Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I need advice please, Back in November 2018 we parked at The Southgate McDonald’s/Starbucks car park at Stansted before getting our flight.I parked at Starbucks to walk to McDonald’s. I have received letters over the years and have never acknowledged any of them . I now have a CCJ against me as I didn’t think that it was real so never answered My latest letter from dcbl is a notice of debt recovery unpaid county court judgment of £347.92.I know I should have completed the CCJ.Is there anything that I can do now or should I just pay it.Thank you bingoboy
    • Hi BankFodder, Stu007 This is correct BankFodder. Thanks for all the info Stu007, very interesting reading Regards
    • Seems as if Germany has their own version of Boris🤣   ”I know that some of you are impatient with my posts about German politics, and particularly my repeated pieces on our retarded Health Minister. I get that this can seem like inside baseball, and that all of you suffer under the very similar idiocies of your own Covid politicians. But, I just can’t help myself. Lauterbach is a special case, a truly monumental idiot who in his boundless incompetence and stupidity vastly exceeds his peers. It is my aim to make him the international symbol of pandemic derangement. I want pictures of this human incarnation of everything that is wrong with masking children and force-vaccinating millions printed next to future dictionary entries on Covidianism. We have seen the enemy, and it is this sad, stupid, Smeagol-looking loser, who thinks Eric Feigl-Ding is an authority and that clip-on bowties are fashionable.”     German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG The German media are waking up to the fact that their mask-loving Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is an international...
    • Guardian readers on here  trying to ignore this 🤣🤣🤣   “Was it my imagination, on Tuesday morning, that there were more than the usual number of possible Guardian readers looking down in the mouth? I don't think so. A few of them, with that hard-to-define but easy-to-recognise look of Guardianistas, appeared unusually pensive. Had some momentous event occurred that had made them question their prejudices? Later in the morning, I stumbled on a possible cause. There was an article prominently displayed in the Guardian print edition and on its website under the byline of the paper's Economics Editor, Larry Elliott. Its headline ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It isn't. That's why rejoining is just a pipe dream.'”   STEPHEN GLOVER: Why won't the Tories trumpet the successes of Brexit when even the economics editor of the Guardian hails its benefits? | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK STEPHEN GLOVER: The headline of Larry Elliott's Guardian article ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It...  
    • So I ask you –"when did you first have sight of this policy containing this exclusion?" And you answer – "when I brought the policy" And then I ask you – "what is the value of the damage your caravan has sustained" and you answer that it is probably a complete write-off    
  • 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

DN and Termination

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5030 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

Could someone advise me please on DN. and Termination.


Basic points first then on a later post will put together why I am asking this and why I need good advice.


1. Store Card......Paid every month online. Suddenly I couldnt get the account up. I phoned GE they said they only processed credit cards now on line, would I like to switch to a credit card. I said no thank you.


2. Fell behind just one payment of £70. They sent a DEFAULT NOTICE. The notice gave 21 days from date to pay or full amount would be requested but it did not state what that full amount was. Should they have done.


3. Then cutting to the chase they moved debt on to DCA after one month.....Should I have had a termination of account notice.


4. This was the same month that Santander took GE money over. I had no correspondence on that move either. (I file all correspondence and receipts back to the year dot!) Should I have been informed?


5. DCA sent me letter in June 2009 several months after Santander had apparently taken over saying they had bought the debt from GE Money and I had to pay them.

Should I have received notification from GE Money that they had sold the debt on.


And finally same DCA sent me a letter in August of 2009 this time telling me they had just bought the debt from Santander!


6. So can they state they bought debt twice at two different times from G E in June and from Santander in August. And shouldnt either GE or Santander have informed me they had sold it on?


And finally. Should I have had a default notice plus termination from Santander as well?


Thanks for any help

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCA state they bought the debt, but also had viking collecting debt at same time. But viking have now ceased. All I initially wanted to do was pay my card, however I have now fallen on tough times due to critical illness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Katieloo!


I think it's defective, because they have not stated a date by which you should remedy the default.


Saying 21 days from receipt is meaningless, because it does not pin down an actual date. They are trying to cover all angles, but have failed because they have been too clever.


The Statutory wording makes it clear that payment has to be made BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN.


What date would that be? If you see my point, it is a puzzle without a solution. Or, rather, a puzzle where the answer will be whatever they need it to be when asked, which is clearly not acceptable when a date is demanded by the Statute.


They may well try to say it is de minimis (a small matter that the Court can over look), but that is a very weak argument, and one everyone must counter if they ever hear those two words mentioned in Court. Ask them to point to where the Act or related Statute mentions those words, or states that minor errors can be overlooked, or states what exactly a minor error might be...or states that they can send Default Notices in the form of a puzzle!




Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, have taken on board what you have said. Should I have also received a termination notice, and I presume they didnt have to put the total oustanding only the arrears on the notice.


Thanks again for taking time to reply, much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Default Notices


Section 87(1) of the 1974 Act allows the creditor to send you a default notice giving you fourteen days from the date you receive it to pay the arrears. The default notice must contain all of the necessary information under the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 ('the 1983 Regulations'), which includes


a statement saying the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the 1974 Act


a description of the agreement


the name and address of both the debtor and the creditor


details of the breach (i.e. late payment) and, if the breach can be remedied, the date by which it must be remedied or, if the breach is not capable of remedy, the amount required to be paid after the expiry of the specified date;


a statement saying: if the action required by this notice is taken before the date shown no further enforcement action will be taken in respect of that breach


a statement saying: if you do not take the action required by this notice before the date shown then the further action set out below may be taken against you


a clear and unambiguous statement saying that if the action is not taken by the date specified, what it will do (for example, if will it terminate the agreement and recovery possession of the motor vehicle)


if the agreement is one of hire purchase or conditional sale, a statement saying: but if you have paid at least one third of the total amount payable under the agreement set out below (or any installation charge plus one third of the rest of the amount payable). The creditor may not take back the goods against your wishes unless he gets a court order. (In Scotland, he may need to get a court order at any time.) If he does take them back without your consent or a court order, you have the right to get back all of the money you have paid under the agreement set out below


if an amount of money is required to be paid, the amount before deducting any rebate on early settlement


statements saying:


if you have difficulty in paying any sum owing under the agreement or taking any other action required by this notice, you can apply to the court which may make an order allowing you more time


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 your nearest citizens' advice bureau


The above highlighted points seem to be lacking from your DN


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, have taken on board what you have said. Should I have also received a termination notice, and I presume they didnt have to put the total oustanding only the arrears on the notice.


Thanks again for taking time to reply, much appreciated.


Viking would seem to be the "Terminators" so to speak. Have they at ANY time demanded the full balance owing on the account- very important;)



Please note: I am not a lawyer and as such any advice I give is purely from a laymans point of view;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sharpman, and yes Beaubrummie, viking sent me a letter saying they had been appointed to collect full amount. I need to point out at this moment that I had paid the default sum of £70 and had been talking to GE.

However I received correspondence from CL who said they had purchased the debt from GE but not what that was with no reference to it. I have 3 cards with GE and all the rest were ok then.


two months later CL sent me a letter stating that they had bought the same debt from Santander this time, but once again no reference to what it was. I moved house in between and they were writing to my old address, and eventually served a CC to my old address which was passed onto me, and on it they just listed themselves as claimant for an inflated amount I did not recognize and still nothing to say who it was for not even GE or Santander listed on it or to what the debt alluded to.


I enter my defence stating that I did not acknowledge this debt as I had not got a clue what it was for. I sent CCA request. I received copy of application form within statutory time. Then they continued to persue so I asked for mediation, the judge recommended mediation for this, but they refused requesting it go straight to judgement as I had denied claim even though they had furnished me with proof. Which was a lie as I denied knowledge only on my initial defence as I really hadnt got a clue what it was for because it wasnt stated.


Now I have a court date. Sometime off yet, but accordingly I have to pay £150 for the hearing or it goes straight to judgement. Why do I have to pay that? When this is them messing around.


I have received no statement of account only a printout of all their charges including a default they gave me after they had issued court proceedings. So the figure is so inflated. I still believed this was with viking who I had corresponded with.


I think I should point out at this moment, that I have just come through cancer, pneumonia, and my partner has had open heart surgery twice in this and almost died. So I have been somewhat preoccupied being a full time carer whilst getting through my own illnesses. This everyone was made aware of early autumn, as a result I suffered a breakdown from complete exhaustion. I am now also a pensioner, so facing these silly games from ruthless collectors flouting the law is not getting piling ontop of everything.


I am too ill to go to court with this, or find the £150 to fight this, but if I dont I lose anyway.


Any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a court claim and you are the Defendant you would not have to pay 150.00 as a hearing fee!!


It is up to CL Finance to pay the fee or their solicitors, is it Howard Cohen?


Can you post details of exactly what has happened with the CC ie


Particulars of Claim

Date of Issue

Date of Acknowledment of Service

Date Defence Filed


Order telling you to pay money for hearing?


This does not seem right somewhere along the line.



Please note: I am not a lawyer and as such any advice I give is purely from a laymans point of view;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...