Help Needed for Court Case Please

[DonkeyB]

Agree with middenmess and docman about the DN - as far as I am aware, there is no provision for reconstructing a default notice.

 

It would be good to compare the two - any 'reconstruction' used in their WS would put the truthfulness of their whole WS in doubt.

[loopy-loo]

The Santander DN reads:

 

 

 

Default Notice

Served under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

09/06/09

 

IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY.

 

Your DEBENHAMS STORECARD Account Credit Number XXXXXXXXXXX

 

We are required by law to send this notice to you before we can take action to recover the outstanding balance on your account.

 

You are in breach of the payments clause of your agreement which states that you must make at least the minimum payment each month when due. You have failed to make these payments and as result your account is in arrears of £171.21.

 

To remedy this breach you must pay the arrears within 21 days from receipt of this notice. You may telephone us on 0870 5134570 with your proposals.

 

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 FURTHER THE ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU.

 

Failure to make the required payment may result in us:

- Closing your account

- Passing your account to a Debt Collection Agency to recover the outstanding balance, together with interest and charges and/or

-Bringing legal proceedings against you

 

In addition, if you do not agree satisfactory repayment proposals with us and make the require payments we will provide information about your failure to pay to Credit Reference Agencies.

 

IF YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY PAYING ANY SUM OWING UNDER THE AGREEMENT OR TAKING ANY OTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE, YOU CAN APPLY TO THE COURT WHICH MAY MAKE AN ORDER ALLOWING YOU OR ANY SURETY MORE TIME.

 

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT TO DO, YOU SHOULD GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR EXAMPLE YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR, YOUR LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OR YOUR NEAREST CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU.

 

This notice should include a copy of the current Office of Fair Trading information sheet default. This contains important information about your rights and where to go for support and advice. If it is not included, you should contact us to get one.

 

I will scan the original if required.

 

S

Edited June 17, 2010 by loopy-loo
Scanned copy attached

[middenmess]

Could be two completely different D/N's for two unrelated accounts as there are so many differences when compared.

 

Reconstructed with imagination sounds better than an outright forgery but the one before the court certainly needs demolishing for what it is and for what it pretends to be.

[middenmess]

The reason they forged the Default Notice in the POC's was because of their witness statement [CB's eagle eyes]

Once they had made their witness statement stating 9th January,2009 as the date of the D/N they compounded their error by using the name GE as the company was then known. At the time of the 'proper' D/N on June 9th,2009 the company was known as 'Santander' and was headed as such.

 

Naughty,Naughty people:eek:

 

Properly prepared you could cause these muppetts serious problems.

 

[Desperate Daniella]

Good luck for tomorrow.

 

I'm sorry I can't add more to the info you have been given. Do follow the advice given by the Court Officer. It would obviously be best if you could get an adjournment as you have not had time to prepare your defence.

 

DD

[loopy-loo]

Thanks DD, I have received a lot of excellent advice, which I am still trying to put in order. I really hope that I am able to get an adjournment.

 

Loopy-loo

[middenmess]

Good luck tomorrow-be sure to let us know how it goes.

[loopy-loo]

Thank you, I certainly will.

[wish me well]

Best of luck for today loopy-loo.

 

My case is almost identical just not got this far yet so I will be following this with interest.

 

Kindest wishes and good luck sent

 

WMW

[citizenB]

Possibly too late now, but they are supposed to put an actual date ie 18/06/2010. Not an amount of days ie 14, 21 days.

 

In this instance, I suspect a DJ would overlook the issue in that they have given 21 days (7 more than the 14 required). But that all depends how the DN was posted. If 2nd class or UK mail then I dont think you would hae been given 14 clear days to remedy.

 

Also, you would need to know the accuracy of the arrears they are asking for.

[emandcole]

Possibly too late now, but they are supposed to put an actual date ie 18/06/2010. Not an amount of days ie 14, 21 days.

 

In this instance, I suspect a DJ would overlook the issue in that they have given 21 days (7 more than the 14 required). But that all depends how the DN was posted. If 2nd class or UK mail then I dont think you would hae been given 14 clear days to remedy.

 

Also, you would need to know the accuracy of the arrears they are asking for.

 

Yep, just noticed that. The LIP could easily claim the DN was confusing as Santander quite clearly state payment should be made (in capitals under the 21 day bit) before the date shown. The only date on there is the date it was issued/composed so how on earth could you offer payment before you even received it?

 

Specifying 21 days is just not good enough. Let's hope LL gets on OK.

[citizenB]

Yep, just noticed that. The LIP could easily claim the DN was confusing as Santander quite clearly state payment should be made (in capitals under the 21 day bit) before the date shown. The only date on there is the date it was issued/composed so how on earth could you offer payment before you even received it?

 

Specifying 21 days is just not good enough. Let's hope LL gets on OK.

 

 

 

Yes, lots of people sending positive thoughts.

[Docman]

Possibly too late now, but they are supposed to put an actual date ie 18/06/2010. Not an amount of days ie 14, 21 days.

 

In this instance, I suspect a DJ would overlook the issue in that they have given 21 days (7 more than the 14 required). But that all depends how the DN was posted. If 2nd class or UK mail then I dont think you would hae been given 14 clear days to remedy.

 

Also, you would need to know the accuracy of the arrears they are asking for.

 

Hi CB

I missed that one as well. I agree that a DJ would be likely to overlook but he shouldn't. Schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 provides in section 3 (c ) and (d) as follows:

(c ) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required 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: or

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date not less than fourteen days after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

Paragraph 6 of the Regulations is quite clear.

"(6) The wording in any such statement shall be reproduced in the notice without any alteration or addition, and in relation to any statement to be contained in the notice the requirements of any note shall be complied with..."

I would argue that the regulations are requiring exact adherence to the wording and that because a statement of '21 days' is not a date but a period of time, the DN is invalid. If the DJ disagreed, surely this would then be a point to appeal.

But let's wait for loopy-lou to tell us what has happened this morning before we get into appeal points.

[Docman]

Hi L-l

 

how did you get on at court?

[vjohn82]

No update on this case then?

[donein]

having just read this thread with great interest. I find it very frustrating not to know the outcome. It seems everyone gives up their time to help and offer thoughts etc yet rather oddly there is nothing after the hearing to tell us what happened.