Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1665 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

 

Is there a legal requirement for a default notice to have been issued before a claim can be entered against you for a credit card debt? If so can you please refer me to the legislation.

 

Its a long story but it appears that a judgement was issued even though the judge was aware that there was no proof of a default notice having been issued.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing stopping a claim being made. You would have to defend and include that a default notice was not issued to you, so you had no chance to remedy the debt when it was subject to default. If the claimant then managed to get something from the original creditors confirming that a default notice would have been issued, i don't think they have to supply an actual copy of the notice that was issued.

 

If you read schedule 11 from the 2006 amendment to CCA, on page 11 of this link, it explains it.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/14/pdfs/ukpgaen_20060014_en.pdf

 

I am no expert in this and you would need to advise on the process you have been through. Particulars of claim and any defence you entered.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a std default rubberstamped judgement whereby nothing is checked

if you dont defend they don't have to prove anything!!

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, it was defended. Examples of other cases where default agreements had not been issued produced. But Judge said they were not relevant for some reason.

 

So is there anything in law that states a default notice needs to be issued ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

really

 

 

heres something from my records..

by andyorch..

 

 

Default notices, litigation and section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act July 2010

.

For a creditor to enforce a credit agreement against the debtor,

he must serve the latter with a default notice,

this notice must be served in accordance with section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

.

Generally, the prescribed form of a default notice according section 88 is as follows:

.

"The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

.

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it

and the date before which that action is to be taken;

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach,

and the date before which it is to be paid."

.

Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

.

Should the debtor be sued for the outstanding amount,

it may be open to the debtor to raise an argument that the agreement is unenforceable

because it does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations.

.

Agreements executed before 6 April 2007 are subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA').

Agreements entered into after that date are not by operation of the repeal under the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

.

The effect of sections 127 (3) & (4) truly displays the paternalistic nature of the CCA, in that where a breach of a prescribed term under regulation 6 and schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 is found, the agreement as a whole will be irredeemably unenforceable.

.

In other words, the lender cannot enforce the agreement or realise any surety under that agreement; the debt in effect is written off.

Regards

Andy

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, it was defended. Examples of other cases where default agreements had not been issued produced. But Judge said they were not relevant for some reason.

 

What does that sentence mean? Do you mean default notice rather than agreement?

 

The original creditor wouldn't retain an actual DN as they are generated at the time. They would (should) be able to supply the template used with the empty fields showing and should be able to show it in their comms log.

 

Did you just claim in your defence you never received a DN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone

 

Many thanks for your replies!

 

 

As mentioned it is a very very long story spanning over 6 years

involving a totally incompetent firm of solicitors (no longer around!) who were defending for me but spent over two years lying to me and covering up their incompetences.

 

Once the dust has settled a bit and I get all the paperwork, I will do a write-up.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I bet we can guess who that was....

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi

 

Does this make sense to anybody:-

 

" In relation to the xxx Agreement, 'alleged creditor' conceded the points concerning lack of provision of a default notice and adjusted the value of their claim as a result. The judge was prepared to accept that the debt was due as a result; "

 

To me its saying the creditor admitted there was no default notice, twisted something and the Judge accepted that alleged debt was due.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not allowed sorry

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh ok...that was supposed to be a separate thread.

 

Can someone please comment on

 

"" In relation to the xxx Agreement, 'alleged creditor' conceded the points concerning lack of provision of a default notice and adjusted the value of their claim as a result. The judge was prepared to accept that the debt was due as a result; "

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've merged threads as they are linked

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

Does this make sense to anybody:-

 

" In relation to the xxx Agreement, 'alleged creditor' conceded the points concerning lack of provision of a default notice and adjusted the value of their claim as a result. The judge was prepared to accept that the debt was due as a result; "

 

To me its saying the creditor admitted there was no default notice, twisted something and the Judge accepted that alleged debt was due.

 

Thanks

 

No ...because we do not have all the details of the debt or the claim or your defence etc.

 

If you would care to complete the link and flesh the bones then we can give you a substantiated qualified response

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-2016**

 

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...