Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • 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
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Help with a default notice please.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4948 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

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

this is my first post and I hope it is the right forum. I have received a default notice, and I wanted to get an opinion on whether it is valid. All is okay with dates etc. but i think there may be a problem with the wording and emphasis.

 

It states-

 

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THIS BREACH.

 

iF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU.

 

Most of the DN's I have seen on this forum seem to have certain words underlined like this

 

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THIS BREACH.

 

iF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU.

 

My question is does this underlining make a difference? And if so has anyone successfully shown in court that it is a defective DN on this basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not particularly knowledgable in this area, but I would thank that as long as that part which you feel should be underlined is in caps and bold, I would think that would be satisfactory.

 

Search on the forum for Defaults and you will find several threads. Will try and find some info for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply harrassed senior, I have read the thread you highlighted,

 

would you know where I can find what the 'prescribed wording' is for a DN? I have tried looking in CCA1974 act itself but cannot find it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Ford ... although not strictly compliant as yes the parts you have highlighted should be underscored - if this is the only error, and you have a correctly executed agreement as well, I can't see a Judge (should it go to court) rule in your favour. Sorry, I know not probably what you wanted to hear ... !!

 

Have you had your agreement checked out to make sure its correctly executed ?

 

Robin x.

Link to post
Share on other sites

are there any unlawful charges, or missold PPI? is the arrears amount on the dn accurate?

although, technically, failure to comply with para 5b of the 1983 regs is a breach of statute, it's a question of what effect this failure on its own has in practice!

are you sure that the dates are compliant? don't forget to allow for 'service'. 2 days if 1st class, 4 days if 2nd class, excluding bank hols.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another question regarding this DN please. It states the amount that needs to be paid to remedy the breach £xxx ( which equals one months payment plus £50 of charges, £25 for sending a letter, and £25 for issuing a default notice), is this allowed? or am I clutching at straws now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received a letter from a DCA (who I understand to be the in house dca for this bank), on the 9th day following service of my DN, a demand for full payment of outstanding balance some £11000 odd. Does this automatically mean they have failled to give me the statutary 14 days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we're talking ..... but we may need to proceed with caution ....

 

A DN is the legal opportunity for you the Debtor, being in breach of your original credit agreement in having missed payment(s), to remedy the breach/default by paying the outstanding monies, whereby the agreement is treated as if the default never happened ... (i.e in-effect putting you back to the start ... whereby if you default again the cycle re-starts).

 

However, 9 days into your service period, they demand the full amount. That means that in paying the full amount you wouldn't be putting the ball back to sqaure one as it were, but would be completely redeaming your loan and therefore ending your agreement.

 

So they are guilty of unlawful repudiation of the agreement, in that they have not allowed you sufficient time to remedy the breach (i.e 14 days from service) - which is against the CCA74.

 

Now then .... that being said we have a slight problem with the recent Brandon case .....

 

The bones of the Brandon case is that the Debotor argued that the Debtor had not given sufficient time in the DN for them to remedy, which rendered the agreement unenforceable ... whereby it was argued by the Creditor & accepted by the Judge .. that regardless of the time given for remedy, the Debtor had no intention to remedy the breach regardless - and therefore the error in time for remedy was academic ....... the Judge acceped this and found for the Creditor..!! I don't want to frighten you (I'm in this position myself with a few creditors), but I think its important to be armed with anything that may rear its head in Court, it just means that you're prepared.

 

But technically and in strict regard to the CCA74 - they are guilty of unlawful repudiation and have thereby lost the benefit of s87, in that they can not claim any sum due in the future, and have lost that right forever. Maybe worry about the Brandon case if you're skidding into Court with them .. !!

 

They are legally only able to claim the genuine arrears (which I don't think can include penalty charges, as they are not technically credit repayments so are technically not genuine arrears /missed payments under the agreement).

 

If this were me, I would accept their unlawful repudiation of the agreement and tell them that they have thereby lost the benefit of s87, I don't think I would tell them why they have achieved unlawful repudiation - but thats up to you - you could leave them to work it out for themselves. (I also wouldn't tell them about them being legally due the arrears under the agreement, let them find that out for themselves too).

 

See what they come back with ... !!

 

PS =- don't know if this has been raised .. but have you absolutely gone throught your CCA with a fine tooth comb ... you're looking for errors or omissions.

 

 

So you're checking:-

  • That the amount borrowed, the term and monthly repayments in the CCA are correct to what you did borrow, what you were paying per month etc
  • Have you checked the APR is correct ?
  • As Ford says .. any PPI ... if so did you want it, need it, afford it, felt pressured into buying it (to be accepted for the credit/loan) ?

Check .. check ... and check again .... the devil's very much in the detail ... and could give you another pronged attack ..

 

Robin x

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks robinredbreast for your reply, i will indeed proceed with caution. Thanks for the advice. The agreement is from 2008 so my understanding is that even if there were errors in the original agreement they can be enforced through the courts. No ppi with loan either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

imo

the t and c's of a cca regulated agreement cannot override the cca. ie 'your statutory rights are not affected'! s87 specifically states that a DN in the prescribed form must be served where a creditor 'by reason of any default' seeks termination, any sum not yet due etc. don't know the full facts of the brandon case but, if the J held that the term'n clause in a regulated agreement overruled the requirements of the cca (if relevant) then the decision would be wrong in law. the general Q is though, as there is no statutory remedy for a s87/88 breach, what effect does a breach of S87/88 have in the particular circumstances!?

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

No ... errors or omissisons from or under the CCA74, no matter WHEN the agreement is from means that it MAY be unenforceable in court - its just that post 2007 Creditors tended to be aware of the faults and tightend up the CCAs .... but there are still errors in post 2007 CCAs .. and yours may be one of them..

 

Have you posted the CCA up for everyone to have a look at ?

 

Robin x

Edited by robinredbreast
typo .. oops !
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the replys. I haven't actually requested the agreement, though I think it was done online. I will do so now.

 

I think I have found a way of posting DN and DCA letter. Please could someone check dates for me, is the important date on the DCA letter the day it was written or received by me? The amount demanded by Albion is the full balance

 

DN from AA Finance was sent UKMail2 (2nd class I presume)

Letter from Albion was sent UKMail1 (1st class?)

 

I have both envelopes.

 

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa365/gotnomoney1/Defaultpage1a.jpg

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa365/gotnomoney1/Defaultpage2a.jpg

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa365/gotnomoney1/Albion.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Ok ... AA DN - dated (Friday) 14 Aug 2010 & you say sent 2nd class - which means 4 day delivery period from getting into postal system.

 

  • Written on a Friday - so wouldn't have gone into the mail system until Monday (IMHO) which gives us a date of 16 August 2010
  • plus 4 days travelling time gives us earliest delivery of Fri 20 Aug or latest delivery time of Sat 21 Aug 2010. (lets use the 21st :razz:)
  • plus 14 prescribed calender days for remedy gives us a remedy date of Sat 4 September 2010 - but we have a bank holiday in this time frame on Monday 30 May 2010 - so that takes it down to 13 days. (and a correct date for remedy of 5 Sept 2010)
  • so the DN is 1 day short IF received on Sat 21 Aug 2010 - however IF recd on Friday 20 Aug 2010 then we have the required time period allowed as denoted in the DN of 4 Sept 2010

  • The letter from Albion is dated Sunday 29 August 2010 - and you say sent 1st class (=2 days svc).
  • It would have gone into the postal system on Tuesday 31 May 2010 (remember Monday 30 May was a bank holiday)
  • So that gives us a receipt time of 2 Septermber or 3 September - both dates still (just) before the DN cited cut off date of 4 Sept 2010.

So unlawful repudiation occured by Albions pre-empted letter of 29 August - clearly guessing that you were not going to remedy the DN issued by AA -- how far sighted of them .. do you think they'll give me tonights lottery numbers !!!!

 

Hope this makes sense ... or is it as clear as mud !!??

 

 

Hope this helps ...

 

Robin x

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA them for sure.

I had a 2008 agreement which I did online, they wrote back saying they had no documentation from when I had opened the account. I had only done a SAR for charges.

From what I gather they would still need to prove that you had an agreement with them and lets be honest if there was no paperwork theres always the chance technology went wrong etc. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound advice .... so your next move is

 

  • request a cca
  • scan and post up - whereby everyone will give their opinion
  • if its an iffy CCA we will tell them that & accept unlawful repudiation
  • if its an ok CCA .. we still accept unlawful repudiation and see what their next move is ....
  • then we plot your next move ... :-)

Robin .. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

robin

 

you state a bank hol in may! did you mean the august bank hol? in any event, AFAIK, a bank hol counts as one of the '14 days'. (but a bank hol doesn't count re as a 'working' day re 'service' period?) so, imo, it seems that the dn dates are ok even if 2nd class. but, as you say, it seems that they may have demanded the full amount before the 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...