me, including but not limited to, formal complaints to the

Information Commissioner and the Office of Fair Trading Consumer Credit Licence Fitness Department re gross misuse of my personal data and breaches of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

I look forward to hearing from you. If there is anything in this letter you do not understand, I advise you to consult a solicitor.

 

Yours faithfully,

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the correct format below (note the correct use of bold type):

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH”

 

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]"

 

This is not a De Minimus matter as the Regulations require the words underlined to have yet more prominence than the rest. There is no leeway in this – it must be exactly as laid down in the Regulations.

 

I have a Default Notice where the words that appear underlined and in bold type in your example are instead underlined and in italics like this:

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH”

 

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]."

 

A second DN has the sentences in lower case like this:

 

"If the action required by this notice is taken before the date shown no further enforcement action will be taken in respect of the breach."

 

"If you do not take the acton required by this notice before the date shown then the further action set out below may be taken against you (or a surety)."

 

Do they both depart sufficiently from the regulations to avoid being De minimis?

i.e. do they definitely make the DN's invalid or are they likely to be subject to the individual interpretation of a judge in the county court?

Edited by Artie44
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of these examples is correct. The first only makes the words underlined prominent in one respect - italics -it must make them more prominent again. The second doesn't make them prominent in any sense.

 

A word of caution with this. The prominence regulation is only one part of a Default Notice being unlawful. In front of a judge you would need several aspects of DN being unlawful before they would rule on rescission. The key breach is insufficient time to remedy the breach or not specifying a date to remedy the breach or not sending a DN before termination. The rest adds to your case for the DN being unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these templates and comments are very very helpful, thoughtful and knowlegeable. BUT do cap one take any notice, respond beyond the usual verbal diahorrea and has anyone actually taken them to court on this?

 

I ask, as my "account" has been "sold" to the leeds loosers and I wnt to disembowell them as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Pinky69' - Very impressive letter to say the least and I love the last line of your suggested letter suggesting them to contact a solicitor! I keep smiling as I read it! LOL

 

What I would mention is the important emphasis on dates. Considering the number of DN's companies send out you'd think they'd ensure you have a clear 14 days notice. Personally I received a DN where the date of the notice was the 4th and payment date of 14th - so they not only did not give me a clear 14 days but that should have been more to allow for post lag. Once a DN is issued it cannot be re-issued with adjustments to make it right. A judge would probably consider wrong dates as appaling as well as wrong amounts if ever it comes to that.

 

I'd just add that there are many great Caggers here. So much help and using their time to assist others. No doubt the financial institutions and DCA's who browse these threads must cringe often.

 

Michael

Edited by InformedSearcher

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a court case ready but I am waiting for a reply from the head of their Executive Department, a man called James Bell. In addition to their unlawful rescission, I have helpfully pointed out to him that the application form they sent me posing as an agreement has other major flaws as well as the usual - it has no address on it. In addition it has no Company registered address, does not have the fact that is Limited Company on it and no registration number, all of which are criminal offences against the Companies Act 1985. I've told him that Crapone can either remove the default and any pay me compensation or I will take them to court and if they force me to do that I will have no alternative but to raise the matter in court and report the bank's criminal activity to Companies House. Thousands of similar applications must have been sent out at the same time so that is a lot of criminal activity. I added that I hoped CrapOne wouldn't cut of it's nose to spite it's corporate face.

 

I had an ingratiating reply thanking me for my patience whilst he got all the details from my file and asking me to allow him 4 weeks to do so. As Fagin sang in "Oliver," he is reviewing the situation.

 

I am totally evil.:grin: Someone said to remind him never to lend me a fiver!:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pinky, again many thanks for that splendid letter, I have prepared it, with personal ammendments and also questions on why they sent the account to Crapquest and then Lowells when a CCA request was in default and why such discrepancies of dates and the legality of their so-called DN

 

I have a letter to send to Lowells that their actions are now totally unwelcome due to a dodgy DN as well as a deficient CCA and if they persist Mr Plod will be involved, should I send this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Mr Plod would not get involved in a DCA pursuing a debt they shouldn't be pursuing - it is civil, not criminal law. I would stick to complaining to Crapone and simply inform the DCAs that the alleged debt is in dispute, you are dealing directly with CrapOne and will have no further correspondence with them. You are in charge of this - not them - and you will decide how to proceed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The prominence regulation is only one part of a Default Notice being unlawful. In front of a judge you would need several aspects of DN being unlawful before they would rule on rescission. The key breach is insufficient time to remedy the breach or not specifying a date to remedy the breach or not sending a DN before termination. The rest adds to your case for the DN being unlawful.

If the only breach is giving insufficient time to remedy, is that enough by itself to make the DN unlawful?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to verify regarding unlawful/incorrect Default Notices. Whilst it would appear that Court action might be futile there's nothing to stop DCA's being passed the debt for other types of collection?

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot pass it to DCAs if they have terminated it after issuing an unlawful DN. If they haven't terminated it, there seems little point in them issuing a DN because the whole point is to allow them to demand the full balance, which they cannot do without issuing a DN. They could pass it to a DCA under equitable assignment if they didn't act on the DN but as I said there was then little point in issuing the DN. It is essential to either have received a Termination Notice after the unlawful DN has been issued or to know that they have sold the debt on. If you take issue with the DN just because it is unlawful without termination or the debt having been sold on, they would just issue you with another DN, this time lawfully correct based on the faults you told them were in it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot pass it to DCAs if they have terminated it after issuing an unlawful DN. If they haven't terminated it, there seems little point in them issuing a DN because the whole point is to allow them to demand the full balance, which they cannot do without issuing a DN. They could pass it to a DCA under equitable assignment if they didn't act on the DN but as I said there was then little point in issuing the DN. It is essential to either have received a Termination Notice after the unlawful DN has been issued or to know that they have sold the debt on. If you take issue with the DN just because it is unlawful without termination or the debt having been sold on, they would just issue you with another DN, this time lawfully correct based on the faults you told them were in it!

 

I'm none to sure about that, as in waiting for the Final Demand to qualify the DN being valid/invalid. By precedent once the DN has been issued then it is deemed in itself to be final. There cannot be subsequent DN's with/without the Final Demand to rectify any mistakes if I recall. However having said that it's always best to have the whole set of demands to ensure the financial institution completed it's course of action.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can issue you with another DN if they have not acted on any preceding DNs - there is nothing to stop them from doing do. In addition it is not "best" to wait for and final demands and termination Notices - it is legally essential if you want to claim against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they issued the first (defective) DN in feb 09

Then the Statemnt of Default/termination of account in March o9

A CCA was served on them mid March 09 and the replies were ahhh deficient to put it mildly ( ie not a damn thing that even said application form)

 

Passed to Crapq who were told to FO, as were HL legal, letter from C1 saying they had it back, all quiet until tehey "Sold" it to Lowells this Autumn

 

Nothing from C1 apart from the obviously manufactured "goodbye" letter ( in same enevelope from lwells as the "hello"

 

As I said, I await Crapone reply, but I do feel that I may have them by the balls, and if so, what would be the best course of action to really really hurt them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can issue you with another DN if they have not acted on any preceding DNs - there is nothing to stop them from doing do. In addition it is not "best" to wait for and final demands and termination Notices - it is legally essential if you want to claim against them.

 

 

I really don't want to quibble over this but have you some data you could maybe PM me with? I'm firmly under the impression that once a DN notice is issued it's like set in stone. The Final Demand otherwise (if adjusted correctly) could alter the validity and I do not believe it can. Data I have shows no mention of Final Demands but Court data on DN notices alone.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...