Default notice help.

[ashmk]

Can anyone look over this default notice and tell me where it stands. Invalid or not? Thanks.

 

[ashmk]

Link to image as the forum makes small images.

 

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9466/scan0080rrrrr.jpg

[mark13]

Can anyone look over this default notice and tell me where it stands. Invalid or not? Thanks.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22160[/ATTACH]

 

wouldn't claim to be an expert by any means but I have done a fair bit of reading on DN's recently and it seems to me that yours clearly doesn't given you the required 14 days to remedy.

 

Even disregarding a need to allow time for postage they only gave you 13 days from the date on the DN. 12 February would have been the 14th day but they clearly state payment is required BEFORE that date i.e. 11th or earlier.

 

In reality, as I understand it, they are actually even further short because the earliest assumed date of receipt would be 31 January and as such it it only provided 11 days to remedy.

[Bazooka Boo]

Unenforceable, they have only allowed 10 days to rectify, and thats if you received it on the day on the letter, so they have failed miserably to allow for postage, as this will undoubtedley have been sent TNT/walksort and most certainly not same day special delivery. Have they terminated the account?

You would presume so, in which case accept their unlawful rescision, job done, arrears only.

[ashmk]

Thanks Mark. Thanks BB.

 

The account has been sold on so I assume its been terminated.

 

Can you link any case's which will show how to go about using this as defense. I need to study something so I know the procedure.

[Peterbard]

Thanks Mark. Thanks BB.

 

The account has been sold on so I assume its been terminated.

 

Can you link any case's which will show how to go about using this as defense. I need to study something so I know the procedure.

 

Hi

 

Pleaase bare in mind the Brandon case recently decided, the crditors certainly will. If no enforcement action was taken within the 14 days then the court will take it that there was no predjudice and find for the creditor. If you had a termination notice within this pereiod you will stil be OK but if not then it is very risky.

[ashmk]

This is for a mate of mine.

He is a househusband, has a income of exactly £0 per year while his wife has a very good job. Its roles reserved, he looks after the kids etc.

Whats the worst that could happen?

[harrassed senior]

Well, if the account is in his name only, then not a lot!! Assuming he can prove no income end of story.

[Bazooka Boo]

Peter any chance you could link to that case please?

[Peterbard]

the judgement is not available on Balii the ful title is

 

American Express Services Europe PE Limited v Ian Karl Robert Brandon

[2010], Unreported, 25 May 2010

 

If you google this you will get a report from a few of the trade mags.

 

 

"In Mr Brandon’s case, the default notice was served on 19 June 2007 and demanded he made

payment “within 14 calendar days from the date of this default notice”. As service was deemed

after 19 June 2007, Mr Brandon argued that the time period for compliance was too short. It

therefore followed, so Mr Brandon argued, that the default notice did not give the statutory period

required by Section 88(2) and was therefore invalid. AMEX could not, therefore, rely upon it.

After hearing submissions, HHJ Roderick Denyer QC decided that because AMEX did not take

any steps until 11 July 2007 (when it wrote terminating the agreement) and Mr Brandon was not

prejudiced by a technical breach of Section 88(2), the default notice was valid and the agreement

had been properly terminated." Hamonds

 

I have a copy of the judgement but it is a photo copy on PDF.

 

I dont know if there is one on here

 

Peter

 

[Bazooka Boo]

Yep got it. Cheers.

http://www.hammonds.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=23087

 

From what I have read on there, IMO, is once again down to the DJ lottery, but I see what they are saying, that even though the DN did not state a specific date in which to rectify the account, and gave 14 calender days, because they did not take further enforcement action until 11th July, some 19 'working' days after they issued the DN and then Terminated the account, the technicality could not be upheld.

Food for thought most definitely..

[Peterbard]

Yep got it. Cheers.

http://www.hammonds.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=23087

 

From what I have read on there, IMO, is once again down to the DJ lottery, but I see what they are saying, that even though the DN did not state a specific date in which to rectify the account, and gave 14 calender days, because they did not take further enforcement action until 11th July, some 19 'working' days after they issued the DN and then Terminated the account, the technicality could not be upheld.

Food for thought most definitely..

 

 

 

Hi

Yes and unfortunately it does set a precedent in all lower courts.

This case is of course waiting for permission to appeal which should be ruled on the 6th December, but I am not hopeful , bearing in mind that the current appeal was a summary judgement in the first place.

It does seem unfair to me, the case could be raised that the debtor when given the shorter period and realising he could not raise the money in that time gave up and accepted the termination, whereas if he would have been given the correct time allowed he would have complied and remedied the breach. Even if the creditor would have given the requisite time after the stated period to the debtor it would have in this case made no difference.

Peter

[Jasper1965]

Looks like Amex were lucky to find a sympathetic Judge to me, doesn't he as part of the judgment completely over-rule the findings of the OFT test case ruling on unfair penalty charges on credit cards?

 

 

Would prejudice be incurred if the wrong date was given but the recipient would have experienced a pay day within time had the correct date been given and thus been in a position to meet the terms of the notice?

 

14 days permits two pay days for the weekly paid but 13 days or fewer may only give the recipient the benefit of 1 pay day, by the time the second has come the notice has already expired.

[rockabilly1]

It is a crappy judgement from a lazy/biased judge but the OFT Test Case had nowt to do with Credit cards just current account overdrafts. The reason the bnaks are paying out on credit cards claims is because of an oft document called "Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts" which says £12 is the max charge allowed but isn't binding on a county court judge!

[Undercover-Elsa]

Rumour has it that the Brandon case has been adjourned pending a hearing before two judges, date TBA.

 

Elsa x