Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The site has a drop down for different postal services, implying the exclusions are based on the service you use, yet when you select different services the exclusions appear to remain the same, and certainly in the case of Parcelforce do not tally with the cover included by Parcelforce.   My P2G account still shows the declaration I made.
    • Finally go  a little time to myself, so knocked the defence from your given examples. How does it look?   1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have sent an alleged copy dated 28th Jan 2018 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   If you think it's okay, I'll get it put in today.    Thank you for all your help on this. 
    • Is there a defence against the argument Royal Mail say there is no contract, and they are immune from tort and therefore cannot be sued?    
    • what was the defaulted date? no nothing to do with the court case
  • Our picks


Help with HFC Default Notices

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3649 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

Hi all

Can I please have some opinions about the attached default notices.

IMO the notices are contradictory and ambiguous.

HFC have registered a default on Experian on 30/9/2009. Experian confirm it is Code 8, (meaning default), and also that the card agreement has now been cancelled.

I have not received a reply for a true copy of my CCA nor any termination letter from HFC or Reston's since I wrote to Reston's on 26/9/2009 in reply to their's of 25/9/09 outlining my current position. My reply gave them no I & E just that I couldn't afford payments following a visit to CAB in Sept 09 and GM Card had been written to by CAB with details requesting freezing of interest and payments for a period. I had a telephone msg left from Reston's on 4/12/2009 which I have obviously ignored.

Another point is with regard to texts to my mobile from a DCA threatening legal proceedings if I don't contact and E mails from a Credit Card company stating the seriousness of my position and to contact them to discuss( These points by the way relate to a different card company & DCA to HFC ) Are either of these points in breach of any regs re Data Protection

I'd be grateful for any observations etc.

GM Default Notice 25-8-09 Page 1.RTF

GM Default Notice 25-8-09 Page 2.RTF

GM Default Notice 28-8-09.RTF

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

See what you mean!


The DN is faulty in that they have messed up the wording on the DN:


NOT & BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN are not underlined as required.


If it was sent 1st class the dates are ok, if 2nd class it's way out - did you keep the envelope.


For good measure, the have failed to put either the registered office or the company number for HFC Bank.


It would also seem that they have registered the default before giving you time to correct the breach.


DN's must be clear and unambiguous, in my view the 2nd letter makes it not so.


I'm sure others will be able to poke holes in it.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

well if they can prove that the letter was sent royal mail first class then the dates are ok and IMO a judge would rule the lack of underlining and/or missing company number as de minimus- in fact i think it would probably get his back up- if this was a defence or subject of an application


However, if sent second then it is 4 days short since the 31st was a bank holiday and is not counted in the 4 days for delivery.


More interesting is the letter of the 28th


now i am no legal expert but it is my opinion that when you are issued with a DN which allows you to seek legal advise/and or decide what to do- you should be left alone to contemplate the matter and it should be perfectly clear to you what you have to do


IMO this letter is a "Threat" or at least intended to intimidate or unduly influence you and sent at a time when it should not have been sent


if you havnt done so you need to SAR PDQ

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input guys. Very much appreciated and comments taken on board.

Unfortunately, did not keep envelope.

I'm bumping this again to see if I can get more valued opinions. Will be sending subject access request.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more opinions fellow CAGGERS?

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...