Brandon Case

[Fluffystuff]

Simply the best news. Woo hoo !!

[the_shadow]

I think it mainly states that the judge cannot override statute.

 

Hmm havent time to read it fully as at work but see the judge is concerned about the new contractual termination terms in open ended agreements.

 

S.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Im still confused ( doesnt take much ) ;-) looks like a win, but doesnt really go into too much other detail, ie could the account be terminated on the back of a dodgy dn, can amex now rectfiy the matter or is the account terminated beyond repair?can amex still persue through the courts?

 

It came across to me as the courts didnt really want to go with Brandon, but had no choice as its statue

 

I do particularly like this bit though from the judgement ;-)

 

iii) Finally, the Judge dealt with the submission by counsel then appearing for Amex (viz., Ms Urell, who did not appear before DJ Gisby but has appeared as junior counsel before us) that the validity of the Default Notice did not matter because the agreement could have been terminated other than by relying on the Default Notice. As HHJ Rutherford put it:

" …The problem with that, and she may be right….is that this was not a point that was taken before the District Judge at all…..and therefore ….in considering whether or not to give permission to appeal it is a bit risky of me now to take into account something that was never argued before the District Judge. And, secondly, …..and maybe this is why it was not argued before the District Judge, …if you go down the default notice route then it really does not lie in your mouth afterwards to say, 'Well, we didn't give you 14 days but who cares. We could have done it some other way anyway.' If you decide to go down the default notice route it seems to me that it is certainly arguable that that is a route by which you are bound and which you must follow."

[dadofholly]

I must confess, after reading the judgement, I have no idea of the implications, other than that errors in service of a default notice are not minor and cannot be overlooked

.

 

To many DCA's have been using this case push through non compliant DN's on the basis that the errors were de minimis, when clearly they are not. I can think of one particular company that is going to struggle with this issue now.

[Old Cogger]

To many DCA's have been using this case push through non compliant DN's on the basis that the errors were de minimis, when clearly they are not. I can think of one particular company that is going to struggle with this issue now.

 

Which Company is that??? matter of interest.

[dadofholly]

Hfo

[Chipmeister]

Am about the read the judgment now! *sits back with a cuppa and a banana*

[dadofholly]

Am about the read the judgment now! *sits back with a cuppa and a banana*

 

Mind you dont poke your eye out with the sharp end

[Chipmeister]

Mind you dont poke your eye out with the sharp end

 

:@)

[rebel11]

So your going to dunk the banana in the cuppa - cool:-)

 

Am about the read the judgment now! *sits back with a cuppa and a banana*

[Old Cogger]

Mind you dont poke your eye out with the sharp end

 

Don!t talk Nana!s.

[24233513afw]

Brilliant news, I bet Mr Brandon will be relieved its bee a long haul for him. Well Done Mr Brandon.

 

Any chance somebody could give me a link to the judgement.

 

AFW

[dadofholly]

Link

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1187.html

[24233513afw]

brilliant news, i bet mr brandon will be relieved its bee a long haul for him. Well done mr brandon.

 

Any chance somebody could give me a link to the judgement.

 

Afw

 

 

found it....................

[Basil Fawlty]

Does this mean that Amex can now come back with a compliant DN and demand payment again?

 

BF

[ScarletPimpernel]

No, because they've already terminated the account.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, because they've already terminated the account.

 

Thankyou, I have a couple of accounts like this then

 

BF

[Basil Fawlty]

Just to check, if an account is sold to someone else before the 14 days on the DN is up, is this ''termination of the account''?

 

Bf

[DonkeyB]

Just to check, if an account is sold to someone else before the 14 days on the DN is up, is this ''termination of the account''?

 

Bf

 

No. They can sell it any time.

[Basil Fawlty]

No. They can sell it any time.

 

Thanks

 

BF

[stone-broke]

Well I guess I am not the only one dancing around the room with joy! My case has been pending on the outcome of Brandon's Case. It looks as though it has gone in my favour, but now sitting down with a coffee and highlighter to read through word for word......just in case!

Well done to Brandon

[Basil Fawlty]

Well I guess I am not the only one dancing around the room with joy! My case has been pending on the outcome of Brandon's Case. It looks as though it has gone in my favour, but now sitting down with a coffee and highlighter to read through word for word......just in case!

Well done to Brandon

 

Not too sure where I stand as I dont know if the account was terminated.

The OC firstly didn't give me the required 14 days and secondly the account was sold before the 14 days was up.

How do I know if the account was terminated?

(Not taking this thread off track as I believe its relevant to the whole DN question)

 

BF

[stone-broke]

Did you receive a DN?

[Basil Fawlty]

Did you receive a DN?

 

Yes, with not enough days when postage was taken into account

 

BF

[GuidoT]

The judgement twists and turns all over the place.

 

As you read through it, it is difficult to tell who really won, although unltimately Mr Brandon had the appeal allowed, so he did.

 

Do not like 'Mr. Brandon is a bad credit risk; for this conclusion, he has only himself to blame.'

 

Where next Amex, Supreme Court?