MandM v Mint

[MandM]

Hi all.

 

In response to my CCA request Mint have sent the following; They state in their covering letter that this is a 'true copy' of the credit agreement.

 

[MandM]

Also attached is acopy of their DN (issued after one part missed payment) and the TN.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

M

[Stagparty]

My immediate thought is regarding the Default Notice - unfortunately the scan of the "agreement" isn't very legible so it's hard to comment on that.

 

I think that for the DN to be valid it should state a date by which the remedy needs to take place, in your case it doesn't - it says "17 days". Even if the "17 days" bit is permissible it may still be defective as they may not have allowed you enough time to remedy the alleged breach. If I remember correctly the prescribed time is 14 days plus time for service. If it can be proven service was effected by first class post then the 17 days would be enough. If it wasn't by first class post (ie second class or TNT mail etc) then 4 days need to be allowed for servce. Did you keep the envelopes?

 

I'm sure some other more knowledgable and experienced Caggers will be along soon to give you some more advice

[alfwithhair]

They agreement is exactly the same as mine, same year, been told it has all the prescibed terms but has not been executed as there is no creditors signiture.

DN I agree is defective as doesn't give a specific date by which to remedy the breach.

The termination letter is the same as mine too, although mine was much issued much earlier, so would appear they have learnt nothing about how to serve a default since 2007.

Have a look at my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223247-mint-unlawful-recission-not.html

[hungrybear]

pretty sure the agreement is enforceable, lack of their signature would technically mean they need a court order to enforce I believe. Their timing with the DN is daft beyond belief, not sure about the exact date thing, others will no doubt clarify that further. The DN needs to served (ie on your doormat) with 14 days for remedy. If they can prove it was sent 1st class on he 2nd then it would just scrape in, if they cannot prove 1st class then it is deemed 2nd by default (ah) and therefore is at least one day short. Also it is 16 and 18 days from the date of postage not the date of production.

[palomino]

The default notice appears to be in order - unless you can prove it wasn't sent by forst class post (as has already been pointed out).

 

The agreement image you have posted isn't very legible. Is the copy you received any better? In any case there is no creditor signature showing : would this have been on the back of this page? Something you will need to query.

 

It is interesting that that a percentage figure has been quoted as the minimum repayment that they will consider. I've not seen this before.

[angry cat]

Re: the DN pre 2006, the time allowed for remedy was 7 days after service.

(being received in the normal course of post)

Thus, 17 days would have been sufficient.

[hungrybear]

Re: the DN pre 2006, the time allowed for remedy was 7 days after service.

(being received in the normal course of post)

Thus, 17 days would have been sufficient.

 

 

does pre 2006 apply to the agreement or the DN, I thought it was the DN, since it is issued persuant to section 87(1), that been the section in force at the time of the default issue?

 

So a DN issued after the 2006 amendment has to give 14 days, regardless of when the agreement was signed surely?

[Stagparty]

I see there is "disagreement" about whether the use of X days rather than actually stating a specific date by which a breach has to be remedied. Can anyone please advise why they believe the use of X days is valid?

 

Have there been any cases where this has been tested?

[MandM]

Re: the DN pre 2006, the time allowed for remedy was 7 days after service.

(being received in the normal course of post)

Thus, 17 days would have been sufficient.

DN was earlier this year not pre 2006.

 

does pre 2006 apply to the agreement or the DN, I thought it was the DN, since it is issued persuant to section 87(1), that been the section in force at the time of the default issue?

 

So a DN issued after the 2006 amendment has to give 14 days, regardless of when the agreement was signed surely?

I thought the same

 

I see there is "disagreement" about whether the use of X days rather than actually stating a specific date by which a breach has to be remedied. Can anyone please advise why they believe the use of X days is valid?

 

Have there been any cases where this has been tested?

Would like to know this too.

 

M

[angry cat]

Okay, just to clarify:

 

By section 88(2) of the Act [as amended by section 14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as from 1st October 2006] that date must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the Default Notice.

 

The 14 day period was also required by paragraph 3© of Schedule 2 of the Enforcement Regulations (as amended).

 

By section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 a posted document is deemed to have been served at the time when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

14 days means 14 "clear days"!

 

Note that, prior to 1st October 2006, the requirement was 7 "clear days".

 

My apologies for any confusion that may have been caused.

 

AC

 

p.s. Always keep your envelopes as proof;

many DN's are sent out by contract mail e.g. TNT or UK MAIL, which take 4-5 days to be delivered.

[hungrybear]

The ONLY way that DN can be correct then is if they can PROVE (balance of probability) that it was sent out first class.

 

So, mandm, bet you dont have the envelope?

 

Anyone else on here got proof of how mint issue dn's?

[MandM]

The ONLY way that DN can be correct then is if they can PROVE (balance of probability) that it was sent out first class.

 

So, mandm, bet you dont have the envelope?

 

Anyone else on here got proof of how mint issue dn's?

 

Don't have it.

 

So let's make them prove it

 

M

[hungrybear]

just a though, have you got the envelope the recent stuff came in? It would give an indication of how they post things out. UK Mail and TNT are common, both are deemed 2nd class as at best are a three day service

[angry cat]

just a though, have you got the envelope the recent stuff came in? It would give an indication of how they post things out. UK Mail and TNT are common, both are deemed 2nd class as at best are a three day service

 

Contract Mail, more like 4-5 days and;

Royal Mail deliver for both.

[hungrybear]

Yes but the interpretations act only recognises 2 or, if not royal mail first class, 4 days and the UK Mail website claims to be 3.

 

I got a letter from the Turkey Farmer (s'hillisden) yesterday. The date on the letter was 6th November and TNT dont get postmarked so I sent them a fax about what I was sending to oft and oh have you found any paperwork yet!

[MandM]

The ONLY way that DN can be correct then is if they can PROVE (balance of probability) that it was sent out first class.

 

So, mandm, bet you dont have the envelope?

 

Anyone else on here got proof of how mint issue dn's?

 

So anyone with any others from Mint?

 

M

[angry cat]

By section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 a posted document is deemed to have been served at the time when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

 

Contract Mail!

 

One also has to take into account saturday, Sunday and bank holidays...

[angry cat]

"So anyone with any others from Mint?"

 

Look on the RBS forum!

[MandM]

"So anyone with any others from Mint?"

 

Look on the RBS forum!

 

Thanks AC. Will go for a peek.

 

Ta

M

[MandM]

"So anyone with any others from Mint?"

 

Look on the RBS forum!

 

Still looking but not found anything concrete to tell me that Mint send out their docs 2nd class. HOWEVER the CCA (posted above) we've worked out did come UK Mail (S) but it was a brown envelope with hand written address.

 

Going to send SAR to get some clarity on dates for DN etc and see what they've actually got after reading Alf's post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223247-mint-unlawful-recission-not.html

 

Cheers Alf, will be watching yours with interest.

 

M

[hungrybear]

Still looking but not found anything concrete to tell me that Mint send out their docs 2nd class. HOWEVER the CCA (posted above) we've worked out did come UK Mail (S) but it was a brown envelope with hand written address.

 

Going to send SAR to get some clarity on dates for DN etc and see what they've actually got after reading Alf's post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223247-mint-unlawful-recission-not.html

 

Cheers Alf, will be watching yours with interest.

 

M

 

 

and of course it would be for them to prove that it wasnt 2nd clas

[MandM]

and of course it would be for them to prove that it wasnt 2nd clas

Of course. will keep looking though and see if anyone else has tackled the point with them.

 

M

[MandM]

My daughter has a mint card that she deffaulted on last year I am going through all her stuff at the moment and came across this DN. Can someone tell me if this looks dodgy. They terminated the account 1 month later and it went through 2 dcas and green & co and then face 2 face have heard nothing since August 08.

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

without looking at a calendar

i would say the 14 days dates are incorrect.

it has to be 14 working days and some of those listed must obv be bank holidays.

so i'd say it is defective

 

dx