Adjourned with liberty to restore, hpi agreement

[littlefatbudha]

Please, could anybody help with some advice.

 

 

If an agreement was defaulted s87 1, then Terminated, then proceeded to court, and at court an order was made to adjourn with a liberty to restore, would...................

 

 

1) the agreement be restored.

 

 

2) The Termination revoked

 

 

3) The Default removed

 

 

The way I see it, if the agreement was not put back prior to the creditors actions, then surely the account would still be terminated, am I right or wrong.

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

Happy New Year !!

[AndyOrch]

Liberty to restore means the claim...not the agreement .....that's terminated and can never be resurrected.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[littlefatbudha]

Thanks for the reply. !

 

 

 

 

I was just wondering, as everything was returned to the way it was before default/termination, ie monthly payments etc, it was like the agreement had been reactivated

[Peterbard]

The status of the account should be returned to the condition it was in prior to the notice if the section 87 was either remedied or was defective. This does not mean that the account will be reactivated however, it does mean that they should not be a able to claim early repayment of any sums due under the contract, only the arrears (if not already paid in order to remedy).

 

The recording of the default on your credit file is a different matter and as long as it accurately reflects s the payment record of your account will remain.

[littlefatbudha]

Thanks.

 

This has already been to court, the dj did state the default defective as the claimants name and address were missing.

 

As this was mentioned , would I be able to remove from cra.

[citizenB]

Thanks.

 

This has already been to court, the dj did state the default defective as the claimants name and address were missing.

 

As this was mentioned , would I be able to remove from cra.

 

A default Notice and the Default reporting on credit files are two totally different actions.

 

 

The Default Notice is a statutory requirement. A valid default notice needs to be issued prior to any further actions.. eg, terminating the account, issuing a claim.

 

The Default reporting to the CRAs should accurately reflect the status of the account - so if you were behind or missed payments, then this will be recorded.

 

So if this is correct, then I do not think you will be able to have the default markers removed.

[Peterbard]

A default Notice and the Default reporting on credit files are two totally different actions.

 

 

The Default Notice is a statutory requirement. A valid default notice needs to be issued prior to any further actions.. eg, terminating the account, issuing a claim.

 

The Default reporting to the CRAs should accurately reflect the status of the account - so if you were behind or missed payments, then this will be recorded.

 

So if this is correct, then I do not think you will be able to have the default markers removed.

 

CB is right I am afraid.

 

Unless you can show that the marker should not have been recorded in the first place.

 

I am not sure what" liberty to restore" means ?

 

Is it a court protocol which will allow them to re-issue the claim once they resolve the DN issue ?

[AndyOrch]

CB is right I am afraid.

 

Unless you can show that the marker should not have been recorded in the first place.

 

I am not sure what" liberty to restore" means ?

 

Is it a court protocol which will allow them to re-issue the claim once they resolve the DN issue ?

 

 

See post#2

[Peterbard]

See post#2

 

Hmm does not sound to good then, I take that the case has not been discontinued so they can just issue a compliant DN and re enforce on the same claim ?

[AndyOrch]

No it has nothing to do with the actual claim...that is frozen on the day they issued it...it simply means that they can and have permission to restore the claim

[Peterbard]

No it has nothing to do with the actual claim...that is frozen on the day they issued it...it simply means that they can and have permission to restore the claim

 

Sorry this is not my area, does this mean that they can submit a compliant DN as new evidence in the existing claim

[mjt2013]

Sorry this is not my area, does this mean that they can submit a compliant DN as new evidence in the existing claim

 

What is means is that the *claim* can be brought back to court for a hearing at any time if either party applies for it but at the moment it is on ice with no decision made. I imagine the judge did this so that a compliant DN could be served and the matter brought back to court quickly and cheaply.

[Peterbard]

What is means is that the *claim* can be brought back to court for a hearing at any time if either party applies for it but at the moment it is on ice with no decision made. I imagine the judge did this so that a compliant DN could be served and the matter brought back to court quickly and cheaply.

 

 

Thanks, so presumably the OP would get another chance to remedy first

[AndyOrch]

Thanks, so presumably the OP would get another chance to remedy first

 

 

Not if the account is terminated...which it is... because the claim has been issued....trial adjourned with liberty to restore. Cant go back and alter the evidence.

[Peterbard]

Not if the account is terminated...which it is... because the claim has been issued....trial adjourned with liberty to restore. Cant go back and alter the evidence.

 

That is good

[littlefatbudha]

Thanks for all your views.

 

 

I was trust trying to see if I had a chance to get default removed, but does not sound good !!