Jump to content
Missie Moo Moo

Is my MINT Default Notice compliant with CCA 1974

Recommended Posts

Hi All

 

My husband has been made redundant and as such I have contacted all of my creditors to inform them that I’m only able to make token payments until we are back on our feet. I intend to start a thread for each of the institutions as they begin to communicate with me, all of the creditors have been provided with details of my earnings and our outgoings.

 

MINT have sent me a default notice dated 9th July 2010 which I only received 16th July 2010, this is attached in the uploaded PDF. MINT have stated in the notice that “the payment must be credited to your account no later than 17 days after the date of this notice shown above”.

 

What I would like to know is if the default notice is correct and conforms to the regulations of Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 as quoted on the notice.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited MINT Default Notice Dated 09 July 2010.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the DN is most def invalid

it should state an actually date in the form of dd/mm/yyyy to pay by and give 2 working days for 1st class or 4 working days for 2nd class post + 14 days after that.

 

so a load of bull.

 

i would most prob assume it has unlawful charges 'late fees, over limit fees' etc in its total so again invalid.

 

now your need to look at all your debts for charges & mis-sold PPI.

 

ps

 

you are under NO legal obligation to give ANY financial info or in/out sheets to anyone bar a judge.

 

the more they know, the more they will pressure you.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT USE REPLY WITH QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's strange the way Mint work, my OH offered reduced payments due to income reduction and they couldn't do anything at the time because the account was up to date.

 

So basically you have to stop paying in order to move things on! Makes no sense to me but if it keeps them happy then so be it!

 

However, they have very reluctantly accepted the offer made and most importantly, frozen the interest for an initial period of 6 months so at least the debt will only reduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Thank you dx100uk, Dotty50 and Charlie* for your comments. Charlie I have attached a PDF of the envelope.

 

Am I right in thinking that I should now await the termination of the account and then the court papers?

 

Thanks again.

MINT Envelope.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats 2nd class private business mail

typically that takes 5 days before it even gets into the royal mail system then they take 4 days themselves

 

that easily makes the DN invalid on its own.

 

i doubt you'll get court papers

 

now sit back and wait for them to unlawfully terminate on the back of this invalid DN

and you'll be home and laughing.

 

don't do anything just wait.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT USE REPLY WITH QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Thanks for your replies and input thus far, dx100uk your advice has been duly noted and will do as instructed.

 

I have started two other threads in relation to NatWest one being for a loan and the other being an overdraft, I have had communication very similar to the documents from MINT and I’d like them checked as I don’t wish to assume anything.

 

Could any of you be so kind to look at the attached documents and let me know your thoughts?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/268857-my-natwest-default-notice.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/268992-natwest-overdraft-default-notice.html#post3047054

 

Thanks in advance.

 

MMM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I’ve had two further letters of communication today from MINT, the first being the Account Termination and the second being a letter from the Recoveries Manager. I have attached both for your comments/observations.

 

Your replies are very much appreciated.

 

MM

Edited Letter from Recoveries Manager 07.08.10.pdf

Edited Account Termination 07.08.10.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

write back to r man

 

stating that the default notice issued is invalid on several counts, but specifically that it was posted by ukmail which takes 5 days [see the ukmail website] to get into the royal mail system and they can take another 4 days to deliver it from there.

that does not leave 14 days of the 17 days quoted left

 

the dn also fails to give an actual date [in the form of dd/mm/yyyy] which again it must do in accordance with the guidelines

 

so thus you have unlawfully terminated my agreement on the back of an invalid default notice

 

i hereby again state that i offer as a goodwill gesture a pcm of £1, until my circumstances improve.

 

should you now wish to take this to court, bearing in mind the invalid dn and the unlawful TN, then i'm sure any judge would not compel me to pay more

 

i require you, as a reciprocal gesture of goodwill, to freeze all interest, refrain from unlawful over limit and late payment fees, and refund me said unlawful fees and mis-sold PPI + 8% statutory interest which im entitled to as you have deprived me the use of that monies.

 

i look forward to you confirming the above soonest.

 

.......................

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

default notice rules

 

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

1. 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.

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 Friday 3rd August, 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 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

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).

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 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.

9. 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…

10. The wording must make 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 on XX/XX/XX. 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.


PLEASE DONT USE REPLY WITH QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
write back to r man

 

stating that the default notice issued is invalid on several counts, but specifically that it was posted by ukmail which takes 5 days [see the ukmail website] to get into the royal mail system and they can take another 4 days to deliver it from there.

that does not leave 14 days of the 17 days quoted left

 

the dn also fails to give an actual date [in the form of dd/mm/yyyy] which again it must do in accordance with the guidelines

 

so thus you have unlawfully terminated my agreement on the back of an invalid default notice

 

i hereby again state that i offer as a goodwill gesture a pcm of £1, until my circumstances improve.

 

should you now wish to take this to court, bearing in mind the invalid dn and the unlawful TN, then i'm sure any judge would not compel me to pay more

 

i require you, as a reciprocal gesture of goodwill, to freeze all interest, refrain from unlawful over limit and late payment fees, and refund me said unlawful fees and mis-sold PPI + 8% statutory interest which im entitled to as you have deprived me the use of that monies.

 

i look forward to you confirming the above soonest.

 

.......................

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

default notice rules

 

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

1. 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.

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 Friday 3rd August, 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 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

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).

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 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.

9. 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…

10. The wording must make 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 on XX/XX/XX. 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.

 

I hope you havent replied with this suggested letter. The unlawful recsission of contratc is the one you should reply with. Do not offer any money. They are now only entitled to claim for the arrears stated on the TN. Simples...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • I was talked into signing up with Future Comms (future-comms.co.uk) who cold-called me to change my mobile contract to them, via 02, rather than EE. I have a small business (only me!) and it's a business contract. True, the 4G network is better for my area. This company seemed to be a marketing set-up for various telecoms companies, so I assumed anything I signed would be with 02 and didn't think it might be a problem.
       
      They sent an email whilst I was on the phone to set up the direct debit mandate with my bank which I signed electronically. That was the first, of many, problems I found. Apparently THAT was my contract, binding me to 3 years and no 'cooling off' period, because I was a 'business' (meaning any consumer rights did not apply). When I subsequently asked in writing for a copy of my contract, that is what they sent - when I argued it was a DD mandate they insisted it was my contract!
       
      2 days later they asked for my phone details to get it unlocked which I sent. 10 days later, EE closed my account, so I changed the SIM card to 02 that had come a few days before. No network! They had done nothing about unlocking it. Fortunately I was lucky with EE who managed to give me the right codes, rather than the usual 10 days to go through Samsung.
       
      By this time I was suspicious of their set-up and wanted to cancel. As I said earlier, I found myself trapped into a 3 year contract with no 14 day cooling off period (they don't offer that). Promises to deal with my complaints never happened, promised return calls neither....and on and on.
       
      Ofcom's rules apply to consumers and small businesses (under 10 employees), yet this shower don't acknowledge that. They just repeat and repeat that I am a business so it doesn't apply. To cancel the contract I have to pay the full 3 year's fees!!
       
      I would like to know if others have had similar experiences? Or does anyone know how I can maybe declare the 'contract' unenforceable? I have never before been locked into something without a clear written contract, with t&c's! And, yes, I have asked, and yes, I have been ignored.
      • 84 replies
    • Future comms!. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415706-future-comms/
      • 10 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...