MINT, are the DN & TN faulty?

[charlie*]

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

 

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.

[cerberusalert]

Unless they can prove otherwise it is deemed to have been served by 2nd class post which takes 4 days, so besides it being 1 day short it is not date specific.

[emandcole]

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.

[charlie*]

Thank you both, I have now attended to this matter.... will report back in the fullness of time.

 

charlie

[charlie*]

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?

 

charlie

[cerberusalert]

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?

[charlie*]

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?

 

Thanks,

 

charlie

Edited March 7, 2010 by charlie*

[emandcole]

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 ...will deal accordingly.

[charlie*]

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 > > > > >