Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry I'm not sure what you mean - I haven't suggested any of that - I'm just letting you know what letters come next from who. I'm aware what they're doing and that only an eventual LoC matters
    • Hi all   Firstly, thanks for all the helpful threads on here. Whilst there's a lot to read and get through, it's both helpful and reassuring to see so much great advice and support to others in similar situations.   I've received a letter and a Claim Form from Moriarty for an ADCB CC debt. I'm presently in a DMP for existing UK debts and (probably like many others) I truly don't know the best way forward, as time is clearly of the essence - but I don't feel I've 'up to speed' yet on all the other threads, advice, lingo etc. to respond accordingly.   I'm looking at drafting the PAP and getting it of tomorrow, but just want to get into the other threads to see if it's the right thing (and get more info on similar cases).   Please feel free to comment with any advice - all gratefully received of course. Thanks again for anyone that's posted in other threads and great to see so many kind and generous respondents helping others.   PS. Haven't posted/scanned details onto the thread yet as still to read up on the rules/tips, but Claim Form filed in Northampton on 20 Nov.
    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
  • Our picks

TheContendor

Incorrect default notice? - halifax CC

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3654 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

(fingers crossed)

sorry about the font error. It looks like a DCA attempt at a credit agreement :)

 

scan0004-2.gif

 

scan0005-2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 87(1) of the 1974 Act allows the creditor to send you a default notice giving you fourteen days from the date you receive it to pay the arrears.

 

In my opinion as the Default Notice has not given you fourteen days so in my opinion it renders the notice invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what has happened in the last 18 months?

 

- have you paid them anything

-have the written since

-do you have a 76/98 termination notice

-have they taken you to court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi hungry

I haven't paid anything for a year now. I was in a serious accident and was in hospital for 7 months. They sold it onto Moorcroft with whom I've been playing letter tennis for the past 3 months. I proposed a F&F but Moorcroft informed Halifax had said no. When I SAR'd Halifax, I learned that Halifax did not say no but asked for more details, so more proof of what Moorcroft are like. No termination letters however they have offered a reduced amount to clear what I owe (unfortunately not small enough for me to be able to pay) :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before you stopped paying and after the DN did you pay more than 251 pounds in total before it was sold to moorcroft?

 

- I makes a difference about how you go about seeing them off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just checked the SAR. I paid around £125 between October 2008 to Dec as the account was with CCCS and there were 3 payments. Then the £1 for the CCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default notice is defective because of the 14 day remedy period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Default notice is defective because of the 14 day remedy period.

Yes but it's only defective if he paid less than the £251 asked for on it before it was sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just checked the SAR. I paid around £125 between October 2008 to Dec as the account was with CCCS and there were 3 payments. Then the £1 for the CCA.

 

Ok so the contract was unlawfully rescinded at the point of sale because of the defective DN, regardless of what other paperwork they can come up with.

 

I would ask moorcroft for a copy of the Notice of Absolute assignment to them compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925 just to complete the paperwork and annoy them.

 

Or just write and point out the unlawful rescission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks you three!

I do want to try and clear the debt - i did try and clear it all after the accident but the girl in Halifax told me that I have to pay the full amount owed plus full interest over the full period (ie interest over the next 15 months), even though it I was repaying the capital early. Boy was i annoyed!

I think i'll send them another F&F letter but for a little bit less than the first one. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks you three!

I do want to try and clear the debt - i did try and clear it all after the accident but the girl in Halifax told me that I have to pay the full amount owed plus full interest over the full period (ie interest over the next 15 months), even though it I was repaying the capital early. Boy was i annoyed!

I think i'll send them another F&F letter but for a little bit less than the first one. :p

 

 

If you have to pay anything it's the amount on the DN minus what you've paid since the DN. Legally that is all Hx could ask for because the DN is wrong but because it has been sold with a defective DN then legally you do not have to pay a bean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it gets sold to HFO... who will try to make you sign your house to them ;-)

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...