Help Cout date and CCJ with charging order!!!

[Worsteve]

Sorry, I'd forgotten everything in your thread, so I agree it can probably be considered terminated!!!

I will try and find the information that I have been given on DNs and court and will post ater today if no one else has posted.

 

Many Thanks cymruambyth:)

 

I have just donated to the site again! If you could look at my defence above, and also my N1 form with the POC (in Particular) as the claims are very vague, I would be eternally grateful for your help and direction on those points. I would like to submit my defence early if possible. I only have the issues of the faulty DN, and I would like more ammunition if possible. I have read other threads, and if I could get it struck out of court at the earliest time, then that would be great..........don't know how to word that though.....or if I can go for it either....

 

Thanks again good person!! I donate every chance I get!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm-7.html#post2490262

 

Ladies and Gentlemen

 

I have read this thread by mandm but only today has a lot more sank in. After reading the post by 42man.........is it possible I could also go for a Strike out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)???????

 

I have 2 points of issue with the dates and missing prescribed text, not even going into the POC. Can I use this course of action and when I submit my defence ask both the court and the Claimant for a strikeout?

 

That would be nice:p. As my CCJ has been overturned, and this has been done before, I am back to square one where the Claimant is asking for the full amount in court.....on the back of a faulty DN.

 

Holy H3ll I am seeing a way forward here!!! Any comments on this are greatly appreciated.

 

Many Many thanks!!!!!!!

[welshperson3]

you cant go for the strike out after the set aside you have to answer the claim.

 

your argument is that the claimant has no right to bring this claim before the court.

 

your reasons are that before a creditor has any right to bring a claim before the court they have to issue a valid default notice.

as they have not issued a valid DN then then they have no right to be brining this claim before the court

 

if you can show that the DN is faulty then they have no rights brining this claim and the judge will have to throw it out.

 

wp3

[diddydicky]

if you can show that the DN is faulty then they have no rights brining this claim and the judge(hopefully:)) have to throw it out.

[Worsteve]

if you can show that the DN is faulty then they have no rights brining this claim and the judge(hopefully:)) have to throw it out.

 

Where will that leave me then? They took this to court with a CCJ already in place and had an Interim Charging order and Land Registry in place, and the hearing was a joint 'Set aside and Charging Order Application'. The claimant didn't even go for the Charging Order.....they just admitted defeat and agreed to set aside the CCJ. So, it has already gone before the court once.....and that means they have effectively terminated the agreement (under what CPR or part of CCA can I find that)? So I can already proove the DN is faulty, as I have the signed originals.....therefore......in respect to your comments above, if the judge throws this out....does that mean I am still liable for all the debt...or will they only be able to claim for the arrears....or is it all unenforceable?

 

Thanks everyone for all your help and patience with me:oops:

[welshperson3]

by brining the claim it means that they have terminated the agreement.

 

reason i say this is that they have withdrawn your right to continue to make monthly payments.

so going to court and demanding you pay all the money owing can only mean one thing, that they have withdrawn your rights (to make monthly payments) and so the agreement is over.

 

once you get the judge to throw this out then there is no agreement.so you are left to pay only the arrears.

[diddydicky]

if you prove your case they you would be liable for the arrears only at the time they unlawfully terminated the agreement- assuming of course that the agreement was ever legally enforceable

 

did you do a s78 request? SAR?

 

how much was the debt? and how much have you paid already through the court?

 

i would think- subject to this info it may well be prudent to write to the other side in terms of a settlement one way or the other before proceedings

[welshperson3]

Worsteve have you sent in your defence yet ?

[bradfordlad]

subbing

[welshperson3]

here is a defense i am working on.

 

IT IS BY NO WAY FINISHED BUT IT MAY HELP

 

read it and understand every bit of it, if your going to use any of it or the judge will be asking you questions that you cant answer and that wont look good.

 

you will need to add to it and take some of it out but hopefully it is a start.

 

IN THE XXXXXX COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No: XXXXXX

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

And

 

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

 

Defendant

 

Defence

• I XXXXX XXXX XXX of xxxxxxxx xxxxx am the defendant in this case and a litigant in person and I make this statement in support of my application for the suspended possession order made on xx may xxxx bye district judge xxxxxx xxxx be Set Aside.
  
• I make this statement from information and facts within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise, and which I believe to be true. Where any matters contained in this witness statement are not within my own knowledge, I have stated the source of my information.
  

3. This is a Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

It is a condition precedent to the issue of Proceedings in respect of a Regulated agreement that certain steps

Prior to the issue of Proceedings must be taken. Specifically one of the steps is the issuing of a valid default notice

 

1. Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e) To enforce any security.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

 

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected: -

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday

 

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second-class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second-class mail was used.

 

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985*

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents: -

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated (Wednesday) 22 august 2007, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 4 working days were required to allow for 2nd Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from (Tuesday) 28th august, and rectify bye (Friday) 11 September 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice, which would mean rectify bye (Wednesday) 05th September. Leaving me 6 days short of the statutory 14 days. Even were the notice to have been sent 1st class post which is denied, the rectify date would still have been 12 days and not the 14 required.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

The default Notice did not contain important and prescribed text advising the defendant where to get advice; the following text was not in the notice.

 

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 you’re nearest citizens' advice bureau

 

As the above-prescribed paragraph was completely left out of the default notice but the other prescribed parts that are required are all there. Leads me to believe that this was a deliberate attempt to deprive me of a source of much needed help

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to legally terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a valid Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form,

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The word must makes it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer.

 

Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default. And also deprived me of vital information on were to get help and advice, witch if supplied at the time would have made a significant difference to the to the position I now find myself in.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make the subsequent termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows the creditor to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 88.

 

16. An invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. Since the claimant issued court proceedings claiming possession of the defendants property, and denying the defendant his rights under the agreement (the right to pay monthly) The Claimant has shown that he regards this agreement as terminated.

 

I do not dispute that the claimant has ended the agreement, the fact of the matter is that the claimant has prematurely ended the agreement without first issuing a valid default notice and by doing so has given up his rights to make a claim under section 87 of the consumer credit act 1974

 

Having unlawfully terminated the agreement, the claimant cannot now, or ever issue a valid of effective Default Notice since to do so would involve the fiction of an enduring agreement. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87.

 

wp3

Edited March 24, 2010 by welshperson3

[Worsteve]

Worsteve have you sent in your defence yet ?

 

Not sent my defence yet. I have drafted a very untidy copy of it so far. It is on post 50 of this thread. I am still working on it. My DN is out by 1 day (if they used 2nd class post) but it also has prescribed text missing as well. I am hoping that one of the super Caggers will take a look at it as well as see if I have a cause for complaint about the Particulars of Claim.

 

Sorry to have been away from my desk for so long.....needed food

[welshperson3]

if you can prove the DN is invalid then the Particulars of Claim don't count as they don't have any right to bring the claim.

 

doesn't matter what the claim is about the fact is they do not have the right to bring court proceedings without a valid DN.

 

WP3

[Worsteve]

Well then, as stressful and time consuming as this has been so far, it is very well worth the effort. I have £100,000 in unsecured debts, 3 loans and cards with unenforceable Credit Agreements and others with Dodgy DN's........If I can get rid of that little lot, I will be a happy man. This is my first attempt at court, and at over £25k it is a big start if I win.

 

If you don't mind Welshperson3, I will be taking a long hard look at your defence and your wording, and then applying it to my own case.

 

Thanks again to one and all. I will post my efforts tomorrow.

[welshperson3]

if your defense is only related to the faulty DN then all your argument is that they have no rights in court,

 

basic plan of attack for court.

 

1 show that DN is invalid (prove why its invalid)

 

2 show why without VALID DN claimant has no right bringing claim

 

3 ask judge to throw it out

 

4 judge throws out claim

 

5 ask for your costs

 

6 go home and get drunk

 

wp3

[cymruambyth]

if your defense is only related to the faulty DN then all your argument is that they have no rights in court,

 

basic plan of attack for court.

 

1 show that DN is invalid (prove why its invalid)

 

2 show why without VALID DN claimant has no right bringing claim

 

3 ask judge to throw it out

 

4 judge throws out claim

 

5 ask for your costs

 

6 go home and get drunk

 

wp3

 

If only life was that simple!

[welshperson3]

If only life was that simple!

 

 

GAG would be out of business

[enslaved]

It's one day short. A court assumes that a DN is posted second class and takes four working days to be served unless the creditor can prove it was sent 1st class.

 

You could not have received it before the following Tues 13th. Then you have a statutary 14 days to remedy = 27th

 

Is it not 2 days short as the DN states before the 26, does that not mean Sunday the 25?

 

Can someone else with more knowledge confirm this.

[Pinky69]

No, Worst is right about the dates because the weekend of the 25th and 26th of August don't count as postage time as outlined in the Queen's Bench rules he has put in his POC. So the earliest date of service if posted 2nd class was 28 August and 14 days thereafter is 11 September.

[enslaved]

Hi Pinky

I think you might be confusing welshpersons3 POC (as an example for worsteve to use). Or maybe it's me thats confused .

I'm refering to worsts DN as above.

Before the date shown.

Edited March 24, 2010 by enslaved
typo

[diddydicky]

can i just clarify something

 

you are referring to DN's in August 2009 where did that come from? you mentioned a DN from January 2009- was this anearlier DN for the same account?

 

did they take you to court earlier in 2009 after the first DN and get a judgement on the debt?

 

is this the same debt -was a second DN issued in august 2009?

Edited March 24, 2010 by diddydicky

[Pinky69]

Yes, sorry - Welshperson' s POC was what I was looking at.

[diddydicky]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, sorry i was getting all excited then- thinking he had had two dns and was another nail in their coffin

 

he has enough anyway

[welshperson3]

Hi Pinky

I think you might be confusing welshpersons3 POC (as an example for worsteve to use). Or maybe it's me thats confused .

I'm refering to worsts DN as above.

Before the date shown.

 

 

sorry for any confusion i left the date in so he could see how to word it

 

wp3

[cymruambyth]

This is the DN defence that I have had a lot of help with

 

The Need for a Default notice

21. Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 says:

 

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum....

 

Section 88 says that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form and the associated regulations say what that form is.

 

Thus, if the DN is not in the prescribed form, it is invalid and, under s87, the lender has no right of action.

 

CPR3.4(2)(a) says that the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

 

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing ... the claim

 

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

21. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

22. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

23. Further to point 22 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents:-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

24. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Thursday 10th April 2003, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 7 calendar days from Monday 14th April, namely Monday 21st April 2003, not the 7 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default Notice which would have been 17th April.

 

25. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 7 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

26. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

27. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

28. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

29. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

30. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

31. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

32. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

33. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

34. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

35. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

36. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.)

[Gallahad]

The statute has now changed to 14 days so do I assume your DN was received before that change?

G

[Worsteve]

Hi cymruambyth...and everyone here

 

I am drafting my DN defence and will post it later. As each case is a little different I will put in my wording for the dates (assuming 2nd class posting) and the missing prescribed text. I am still not sure whether to put in my point on the POC........it is vague what they are asking for at best. The judge took his glasses off and markedly pointed out...."....that I will only consider your defence if it is backed up with previous case law and judgement....." My best chance of that is to go with the DN....

 

To clarify the dates on my DN;

Date signed (and assuming postal date) Wednesday 7th Jan 2009. ((Section 2(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting)). Therefore classed as served on Tuesday 13th jan 2009. 14 Clear days after that is 27th....Not 26th as is stated on my DN's (2 DN's as it is a joint Loan with my wife). I understand that they may be able to proove that they posted it 1st class, however, the reason the claimant agreed to set-aside, was because they couldn't find any paperwork pertaining my case......I had to give them a copy of the DN....which is an original signed copy!

 

Just to clarify for me, under 21. Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 " (33) The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful...." is that what I must cite to the DJ to outline that the agreement has been Terminated.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Worsteve