mbna v twoman

[Old Cogger]

That is Working Days - Monday To Friday. excl Bank holidays.

[summerbreeze]

That is Working Days - Monday To Friday. excl Bank holidays.

 

The service days are working days and do not include Saturdays Sundays or Bank Holidays BUT the 14 days to remedy include all days

[Hardupnotfedup]

14 days after the 13th is the 27th, 13+14=27 SAT SUN and BH affect the posting time not the remedy time

Edited July 24, 2010 by Hardupnotfedup
typo

[Guest]

14 days after the 13th is the 27th, 13+14=27 SAT SUN and BH affect the posting time not the remedy time

 

as stated before, if 2nd class the last clear day w/b the 27th. so, the date on the dn, if 2nd class, wld need to be at least the 28th to be compliant. ie 'before the date shown'.

[diddydicky]

imo, according to service rules - if first class, served on tues 11th. clear days start next day, so last clear day is 25th? statutory statement on a dn states 'before the date shown', so remedy date on dn if first class would need to be at least 26th?

if second class, served fourth 'working day' after posting is 13th. so, remedy date on dn would then need to be the 28th at least?

 

===

 

if the DN states "By the 25th" then that is taken to mean "by close of business on that day"

 

if the dn was sent 1st class then 25th is valid - if second class then clearly it is not

 

if the DN states "before 25th" then it is stating that compliance must be by close of business on the previous working day

 

i doubt that you would get the argument for the 26th past a judge

[Old Cogger]

14 days after the 13th is the 27th, 13+14=27 SAT SUN and BH affect the posting time not the remedy time

 

working days, as per Bickford Smith Queens Bench

[diddydicky]

"working days" refers to the postage transit time calculation

 

the time to remedy (commencing the day after service- is 14 consecutive days and includes weekends and bank holidays)

[Guest]

===

 

if the DN states "By the 25th" then that is taken to mean "by close of business on that day"

 

if the dn was sent 1st class then 25th is valid - if second class then clearly it is not

 

if the DN states "before 25th" then it is stating that compliance must be by close of business on the previous working day this would then mean that the dn is 1 day short (if 1st class)?

 

i doubt that you would get the argument for the 26th past a judge

 

what are your thoughts where on some dn's the cr has stated must pay 'by xx/xx/xx' but the statutory statement on the same dn (as req'd by the 1983 regs) states 'if action req'd......is taken before the date shown, no further enforcement......if you do not take the action...before the date shown then further action......' ? should one go with 'by' or 'before the date shown'?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Ford
typo

[Old Cogger]

working days, as per Bickford Smith Queens Bench

 

 

herewith info as known

DEFAULT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS PART11.doc

[Old Cogger]

and may be of use:-

Re DEAFULT NOTICES actual posting days notes 4 working days 2nd class.doc

[diddydicky]

and may be of use:-

 

im not quite sure what point you are trying to make mike

 

we know that a dn is presumed posted second class (served 4 working days after posting unless posted first class (2nd working day after posting)

 

is there some point you are trying to make with respect to the time for remedy?

[diddydicky]

and may be of use:-

 

 

 

i'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make mike

 

we know that a dn is presumed posted second class (served 4 working days after posting unless posted first class (2nd working day after posting)

 

is there some point you are trying to make with respect to the time for remedy?

[Old Cogger]

DD, there seems to be differences on some threads hence the file I have has been posted, to enable peeps to read through

[twoman]

Hi Caggers,

Having watched and read the comments back and forth about my original post, i am somewhat a little bemused on what i should do now.

Just so i can get this right from the off,is it worth me questioning mbna/experto or the cra about my dn that is showing as stated in post 1.

[Old Cogger]

My O.H. has DN same dates as yours, so 7th May issued (Fri) 2nd Class UK Mail

Edited July 26, 2010 by Old Cogger

[diddydicky]

Hi Caggers,

Having watched and read the comments back and forth about my original post, i am somewhat a little bemused on what i should do now.

Just so i can get this right from the off,is it worth me questioning mbna/experto or the cra about my dn that is showing as stated in post 1.

 

stick with the line that it was received by second class post

 

pm mike and ask him to send you a copy of his dn and envelope and a witness statement as evidence that this was their practice- even though you may not have kept your envelope

[twoman]

Hi Mike,

As per dd comments can you send me your details so i can message you.

[diddydicky]

click on his underlined name in the left hand box then click on contact information and you can send him a pm

[Old Cogger]

Hi Mike,

As per dd comments can you send me your details so i can message you.

 

here you are: -

[Guest]

what are your thoughts where on some dn's the cr has stated must pay 'by xx/xx/xx' but the statutory statement on the same dn (as req'd by the 1983 regs) states 'if action req'd......is taken before the date shown, no further enforcement......if you do not take the action...before the date shown then further action......' ? should one go with 'by' or 'before the date shown'?

 

is it safe to assume then that the required statutory statement 'before the date shown' takes precedence over 'by'. any thoughts? thanks

[diddydicky]

by means by the end of the date stated

 

before- means by the end of the day preceeding the date stated

[Guest]

by means by the end of the date stated

 

before- means by the end of the day preceeding the date stated

 

yes, but should one go by 'by' or 'before', where the cr states 'by' but the stat statement (on the same dn) says 'before'? (hope that makes sense!?)

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ford
typo

[Old Cogger]

So it seems Experto are doing the cabot thing, sending out MBNA letterheads saying that all payments to Exporto Credite using their own reference No and franked envelopes, ignoring account in dispute letters.

[diddydicky]

yes, but should one go by 'by' or 'before', where the cr states 'by' but the stat statement (on the same dn) says 'before'? (hope that makes sense!?)

 

i would take the DN at its face value- this is a prescribed document therefore if it says that in order to remedy you must do something BEFORE the date shown-then that is what you are entitled to believe you must do, and if it states that you must do something BY the date shown then you are entitled to believe THAT is what you must do

 

The court would look at the DN and ask itself if the DN Itself makes it clear to the recipient what they must do and when they must do it - in order to remedy the alleged breach

 

if it is satisfied that the DN conveys that message clearly- then arguments as to which word the creditor SHOULD have used will get nowhere (IMO)

[Guest]

i would take the DN at its face value- this is a prescribed document therefore if it says that in order to remedy you must do something BEFORE the date shown-then that is what you are entitled to believe you must do, and if it states that you must do something BY the date shown then you are entitled to believe THAT is what you must do

 

The court would look at the DN and ask itself if the DN Itself makes it clear to the recipient what they must do and when they must do it - in order to remedy the alleged breach

 

if it is satisfied that the DN conveys that message clearly- then arguments as to which word the creditor SHOULD have used will get nowhere (IMO)

 

agreed. but the thing is that, on some dn's there is BOTH. ie there is the cr saying 'by xx/xx/xx' AND then there is the statutory 1983 regs statement (on the same dn!) saying 'before the date shown'? so, there is ambiguity? which one applies when both 'by' and 'before' are on the same dn? statute ie 'before'?

Edited August 8, 2010 by Ford
typo