Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. 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.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
  • 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 3647 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...