Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • what rights of access do you have on your agreement with the landlord?   i suspect you shouldn't have to pay a thing.
    • then there is your proof to them why would you pay for BB twice!!   for my notes: GENERAL NOTES ON CHARGEBACK & Continuous Payment Authority & BACS   .....  We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them  not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companies  . http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works! usually this should be done using the number on your debit card  .  banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers ! . CANCELLING YOUR DEBIT CARD DOES NOT STOP CPA'S  .  This fsa guide has now been updated:  . http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf http://www.fca.org.uk/news/continuous-payment-authorities-your-right-to-cancel https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account  .  Here's the text:  .  Cancelling a regular  card payment:  .  When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account,   such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,  it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.  . These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.  .  In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments.   .  However,   you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments.   Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.  .  Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe. and that CANCELLING YOUR CARD WILL NOT STOP THE CPA  .  ..  .  New june 2013  .  Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.  .  Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement   by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.  .  The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)   due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.  .  CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments,   are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.  .  Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when   a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by   mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.  .  In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-  cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints   since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.  .  Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today   customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily.   . “We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue.   From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.” .  .  Also mentioned your displeasure that as whomever took your money had obviously attempted this many times   probably activating your banks own anti fraud software - nobody had the decency to inform my you this was going on.? .  .In the FSA's own words:  .  ..  What should I do about a payment from my account that I didn’t authorise?  .  Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction.   Money can only be taken from your account if you have authorised the transaction   or if your bank can prove you were at fault –  . see below.  Contact your bank immediately if you notice an unauthorised payment from your account. .  If you are sure you did not authorise the payment, you can claim a refund.  .  However, your bank does not have to refund you if you do not tell it about the payment until 13 months  or more after the date it left your account.  .  Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction  .  ------------------  .  Your bank may only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if:  .  ? it can prove you authorised the transaction  – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password,   card and PIN proves you authorised a payment; or .  ? it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently,   or because you deliberately,   or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction  .  -----------------------  .  How quickly must my bank refund me for an unauthorised transaction?  .  The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies.   Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened,   but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.  If the bank has evidence that one of the above reasons for refusing a refund applies,   it may investigate before making a refund   but must look into it as quickly as possible.   If your bank rejects your claim for a refund it should explain why.  If the transaction was on a credit card, the refund may not happen immediately.   But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay        
    • Only asking because I want to get my facts right before I approach the bank! Yes, BT is coming out of the same account.
    • not if they want to make the OP the named claimant no!! let them take the other party to court themselves!! the op can be a witness then..   one bitten...read this thread..      
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
crowgal

Northern Rock dodgy default and termination - advice needed

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2583 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have had a problem with Northern Rock and their solicitors Wallers.

 

Basically it's the same old story, I took out an unsecured loan with Northern Rock (prior to 2007), fell into arrears after illness and job loss, got nowhere with them with my reduced payment offers, went down the road of a CCA request, found them ignorant and uncommunicative. Things came to a head late last year when they sent me a default notice and subsequently a formal demand/termination. Then a court action followed from their solicitors Wallers.

 

I wrote to Wallers on various matters regarding enforceability issues with the agreement and some anomalies with correspondence received from Northern Rock following the default notice. I quickly received a reply from Wallers, out of the blue, with a discontination notice and a letter advising that they 'were dropping legal action as information had come to light which might question the validity of the default notice' and that a further default notice would be issued at a later date.

 

On checking the first default notice and formal demand/termination I could see that the amount of arrears quoted in the default notice was completely different to the amount quoted in the termination notice.

 

On seeing the posts about unlawful termination and recission of contract I wrote to accept the termination. Then I received, some three months later in March 2010, a statement of account from Northern Rock which included nearly £600 of legal fees for the failed litigation as well as the balance of the loan.

 

I wrote to them again (this time by recorded delivery) to advise that I did not agree to the reinstatement of the agreement etc.

 

Still they sent another default notice and then a few weeks later a formal demand for the full amount of the loan (this time the formal demand does not mention that they are terminating the contract, it just demands the full amount outstanding on the loan). This was followed by a letter from Wallers advising that if I did not come to a satisfactory payment agreement with Northern Rock they had been instructed to issue legal proceedings.

 

I wrote to Wallers regarding the previous termination and again advised that I had accepted this and that Northern Rock had lost their rights under S.87 CCA 1974 to issue a further default notice etc.

 

The reply I have from Wallers states:

 

'If the default notice was not valid (which is not admitted) then our client did not comply with the formal arrangements under section 87 of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 and thus the Agreement WAS NOT terminated by issuing the subsequent formal demand. Section 87 requires a valid default notice to be served in order for an agreement to be brought to an end. In the circumstances our client is entitled to issue a further default notice and formal demand on 8 April and 3 June 2010. Accordingly our instructions are to re-issue proceedings on 3 August 2010 in the event that a payment agreement has not been reached'.

 

I have sent Wallers an email at the weekend as I have found some other discrepancies and also I have gleaned some background material from 'A tale of a dodgy default notice' to chuck at them.

 

I am not sure if they will go ahead with their threat of legal action, but in case they do I am trying to get some advice about where to go next with this.

 

Thanks in anticipation, Chris

Edited by crowgal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for the PM (response sent). Will have a look over this in detail tomorrow as pushed for time now, will add what I can asap.

 

In the meantime can you have scanned copies ready (with your ID protected) for us - defaults, agreement etc etc.

 

Important question - When they initially litigated before discontinuance did you defend the claim and submit any kind of defence at all to the court?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didn't, it didn't even get that far. I don't have a scanner but will try and borrow a friends later in the week if I need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I didn't, it didn't even get that far. I don't have a scanner but will try and borrow a friends later in the week if I need to.

 

Shame you didn't submit anything, they'd have been prevented from acting again later on without the unlikely permission of the court.

 

Ok, please do get the use of a scanner. The docs really are essential in order to determine your position and that of the bank.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quosh their argument that the DN was invalid, therefore their initial termination was invalid and they are entitled to re-issue another DN you'll note the excellent comment from X20.

 

I believe you may have already found this but here it is anyway. This will form the foundation of your argument which we'll build once we've covered other vital areas.

 

Courtesy of Surfaceagent x20

 

post taken from

 

A Tale of a Dodgy DN

 

The contention advanced by ABC's lawyers was that if the DN was ineffective, the termination which ABC subsequently brought about in reliance upon that ineffective DN, was itself ineffective. In support, ABC said that since the law did not permit a creditor to terminate an agreement unless there had been serivce upon a debtor of an effective DN, by extension therefore, rather than having been terminated, the agreement endured.

 

The law in support of this proposition was Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87(1)(a) which says:

 

(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

 

ABC went on to say that owing to the agreement enduring, ABC were therefore at liberty to serve a second DN.

 

At first blush, that looks quite a convincing argument. The Act itself forbids the creditor the right to terminate save in certain circumstances. So if the required circumstances were not present, how could the law regard the agreement as having terminated?

 

[1] Termination of a Contract and General Principles

A good place to start would be to dispel the myth that the law will not tolerate contract breaking. On the contrary whilst not actively ncouraging it, the law will tolerate it. The courts will rarely impose upon one party an obligation to perform under a contract against its will, to do what it failed to do or redo what it tried and failed to do. Instead, what the law will do is on the one hand restrain the contract breaker from procuring the benefits it would have enjoyed had it fulfilled its contractual obligations and on the other, enable the injured party to recover damages flowing from the breach.

 

In Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha

 

'The repudiation of a contract by one party ("the repudiator"), if accepted by the other ("the injured party"), brings the contract to an end and releases both parties from their primary obligations under the contract. The injured party is thereupon entitled to recover damages against the repudiator to compensate him for such financial loss as the repudiator's breach has caused him to suffer. This is elementary law.

 

The damages recoverable by the injured party are such sum as will put him in the same financial position as if the contract had been performed.'

 

What's more, the law will not merrily award whatever loss the injured party says he suffered. The court will require the injured party to prove his loss and further, will expect the injured party to take steps to mitigate the loss.

 

'An injured party such as the owners may not, generally speaking, recover damages against a repudiator such as the charterers for loss which he could reasonably have avoided by taking reasonable commercial steps to mitigate his loss.'

 

Further still, in assessing damages the law will not even award what the parties may at formation of the agreement have agreed should be payable as liquidated damages in the event of breach. The court will not permit the recovery of liquidated damages unless the damages represent a fair pre-estimate of what loss might flow from the breach. If the liquidated damages are shown to be excessive and unrepresentative of the sactual loss suffered the law will readily declare the liquidated damages as a penalty and unenforceable.

 

In short, not only does the law tolerate contract breaking, but also, it will not tolerate the injured party taking advantage of the wrongdoer. The law does not pounce on the contract breaker to teach him a lesson. The court only awards the innocent party what damages truly flow from the breach. That admits of the possibility that a contract breaker can get away with it. If the injured party is unable to show resulting loss, the injured party may get nothing.

 

'One must look at the contract as a whole, and if it is clear that the innocent party has lost nothing, he should recover no more than nominal damages for the loss of his right to have the whole contract completed.' [Edmund Davies LJ in 'The Mihalis Angelos' (1971)]

 

[2] Termination in Non-Conformity with section 87.

The contention I advance is that an ineffective DN does not prohibit the creditor from terminating the agreement. Termination after service of an effective default notice is lawful termination, but as we have seen, a party may still terminate an agreement and be in the wrong for doing so. The law operates on a wrongful termination to offer to the injured party the choice of accepting the termination or to hold the contract breaker to his promise.

 

In the world of consumer credit, I contend a termination of the agreement by a creditor in terms whereby he announced he would no longer permit the debtor time to repay the credit, was a creditor in repudiatory breach of the agreement, unless in leading up to termination, the creditor complied with the requirements of the Act in circumstances where the debtor was in first breach of the agreement.

 

Further, and it is worth remembering, the Act is an Act for the purpose of consumer protection. The purpose of the Act is not to preserve the rights of creditors in contracts and to protect them from misadventure where for example, they terminated an agreement where it subsequently transpired the termination had not been in their interests. If that were so, the Act would have been an Act for the better protection of financiers.

 

In a proper case, the law will come to the aid of the vulnerable to protect them from the consequences of their contracts (for example the unsound in mind, children, those under duress or undue influence). To suggest financiers fell into that bracket and the Consumer Credit Act

operated to protect them and not the consumer, was absurd. The civil law does not come to rescue the misadentures of the sain and the savvy.

 

The clue to the position of the creditor on termination is in the use of the word 'entitled' in section 87(1). 'Entitled' connotes a right or a benefit. The Act therefore confers rights, conditional upon the provisions of section 87(1) being fuilfilled. Fail to fulfill the condition and the entitlements do not become available.

 

In the case of a contract entered into by a person under duress and who then breaks the contract the law will come to that person's aid by recognising that person's plea that the contract was made under duress. If that person seeks a declaration of the court that the contract was made under duress the court wil readily declare the contract void.

 

If the Act had intended that a creditor's termination in circumstances where section 87(1) had not been fulfilled by the creditor and was to be of no effect, the Act would have declared that termination void. It doesn't. The termination is voidable at the option of the debtor.

 

[3] The Debtor's Point of View

Third, let us look at the position from the ordinary man as debtor's point of view in a consumer credit situation.

 

The DN is defective for failing to conform to the prescribed terms, or gives misleading information or at worse is plain nonsense so that the debtor does not know precisely what he has to do in order to comply with it and is consequently disadvantaged. Should the law disregard the fact that the creditor put the debtor at a disadvantage and thereby at risk the creditor might lawfully terminate the agreement?

 

'This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals. When contracting with a large financial organisation they are at a disadvantage. The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If the hirer is said to have broken its terms, the hirer needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as "the next step".

 

Moving on, if the debtor receives a notice from the creditor in which the creditor expressly states the contract is terminated, what is the debtor supposed to think? Would the law regard him as likely to think the creditor had terminated the contract or would the law regard him as thinking it had not terminated because strictly speaking, the creditor had served a default notice which was not in accordance with prescribed terms?

 

Or where perhaps the creditor did not expresly terminate but sent the bully boys over to demand the keys to the car. What was the debtor to think then? Would the debtor think the creditor had terminated?

 

It seems to me on the basis of the passages below, the courts will be ready to hold a creditor to his words and actions.

 

"... a person who signs a document, and parts with it so that it may come into other hands, has a responsibility, that of the normal man of prudence, to take care what he signs, which if neglected, prevents him from denying his liability under the document according to its tenor".

[per Lord Wilberforce in Gallie v Lee (1971)]

 

'.. a man cannot escape from the consequences, as regards innocent third parties, of signing a document if, being a man of ordinary education and competence, he chooses to sign it without informing himself of its purport and effect..'

[per Scott LJ in Norwich & Peterborough Building Society v Steed (1992)]

 

In short, the creditor is bound by his deed. All that is required is for the debtor to accept the creditor's termination. He can write saying 'thank you I accept you termination' or he can conduct himself in a way in keeping with that termination. Not paying the instalments would be in keeping with an acceptance of the termination.

 

[4] The fiction of the Second DN and the Enduring Obligation

The service of any second default notice, at a time when the contract is terminated, owing to the wording of the DN in its prescribed form, would perpetuate the fiction that the contract endured. The same can be said owing to the provisions of section 89 of the Act.

 

The form of words in the DN incorporate text in order to meet the intention of section 89 of the Act which provides:

 

'If before the date specified for that purpose in the default notice the debtor or hirer takes the action specified under section 88(1)(b) or © the breach shall be treated as not having occurred.'

 

In other words, in serving the second DN, the creditor would be suggesting:

 

[a] an obligation had persisted post termination by which the debtor was bound to make instalment payments (ie post-termination 'arrears'), and

that if payment of those 'arrears' was made, an obligation to make future instalment payments would endure.

 

The obligations at [a] and are obligations enduring during the currency of the agreement. Besides maintaining the fiction of the enduring agremeent as I say, it seems to me any second DN would be bound to be defective for over-stating the sums due. The creditor can not state as an amount due for 'arrears' of instalments that which he said in consequence of his termination was no longer due and payable by instalments. If the creditor sought to use a form of DN which made sense by getting round the fact the agreement had been terminated, the DN would not be in prescribed form.

 

The only way in which a second DN would be of value to the creditor would be where the contract had been re-instated. If the debtor has accepted the termination, re-instatement requires the consent of the debtor.

 

The net result of [1] to [4] is the agreement is terminated for all time. The creditor's remedy is now limited by section 87(1). All that is left for the creditor to recover is the sum truly in arrear at the date of the default notice.

[2007], Lord Bingham said: [Lord Bingham in Golden Strait Corporation.] [per Kennedy LJ in Woodchester v Swayne [1998]]


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say I didn't submit anything, I mean that I didn't get as far as submitting a Witness Statement but I did return the form to the Court to say that I intended to defend the claim, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its a few days past Wallers threat to reissue court proceedings and nothing has turned up yet, maybe the last letter I sent them using some of the arguments from X20 above has done the trick, but still it's early days. I just wondered if anybody actually knew of anyone that had recently used this argument about the reissue of a default after the dodgy default/termination with success, especially if the creditor had tried to take them to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

396168342_o.jpgThe agreement and 2 versions of terms and conditions I have received

 

396168312_o.jpg

ROT06076.jpg

ROT06078.jpg

ROT06077.jpg

396168329_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

396168342_o.jpgThe agreement and two versions of the t & c's I have received

 

396168312_o.jpg

396168329_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry those images are too small I have other pages to put up but will insert links to the image hosting so that are larger and easier to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the original default notice and formal demand/termination, the amount of arrears on the formal demand is diferent to the DN, if you click on the images once they've opened they should enlarge.

 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/2/9/4/8/webimg/396168391_o.jpg

 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/2/9/4/8/webimg/396168368_o.jpg

 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/2/9/4/8/webimg/396168360_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a letter I've just received from Wallers overriding all those arguments seen on CAG and with Surfaceagents original thread, as I used some of those arguments when I wrote to them to challenge their latest action. Following this any comments /help and further advice welcome. Wallers are saying they refuse to communicate with my any more prior to issuing court proceedings.

 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/2/9/4/8/webimg/396168426_o.jpg

 

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/6/2/9/4/8/webimg/396168457_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had a problem with Northern Rock and their solicitors Wallers.

 

Basically it's the same old story, I took out an unsecured loan with Northern Rock (prior to 2007), fell into arrears after illness and job loss, got nowhere with them with my reduced payment offers, went down the road of a CCA request, found them ignorant and uncommunicative. Things came to a head late last year when they sent me a default notice and subsequently a formal demand/termination. Then a court action followed from their solicitors Wallers.

 

I wrote to Wallers on various matters regarding enforceability issues with the agreement and some anomalies with correspondence received from Northern Rock following the default notice. I quickly received a reply from Wallers, out of the blue, with a discontination notice and a letter advising that they 'were dropping legal action as information had come to light which might question the validity of the default notice' and that a further default notice would be issued at a later date.

 

On checking the first default notice and formal demand/termination I could see that the amount of arrears quoted in the default notice was completely different to the amount quoted in the termination notice.

 

On seeing the posts about unlawful termination and recission of contract I wrote to accept the termination. Then I received, some three months later in March 2010, a statement of account from Northern Rock which included nearly £600 of legal fees for the failed litigation as well as the balance of the loan.

 

I wrote to them again (this time by recorded delivery) to advise that I did not agree to the reinstatement of the agreement etc.

 

Still they sent another default notice and then a few weeks later a formal demand for the full amount of the loan (this time the formal demand does not mention that they are terminating the contract, it just demands the full amount outstanding on the loan). This was followed by a letter from Wallers advising that if I did not come to a satisfactory payment agreement with Northern Rock they had been instructed to issue legal proceedings.

 

I wrote to Wallers regarding the previous termination and again advised that I had accepted this and that Northern Rock had lost their rights under S.87 CCA 1974 to issue a further default notice etc.

 

The reply I have from Wallers states:

 

'If the default notice was not valid (which is not admitted) then our client did not comply with the formal arrangements under section 87 of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 and thus the Agreement WAS NOT terminated by issuing the subsequent formal demand. Section 87 requires a valid default notice to be served in order for an agreement to be brought to an end. In the circumstances our client is entitled to issue a further default notice and formal demand on 8 April and 3 June 2010. Accordingly our instructions are to re-issue proceedings on 3 August 2010 in the event that a payment agreement has not been reached'.

 

I have sent Wallers an email at the weekend as I have found some other discrepancies and also I have gleaned some background material from 'A tale of a dodgy default notice' to chuck at them.

 

I am not sure if they will go ahead with their threat of legal action, but in case they do I am trying to get some advice about where to go next with this.

 

Thanks in anticipation, Chris

 

 

 

they are absolutely correct, ....their dodgy default notice was not compliant and so did not terminate the agreement in accordance with the requirements of the cca- they could not- as they say- lawfully terminate

 

however- their Dn and subsequent correspondence UNLAWFULLY repuidation their obligtaions and unfortuneately (for them) this opened their actions up to common contract law and gave you the right to elect- and which you chose to accept their unlawful repudiation and relieve yourself of any continuing obligations under the (alleged) agreement.

 

this in turn ended the agreement and they cannot now serve an effective or valid DN- since they would be serving it post termination of the agreement

 

further- if they discontinued AFTER you had filed a defence (even an embarrassed defence) then they cannot start another action against you on the same debt without the prior (unlikely) permission of the court

 

if you did not get that far then just write and tell them that as far as you are concerned the agreement no longer endures and you will vigoursouly defend any action they may bring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowgal

 

I would absolutely agree with the arguments for the defence, the defence is complete in law and is indisputable.

 

The Law of Contract - a party's serious material breach of contract entitles the non-breaching party to treat his obligations under the contract as discharged if he so chooses that to be the remedy for him out of the 3 remedies available to him as a result of the violation.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies. The only thing that concerns me is that I know that other people have had the same problem with Northern Rock, I've seen a couple of threads before on CAG, and I'm not sure whether this argument has stood up in court if it got that far, no one seems to have reported back to CAG how they got on with this. The point is that Wallers the solicitors must have had this argument thrown at them before and I can't help wondering from the tone of their letter whether they have got away with it in the past as they seem determined to issue court proceedings. I felt confident about it all before but not so much now given their last letter. I will still continue to fight them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember that many times a creditor will come to a "settlement" with a debtor and include a non disclosure clause- for the very reason you mentioned- so that other debtors do not get wind of their failed claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again, it never fails to amaze me at how underhand and unscrupulous these organisations are, it's disgraceful really. If they do issue the court claim is it best to go for the option 'that it is not within the court's jurisdiction' given the circumstances, you get the extra 28 days with that, but I am really not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello crowgal

 

The arguments posted here are matters of fact, matters of law, the Law of Contract, these arguments are not opinions, I understand how you feel regarding the Solicitors, truly I do.

 

So listen then, here this day is my word to you, should your enemy bring battle to you they will find me standing on that field in your defence and they shall not pass, note I say 'shall not pass' I did not say 'Shall never pass'.

 

Your defence is complete in law, so free yourself from these chains of misery and fear, feel them lifted away from you, now they are taken down.

 

Suffer no more crowgal, your pathway is clear, go on then and enjoy the rest of your days on this earth, you are afforded and your invitation shall not be revoked by any man or any evil of him.

 

Come out wallers, you clay that depend on iron, here I stand ready for the battle, I lift no iron in my hand against the enemy of my fellow people, yet I shall see you all slain at my feet, for I too am clay born of this earth, but there is no dependence of me on any iron, so then wallers your iron can harm me not.

 

Crowgal, really do not worry.

 

Have a look around the forums and see how easy it is for those who face what many would say were impossible odds against them, to overcome those odds and defy gravity.

 

Look at a story called 'Halifax taking me to Court' posted by 'wish me well, you will see in the begining how difficult everything to be for the poster, you will see how the story unfolded and how the case developed and of course you will see and learn of the wonderful ending of that story.

 

Not forgetting though, the glorious 'midnight club' that is now very much a part of the superstructure of that particular story, formed by my dear friend Dr Watson and I and exclusive here on CAG.

 

I say have a look there, because you could find yourself thoroughly enjoying the trip along that path and it will most certainly assist you to enjoy your journey on this path.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CG, thanks for the PM. A quick update of your thread shows you've had some more opinion on this matter and its all bang on.

 

You probably realise by now that Wallers will continue to give the illusion that you have no argument against them but the reality is very different. Solicitors and 'legal executives' love drama and will do all they can to suggest you should back down, even when they know you have a perfectly good defence. They'll maintain this to the end, even turning up in court before pulling out at the very last moment.

 

A solicitor would be foolish to waste his clients funds on a matter like this, its a very simple principle well established and is not really arguable on their part. Stand firm and if they write just remind them on occasion that your position is and remains, the same.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to all, the support I've had with this is very much appreciated. This whole affair has given me many sleepless nights, I am such a worrier anyway! I do feel better now again and will write to put Wallers in their place again and then wait to see what happens next, I will also read the thread suggested above. Thanks again I will keep you posted!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi CG, thanks for the PM. A quick update of your thread shows you've had some more opinion on this matter and its all bang on.

 

You probably realise by now that Wallers will continue to give the illusion that you have no argument against them but the reality is very different. Solicitors and 'legal executives' love drama and will do all they can to suggest you should back down, even when they know you have a perfectly good defence. They'll maintain this to the end, even turning up in court before pulling out at the very last moment.

 

A solicitor would be foolish to waste his clients funds on a matter like this, its a very simple principle well established and is not really arguable on their part. Stand firm and if they write just remind them on occasion that your position is and remains, the same.

 

Hi

Any update on this, personally i do not think that this defence is viable as it would not release the debtor from any of the liabilities under the contract. Perhaps you could prove me wrong. Either way it would be of great service to others to get this straightened out.

Peter


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter

 

With respect, I simply do not agree with your comments regarding the defence to this claim.

 

I seek no argument with you Peter, so please do not miscontrue my posting here on this case/story.

 

The claimant issued a claim against the defendant on the foundation of an invalid Default Notice.

 

The serving of the claim upon the defendant [was] the commencement of legal proceedings and therefore Termination of the contract/agreement without the required legal excuse, non-compliance of s87(1) of the CCA 1974 (as amended) by the claimant (who is a creditor).

 

First time round, the defendant acknowledged and defended the claim.

 

The solicitors acting for the claimant realised that the Default Notice was defective and so prevented the claimant's entitlement in law to the amount claimed, the defectiveness of the said Default Notice was communicated to the defendant.

 

The defendant acted swiftly and accepted recision of the said contract/agreement as one of the remedies available to him/her (the defendant) as he/she was (and still is) the non-breaching party.

 

The agreement from the point of the initial legal poceedings remains in a permanent stated of Termination, it is no longer 'Live'.

 

In order to be able to re-issue a valid Default Notice, Termination Notice and commence with the action all over again, the contract/agreement needs to be reinstated 'Made live again'.

 

Both parties to the said contract/agreement would need to give their express consent to reinstatement of the contract/agreement.

 

The defendant (debtor) is not going to cure the impossible task that the claimant now faces, the defendant is not going to agree to reinstatement.

 

The defence to this particular claim is complete and recognized in law and does so undermine the claimant's cause of action in its entirety.

 

Case closed/dismissed.

 

Please explain Peter, why you believe that such defence as this one is not viable and that it does not release the defendant from liability.

 

Discuss.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not updated on this thread as everything had gone quiet after my latest communication with NR's solicitors where I had written and told them as far as I was concerned the contract between us had ended etc. When I wrote to them I also mentioned that even if it still existed I had two differing versions of the T&C's and sent them copies. Since then I have received yet another (the third one) DN from NR and a letter from the solicitors advising that the second version of the T&C's I had been sent was incorrect (even though they were previously quite adamant that they were the correct version - and I have that in writing), they also advised that the second DN NR had sent was incorrect and they were preparing to send me the third one. I think it looks like they are on the road to the whole court thing again so it looks like they aren't prepared to give up on the basis of faulty DN's and terminations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post the third DN up at the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...