Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Regarding faulty Default Notice & Termination


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4493 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

Well, here we are at AD2012 - I wonder what surprises nasty or otherwise our useless political leaders have up their sleeves for us this year - no doubt we shall find out in due course.

 

In the meantime, I have a problem and would be grateful for a few thoughts on the matter...

 

Mindful of the various changes that the judges have taken upon themselves to come up with over the last year or two, I recall that whilst a Default Notice can be corrected at any time simply by the creditor submitting a new one (as often as he wishes that is until he gets it right) I also seem to recall that if the creditor makes no effort to correct a faulty DN, then terminates, (17 days later in this case) that is the end of the matter and all they can claim are the arrears.

 

The claim of arrears equally applying to a DCA as they have sold it to Caboot who is claiming the whole lot - ignoring the faulty termination.

 

The Default Notice I refer to did not allow the full 14 days for 2nd class post - it was 5 days short.

 

... and I did accept the termination in writing some months later.

 

Comments of all shades are welcome and appreciated - thanks or otherwise in advance :-)

 

Happy New Year to all - hope all your dreams come true :cheer2:

Edited by charlie*
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that IF it is 'sold' to a DCA, then yes, only the arrears can be claimed as it was UR when the OC had it, and they failed to correct their mistake. But I could be wrong?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BB, yes, I have their NoA - printed by the DC but on the OC's letter heading.

 

As a matter of interest, I did an SAR to the DCA. The very last two statements from the OC did not show the bottom line - all the others did over four years did so I'm going to submit an SAR to the OC - I can't help but feel that the bottom lines might have been deliberately deleted.

 

Thanks

 

charlie*

(RS att'd 29 Field - 25pdrs)

(RS att'd 2 RHA - Sextons)

(then other places)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well chaps,

 

I'd really like to dig a little deeper into this - but I don't have much time left to come up with an answer.

 

If I used the faulty DN (say 5 days short of 14 days) is there any history herein of a DCA challenging that in court? - 'cos if they did and the judge found for them, then the sh-item-toc would sure be flying in this house.

 

Any thoughts - anyone?

 

Many thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent hearing on the Brandon v Amex case is on on your side - It was found that an agreement cannot be enforced on the back of a non compliant DN. Also look up Harrison v Link Financial.

 

If it is 5 days short of the 14 days then it is clearly not compliant. If it is not compliant you could consider applying for an SJ as it is a statutory requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent hearing on the Brandon v Amex case is on on your side - It was found that an agreement cannot be enforced on the back of a non compliant DN. Also look up Harrison v Link Financial.

 

If it is 5 days short of the 14 days then it is clearly not compliant. If it is not compliant you could consider applying for an SJ as it is a statutory requirement.

 

I read through the Brandon appeal and the way I see it, he lost - so I'm not sure what you mean - un less there has been something more recent ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to the Brandon Appeal

 

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

 

This Paragraph may help.

 

 

  1. Thirdly, if, as a matter of construction, the Default Notice has not or may not have allowed the minimum statutory period for Mr. Brandon to remedy the breach, then it is (at least) realistically arguable that the defect cannot be overlooked as de minimis. To my mind, this conclusion applies both to the failure to allow a minimum 14 day period and to the absence of prejudice flowing from the defect in the Default Notice. Insofar as DJ Gisby and HHJ Denyer thought otherwise, I am, with respect, unable to agree.

And Brandon won

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a DN is not faulty, they can terminate, as there is a clause in the contract which allows a process i.e. serve a DN- wait for the agreed time- terminate and sell. In fact there is usually a clause stating 'we can ask for the whole amount back at any time with a period of notice'.

 

If a DN is faulty, any action they take is non consequencial and doesn't affect the contract, as they have not followed the correct procedure, so the contract is still in place or 'not terminated' as they can not terminate under a faulty DN, hence the ruling they just need to serve a valid DN.

 

So the situation you are in is simple (in my small mind anyway!!)- The new owner has bought a live contract and you are liable for the whole amount.

 

I might be wrong, but as I tell the girlfriend its very very rare!! ha ;)

 

I definitely would not go to court as the claimant under ANY circumstance, and would not go as the defendant with a DN as my defence. Seriously you will lose. That is in the same realm as 'i didn't sign as it was online' and 'they have my address spelt wrong'. Forget it.

 

You would be better working out a payment plan if your hard up and they have a valid agreement. If they still take you to court because you don't offer what they want, you will only pay what you can afford (the system will protect you) and they can go whistle for their ridiculous demands!!

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but i have to take issue with the above as it is highly misleading.

 

I strongly disagree with the above in regards to going to court with the faulty DN - and the statement that the OP would lose. I am afraid that is just not correct - a Court cannot enforce an agreement on the back of a faulty DN.

 

A faulty DN is a bar to enforcement. This has now been decided on in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and is binding on the lower Courts.

 

Charlie - if you are being taken to court the faulty DN is a defence in itself, and i know of counsel that has stated that as a compliant DN is statutory requirement - a faulty DN is a statutory failure and so a statutory judgement can be applied for.

 

I would suggest to you if a case is pending that you simply use the faulty DN - backed up by case law - as a defence.

 

The Creditor can off course issue a compliant DN and re-issue the claim - but will they?

 

You say the agreement has been sold - have you ever recieved a compliant Notice of Assignment?

Also have you ever made a formal CCA request to the new owners of the agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe 'you will lose' was a bit definitive!

 

However you won't be better off. They will leave court, issue a valid one and then they can enforce the agreement and the courts can as well (therefore effectively losing!)

 

I agree there is an argument for the DN but the courts are just telling the creditors to issue a valid one before the court can enforce

 

So i am not sure why you would send a person to court on the back of an argument that can be simply rectified and put them back to square one?

 

It would be better to see to be trying to pay a nominal amount (if there is a valid agreement) so when it ends up in court the judge will be somewhat more empathetic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alloyz1

 

Is it as simple as the creditor issuing a new DN? I think that that is where the problem is. They have to be sure that the new DN is compliant in every respect including amount to rectify. If it was as simple as issuing a new DN, why didn't Amex issue one? Why did they try the section 76 route instead?

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it has to be compliant in every respect but surely they can work out what is compliant and issue it (as far as the statutary requirements are concerned)

 

The OP hasn't mentioned why the DN was invalid but from the first post they mention time scales and not figures, so I imagine its all about the structure of the document as opposed to the detail in the figures.

 

s76 assumes there is a valid agreement. Trying to enforce that without one would be futile. OP has not mentioned staus of the agreement i.e. valid invalid lost etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alloyz

 

I agree that the OP said that the DN was invalid due to time scales. The account was subsequently sold to a DCA. So who issues the new DN? If the DCA, then they have to prove that they have a right to collect. They would also need to stipulate what clause of the agreement had been breached. Who calculates what is now owing on the DN - remember a certain amount of time has elapsed since the original DN. I would suggest that it would only have been the full amount that either the OC or DCA would have been demanding, so I would guess that they have not issued any arrears statements since they issued the DN, any claim for arrears on the new DN must take this into account. Dont forget that they are not allowed to include interest payments, unless arrears notices have been sent on a regular basis.

 

They have had 34 years in which to issue a compliant DN, and very few manage it. If they cannot get a simple thing like giving you enough time to comply to the DN, what makes you think they will get everything else right in the re-issued one?

 

My OH has a CC account on which an invalid DN was issued. That account was subsequently sold to a DCA. It was never subject to court action, but we informed both the DCA and the OC that the DN was invalid on several points. Although the OC originally stated that they believed the DN to be valid, they still bought the account back, and subsequently agreed that the DN was faulty. They have threatened to issue a new DN, but they still havent done it two years later, and have also removed the defaults from my OH's credit file. As I have said, I do not think it is always as easy as supplying a new DN.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Alan

 

If it works for some, great.

 

Maybe I have simplified the process a bit too much, but if they have all the info, it would be straight forward . I wouldn't want to rely on it though, thats my own opinion.

 

If all the OP has is a DN thats invalid, they have no option but to defend on that, however I would personally look for something a little more, cut and dry rather than a 'can they cant they' situation.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alloyz1

 

I agree with you inasmuch as if the OC had issued the invalid DN shortly before any court claim, then it is only a matter of ironing out the faults, and carrying on with the case. Where I think it does get a little cloudier, is when the account is sold and a certain amount of time has elapsed.

 

I am still not sure about a live agreement being sold to a DCA. I know that for example Goldfish sold their accounts to Barclays. I have no issue with that because Barclaycard can continue to issue credit cards the agreement remains substantially the same. However although DCA's hold credit licences, how many are in a position to issue credit cards? If the DCA issues a new DN, and the breach is addressed by the debtor, then the debtor is supposed to be put in the position of "as if the breach had never occured". Yet they cannot put you back in that position, because the agreement you have with them is flawed insofar as they cannot issue a credit card. The agreement states it is a credit card agreement, how can that still be valid if the DCA cannot issue credit cards? I agree the DCA owns the debt.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have CC account that was sold to a DCA before expiry of the DN and a letter from the OC received recently returning some charges and in that letter it states the account is closed,how can they issue another DN 2 years later when the account has been sold and in their words closed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they would not need to issue a card, they would just be assigned the benefit of the agreement. Under the agreement they can withdraw any credit facility, whenever they like!

 

So they would cancel the card, keep taking/ asking for the minimum payment or execute s76 and give notice they would like the full amount..... please!!

 

They would only be interested in profiting on the small amount they paid for the debt........

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have CC account that was sold to a DCA before expiry of the DN and a letter from the OC received recently returning some charges and in that letter it states the account is closed,how can they issue another DN 2 years later when the account has been sold and in their words closed?

 

Because they issued a faulty DN the agreement was never terminated (it cant be under a faulty DN) so they sold it 'live'. The new owner could issue a valid one though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they issued a faulty DN the agreement was never terminated (it cant be under a faulty DN) so they sold it 'live'. The new owner could issue a valid one though.

 

If the debt purchaser instigates court action could you simply keep quiet regarding your faulty DN, spring it on them at the last moment backed by relevant case law and then let them issue again. At least you would be making life difficult! Or am I completely of track here!

 

A quick question; if a debt has been sold, should unfair charges, PPI etc be claimed from the OC or purchaser?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the OP has is a DN thats invalid, they have no option but to defend on that, however I would personally look for something a little more, cut and dry rather than a 'can they cant they' situation.

 

Have to agree on this point to a degree - but there is not a 'can they can't they' situation, as far as the DN is concerned, - it's a simple they can't.

 

Not all DCA's will want to issue a new compliant DN and go back to Court.

 

Would agree that it would be better to have other arguements to use in defence, such as non compliance with a CCA request, invalid NOA, or problems with the agreement itself, (have they supplied a signed copy - is it a multiple agreement etc).

 

Then there is also the possibility of claiming back PPI and charges etc. making it uneconomical for the creditor to pursue. However the OP has asked a specific question on the DN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...