Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all   I will dive straight into my scenario.    I have a personal Barclaycard credit card that I defaulted on in first half of 2015.  This debt has been bought out by Hoist in 2019.  I have not made payments since the first half of 2015 to the account. I am pretty sure I have not acknowledged the debt to the DCA that occasionally contacted me since then The six year anniversary of the default will arrive in the first half of 2021. I recently received a 'Letter of Claim' from Howard Cohen Solicitors informing me of Hoists intention to issues proceedings in the County Court for the outstanding amount. The letter states I have 30 days in which to reply.  The letter states that it is written in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt claims. They have provided a brief summary of the outstanding debt but not the original signed agreement.  My feeling is that the pressure is being ramped up because of the upcoming six year anniversary of the default.   I am not sure whether I should; A). Ignore the letter (if so what are the consequences). B). Stall for a little more time until the six year anniversary of the default arrives, and whether engaging with them too has its own set of consequences. C). Pay too much attention to the six year anniversary of the default  - as I am not sure if a debt becomes automatically statute barred after six years in which I have not acknowledged that debt.    Like many, I have been hit by Covid economically.  I have not worked most of this year.  I am operating at substantial loss with funds fast drying up. The work position doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I am not claiming benefits or anything.   Any suggestions for plan of action would be gratefully received.   Thank you   Arthur M.                        
    • Hi Manxman, Yes, the contract was signed on-line and I'm relying on s31 of CCR.  I think what you are alluding to is the fact that if the contract started within the first 14days and if it was commenced with the expressed consent of the consumer (on a durable medium such as letter or email not phone call or webforms), then the consumer has to be pay for the portion of the services that was provided. Also, if the service has already been completed (which is not the case here as the service will be completed after 12months from the commencement of the tenancy which never commenced) then, full service fee is payable. In this case, no express consent was given - I have checked all my emails to them so they cannot charge for the portion of the services either i.e. arranging some viewings and finding a prospective tenant. In fact, I offered to pay for the reference check costs but they want it all. There was an implementing guidance on CCR2013 which categorically says that the regulation applies to letting agent's services - I have attached it here. At the end of the day, regulations are regulations and if anything, consumer is recognized as the weaker bargaining party as the contract was created by the business. Please google Robertson vs Swift - case prior to CCR 2013 came in where the supreme court ruled in favour of the consumer and went above and beyond what the regulation said at the time (although it derived some criticism).  bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance (1).pdf
    • No I didn't, in 2018 my laptop was unable to download open office.   I have attached the ci sheet from 2017, with all the charges listed up to then.   StatIntSheet v101 Charges V2.xls
    • According to MCOL,the claim was registered as issued on 23 November so that makes it 12 December by my reckoning-I wasn't sure if you counted the 14 days from the 5th day or the day after so I went for the latest possible date.
    • nickpatel - presumably you entered into this contract with the agent off-premises if you were thinking of possibly trying to use s31 of the CCR?   If that is the case then I was under the impression (although I may well be mistaken) that the 14 day cancellation right was lost in the case of a contract for services, if the provision of those services commenced within the 14 day period, which would make whether or not you were informed of the right a moot point as it would no longer apply(?).   In any case, I'm also a bit surprised that a situation could arise where the initial "cancellation period" of a contract for services could be extended to over 12 months.  It seems a bit extreme to me that the 14 day off-premises cancellation provisions would apply here.  But I may be wrong.   I tend to agree with BankFodder that you'd be on firmer ground arguing the amount of the fee claimed (for a full year) is unfair.  But I'm not sure you could get away with arguing that you owe nothing - even though there is no tenancy agreement.  The agent seems to have done what they agreed to do, but you decided to reject the prospective tenant on the grounds that they were not "transparent"(?) because they wanted to view the property for a third time.  I'm not sure a court would find that reasonable on your part and would probably consider that the agent deserves to be paid in some respect for their work in finding that prospective tenant.   I think I'd be trying to settle on a reasonable sum rather than arguing that there was no liability at all.
  • Our picks

Adjourned with liberty to restore, hpi agreement


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2525 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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 !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...