Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Changes in the US are enticing more people to file bankruptcy to clear their student loans.View the full article
    • Servicing Stop Limited Registered Office Address: 57 London Rd, Enfield, Middlesex, England, EN2 6DU Company Type: Private Limited Company Company Status: Active Company Number: 06558606 Directors: Oliver Joseph Richmond Appointed 8th April 2008, Toby Robert Richmond Appointed 8th September 2009 Companies House Link: SERVICING STOP LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK SERVICING STOP LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual...   Endole Link: Servicing Stop Limited - Company Profile - Endole SUITE.ENDOLE.CO.UK Servicing Stop Limited is an active company located in Enfield, Greater London. View Servicing Stop Limited profile, shareholders, contacts...  
    • Hi I assume the Loft Conversion with the eaves and crawl space was there when you initially purchased the property. Even in done after purchasing the property and the correct permissions were in place i.e. Local Authority, Land Registry, Freeholder which is Southern Land which would be required as a Leasehold property. The difficulty is if the Loft Conversion was there when you purchased the property and there is no evidence in your documents of the eaves and crawl space due to where the Red Lines stop in the plans or even after purchase it was added this is the reason you are having issues with selling due to those missing Red Lines in the Plans and any other Buyers competent Solicitor would flag this up. I can understand the reasons the Buyer wishes a Deed of Variation probably there Solicitor requesting this to ensure those missing red lines are covered before the Sale as they Flagged this as an issue as Red Lines missing on Plans and want buyer protected. As for the £8000 costs Together and cohort Southern Land are trying to charge have you thought of contacting a few Property Solicitors yourself to get a few quotes. (only mention this because when I research this possible costs can range from £500 - £2000 depending on the Deed of Variation work required and nothing to stop you doing this then approaching Together and cohorts with it) Also ask Together/Southern Land for a breakdown of the £8000 costs for the Deed of Variation. Yup do send both Together and Southern Land a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that data in whether it be emails, written, recorded calls etc. They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond and that time limit only starts once they acknowledge receipt of your SAR Request. When you purchased the property some 17yrs ago are the Solicitors that you went through at that time still operating? (I know probably a silly question but if they are nothing to stop you contacting them and asking them about this especially if the Loft Conversion was in place when you purchased the property) Another link that will be useful to you as Leasehold is The Leasehold Advisory Service: Home - The Leasehold Advisory Service WWW.LEASE-ADVICE.ORG Government funded, independent advice for residential leaseholders and park home residents  
    • Why struggling parents aren't choosing cheaper brands when it comes to infant formula milk.View the full article
    • Musk's profane attack on advertisers baffled experts - without adverts, how would X survive?View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics

MINT, are the DN & TN faulty?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5013 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Not quite sure, better safe than sorry so I'm asking.... again :smile:


Default Notice dated 26th Nov 2008

Remedy in 17 days from next day, 27th

Termination Notice dated 17th Dec.


If this is in order then I'll have to get a copy of the agreement up..

there are no Prescribed Terms on the actual signature page.


Thank you ... once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mint rely on non-specific dates for their default notices and this appears to be no different. The DN should have a specific date and should not require the recipient to play games or add various numbers to other numbers to come up with a date which may or may not be what the creditor asks for.


The creditor should be grown up enough to decide what date they wish any remedy to be provided by and to state the exact amount needed. Remember that de minimus is a load of cobblers and is merely an excuse used by creditor friendly judges to allow creditors to get away with their laziness. The DN is a statutory instrument and not a simple note, it must be correct and for a court to introduce the vagueness of de minimus in the event that the figures are incorrect is essentially an ignorance of the will of parliament.


Mint are often quite quick to send a seperate termination letter too. Keep an eye out for that then and if appropiate get that acceptance of their unlawful rescission in nice and early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Mint have ome back with a reply stating that their legal dept have checked out our rescission letter and they ars satisfied it is in order... that it is out of their hands and we should contact their debt collector....


However, whereas you can see above the Termination letter was actually

dated 17th December, in their new letter they state the account was

closed under letter ref: xxxxxx dated 24th Dec.


Any thoughts here?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Mint have ome back with a reply stating that their legal dept have checked out our rescission letter and they ars satisfied it is in order...
That'll be the spotty faced youth on work experience from the local sixth form college. ;)
However, whereas you can see above the Termination letter was actually

dated 17th December, in their new letter they state the account was

closed under letter ref: xxxxxx dated 24th Dec.

Can you just imagine the accuracy of their POCs? I know there is a legal requirement for an employer to employ a certain percentage of disabled people in their workforce, but why do they always seem to be Dyslectics? :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave the wrong impression above in saying their legal dept had found it in order.... they were referring to their own termination being in order, not ours.


I did not give any dates regarding termination in the rescission letter, so why would they quote a date a week later.... could it really have been a simple mistake by some spotty faced youth (or youth-ess) and if so could that mistake be of any benefit? ..... would it be of benefit to ask for an actual copy of their claimed termination letter dated 24th Dec???


Obviously they have taken no account of the claim I have made in rescinding the agreement, being quite convinced they are in the right. So, as it is out of the hands of RBS now and in the hands of their appointed bottom feeder who telephones now and then (in vain I might add - they keep moving the file from one desk to another and changing the reference number) ... and despite repeated requests refuse to write letters - all we get is the odd printed yellow card that come in envelopes asking us to phone.


Question is where do we go from here?


Would there be any benefit in asking RBS to send a photocopy of the T/Notice

dated 24th December?


Or should we let it lie and tell the DC to buzz off, go and pester someone else?





Edited by charlie*
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mint did the same to me so I know how they play things. They will insist they've acted correctly, that you are wrong and that you should give the DCA some money. I just send the occasional letter requesting the arrears balance as I'm chasing more pressing matters at the moment.


I have however just sent a section 10 notice to their data controller insisting all data processing is stopped and that the invalid default they have registered with the CRA's is removed as it's damaging. Have threatened litigation for injury to credit and unlawful rescission citing a couple of key cases if they choose to ignore the request along with reporting them to the Info Commissioner for breach of DPA as well.


Alternatively if they remove the terminated account details from the CRA's I'll let the matter go. Waiting for a reply at the moment but expecting them to insist they can do whatever they like :rolleyes:...will deal accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've had a reply from Mint,


they state that they sent a Termination Notice on the 24th whereas the Termination Notice we have in our possession is very clearly dated the 17th of the month (no, no mistakes on our part).


Of course, if the 24th was the date, then they might have grounds to refute the rescission claim, but, with the letter we have on file dated the 17th, I think we're pretty safe. The default sum is the same so they can't wriggle on that score.


We would like to try and get some sort of positive acknowledgement from them, so can anyone suggest what the next letter might say?


They say it's all out of their hands now and that we should play ball with their appointed DC ... not likely, eh? (or even huh?, as the yanks would say)


Emancole, I look forward to your comments as you go > > > > > icon14.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...