Jump to content


New compliant DN produced for Court proceedings as original DN was invalid


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2839 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 all

I have had a claim progress against me for an old CC debt and I have just received the reply to my defence from the Claimants solicitors. In this reply, they have included a DN that is different to the one they sent me back in 2009. This new one looks to be compliant, whereas the original DN had (1) demanded full repayment of debt and (2) did not allow me full time to repay.

 

Also, the original creditor never actually sent me a Termination Notice but they did sell the debt to another DCA prior to the date on their DN and that DCA then contacted me (again prior to the date on the DN) to arrange payment.

 

So my question is: how does the fact they are producing a different DN in court work? What does this mean to their Claim and my Defence?

 

Thanks

JG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the claimant and sol? Any dcas involved.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like MBNA...

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you have the actual DN they sent you in 2009?

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - you guys are quick!!

Yes, I have the original DN from 2009

The dates are the same on both the original and the new DN (Service date = 9th Oct; rectification date = 26th Oct)

Differences = original was asking for full payment as the credit agreement allowed for it; new one is asking for a reduced amount (supposedly the arrears) as well as informing me of the account balance, which corresponds with the amount demanded in the original. Plus there are some obvious differences in layout, etc.

JG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder what the court says when its revealed the dn has been fabricated to mislead the court

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mike_Hawk

Not sure what your question is? Could you rephrase?

JG

 

Typing with sausage fingers on my phone so my posts tend to be short :-)

 

Is it a capquest/MBNA assignment from the last quarter of 2009 and has it (claimant) relied on a default notice being served within its particulars of claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or MBNA/Hillesden?

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MBNA was OC then it went to Varde/Experto and now with Aktiv

You are correct in that they are relying upon statutory Notice of Default served by MBNA in their POC; no wonder they want to get it right for the Courts :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening

Need full details of this dispute from outset to as of the date hereofplease.

Please provide a chronology of events that led to service of 1stinvalid statutory default notice by the creditor.

For instance, your circumstances obviously changed and this affected yourfinancial status and ability to maintain your obligation to make the monthlypayments under the agreement; (no offence intended and certainly nothing to be embarrassedabout – we are all in debt) did you communicate this fact to your creditor anddid you make any offer to pay the debt at a reduced rate for a period of time(temporary agreement) and did your creditor accept any such offer from you?

How many months of missed payments had you fallen behind with at thedate of service of the 1st invalid default notice?

Was there any correspondence exchanged between you and your creditor inrelation to the arrears on the account that you may be able to rely upon otherthan the 2 inconsistent DNs?

Did you receive a Notice of assignment from the creditor to inform youthat he had sold the account contract to the DCA/new owner?

Can you post up the Claimants’ POC please?

Can you post up your Defence to his POC and can you also please post upthe Claimants’ Reply to your Defence which had the new (and invented) defaultnotice attached thereto. Minus allpersonal details of course.

Finally, (for now anyway) how old is the agreement and what is theamount claimed?

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mould

Thanks for your considered response/questions which I will need some time to pull answers together to. This will also be my attempt at my defence.

 

However, in looking at some of the other paperwork, I note that the CCA is virtually correct except for the fact that it does not have a Credit Limit on the page I signed. The Credit Limit is on page 2, along with a reference number. Very strange. Would this fact alone be enough to show that the CCA is not compliant with section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (it was taken out in Aug 2005)?

 

Thanks

JG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mould

Thanks for your considered response/questions which I will need some time to pull answers together to. This will also be my attempt at my defence.

 

However, in looking at some of the other paperwork, I note that the CCA is virtually correct except for the fact that it does not have a Credit Limit on the page I signed. The Credit Limit is on page 2, along with a reference number. Very strange. Would this fact alone be enough to show that the CCA is not compliant with section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (it was taken out in Aug 2005)?

 

Thanks

JG

 

Does the first page have a 'page one' on it and does the second page have 'page 2'?

 

As long as the two pages can be linked, page number, code etc it will be classed as one document so the credit limit would be classed as included in the agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mould

Thanks for your considered response/questions which I will need some time to pull answers together to. This will also be my attempt at my defence.

 

However, in looking at some of the other paperwork, I note that the CCA is virtually correct except for the fact that it does not have a Credit Limit on the page I signed. The Credit Limit is on page 2, along with a reference number. Very strange. Would this fact alone be enough to show that the CCA is not compliant with section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (it was taken out in Aug 2005)?

 

Thanks

JG

Good afternoon JG

As the agreement is a two-page document and the credit limit is statedon the 2nd page, I believe that the Court would find that it is aproperly executed agreement pursuant to CCA Act 1974 (as amended).

At the present time, your saving grace in this matter would appear tobe the fabricated DN.

Sorry as regards my earlier post and all questions therein, I am simplytrying to obtain a full picture of the claim against you and how it came about,which in turn may help me to help you succeed against this claim.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...