Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

NAT WEST will not return my PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5433 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

  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have drafted the following letter but I am not happy with it.

 

Anyones comments gratefully accepted.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

In March 2007 I made a telephone call to NatWest cancelling Payment Protection Insurance on my credit card, stating that as I was now retired and unemployed, I had been paying PPI since 2002 unnecessarily, and that I intended to claim back any payments that had been made since my retirement.

 

I received by post a copy of Terms & Conditions dated 2006, which are irrelevant as they do not refer to the date I took out the credit card. I also made a Subject Access Request (S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)), for which I received a small table listing payments amounting to £198. No other information was forthcoming. which is a breach of guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading, and a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

In May I was served with a Default Notice, which I consider was served improperly. I requested a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement, as per section 78 of the CCA 1974, which allows at most 42 days for the creditor to supply.

 

At the end of June I was sent an illegally executed copy of an application form. This was almost completely illegible and had no prescribed terms in the document whatsoever. This renders the agreement unenforceable under the terms of the CCA1974, and to this date after several applications, I have still not received a legible copy. It therefore follows that as I have still not been sent a legal copy of the agreement NatWest are in breach of the above mentioned section of the CCA 1974, which is a criminal offence.

 

Since then, my case; although in serious legal dispute with NatWest, has been passed to several debt collection agencies and solicitors. This is contrary to guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading, as their regulations state that if a case is in serious legal dispute, it cannot be passed to other agencies.

 

At not time have I been informed that this issue was being passed to these agencies, and I consider this to be a clear breach of the guidelines, and all letters from these agencies may be used in a future case of harassment.

 

Until such time as NatWest can produce a completely legible and legally enforceable “true copy” of my Consumer Credit Agreement, I shall continue to ignore all letters and phone calls from any debt collection agency or solicitor.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

What can I say to improve it. :confused:

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

This is just a quick hack around for discussion...

 

The Company Secretary

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK plc

135 BISHOPSGATE

LONDON

EC2M 3UR

 

Date

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Please regard this as a Formal Complaint.

 

In March 2007 I made a telephone call to NatWest cancelling the wholly unnecessary Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) on my Credit Card. I made it clear that as I was now retired and no longer employed, I had been paying PPI since 2002 unnecessarily. As the bank would've known about my Retirement, I therefore made it clear that I intended to re-claim all PPI Payments that had been Paid in error since my retirement.

 

In response to my above Telephone Call, the bank then sent me a copy of some Terms & Conditions dated 2006. These Terms were irrelevant, as they were neither Current at the time the Card was first issued, and nor were they Current at the time of my Call.

 

In order to investigate this matter further, I exercised my Right under the Data Protection Act 1998, and sent the bank a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), including the Statutory Maximum Fee of £10.

 

In response to my SAR, I received a small table listing payments amounting to £198. No other information was forthcoming. I feel that my SAR remains outstanding, and I would be grateful if you would now respond in the required level of detail.

 

In view of the above, in May 2007 I then requested a copy of my properly executed Consumer Credit Card Agreement, as per section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I enclosed the Statutory Fee of £1. The timescale for responding to my Statutory request was 12 Working Days.

 

The bank then returned my Statutory fee, although this could have no effect on the validity of my s78(1) Request, as valid Payment had been presented to the bank.

 

Later in May 2007 I was served with a Default Notice, despite the fact that my Account was primarily over limit because of the PPI Charges that I was trying to reclaim. (don't mention the DN is invalid at this stage)!

 

Towards the end of June 2007, I was sent an improperly executed copy of an Application form. This Copy was almost completely illegible, so was not acceptable as a response to my s78(1) Request.

 

In any event, the Application had no Prescribed Terms, so was clearly not the Agreement that I had requested. My original s78(1) Request therefore remains outstanding.

 

Despite numerous reminders, my s78(1) Request remains outstanding at the time of writing.

 

Since then, although my alleged Account has remained in serious legal dispute, the Account has been passed to several Debt Collection Agencies and Solicitors. This is contrary to the Debt Collection Guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading.

 

Furthermore, at no stage have I been informed that the disputed Account was being passed to the above agencies, and I consider this to be a clear breach of the guidelines.

 

In addition, the bank was constrained by virtue of s78(6) from taking any such action, as you would've been well aware.

 

I have kept a Log of the Harassment that I have suffered at the hands of the above Agencies, and this may form the basis of a Harassment action that I may consider in the future if this matter is not resolved to my satisfaction.

 

I now require the bank to investigate this matter, and respond in a more professional way now that the above issues have been drawn to your attention once again.

 

In summary, my s78(1) Request remains outstanding, as does my SAR. I am hereby requesting a full break down of all PPI paid on the above Account, so that I can calculate the refund that I am now due. I will also be claiming a refund or cancellation of any Unlawful Charges that have been added to in error.

 

I look forward to your considered response.

 

Yours faithfully,

Maggiebroom

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many many thanks BRW. That puts exactly what I want to say in the correct manner.

I agree about the invalid DN, although I put it in, I was unsure about mentioning it at this stage.

 

I owe you one, you are a star.

 

Regards

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

No problem at all. It may need a little work to get it perfect, as it was just a quick Draft based on a fast skim of your helpful calendar of events.

 

One thing to make sure you pin down, is to establish that they have Terminated your Account. That means they will have no chance of being able to issue a valid Default Notice to fix the first one.

 

Ideally, you need to see if you have either a Letter from NastyWest saying the Account is Terminated, or you need a Request from either them or a DCA Demanding Full Payment.

 

The latter is effectively the same thing, as they cannot Demand Full Payment unless the Account has been Terminated, and unless they think they can enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

However, no need to say too much in this Letter, better to hold back on a few issues, but gather the evidence in any event.

 

What I'm getting at is they will be stuffed on s87 if they Terminated the Account unlawfully, i.e. whilst they were constrained by virtue of s78(6), because they were in default of your s78(1) Request.

 

They should not have gone any further once they went past 12 Working Days from your s78(1) Request, because s78(6) puts the dampers on any further moves on their Part.

 

Thus, even issuing a Default Notice was wrong, and even better if they messed up and issued an invalid one. That could be invalid for any one of the following reasons: did not allow 14 Clear Days from Date of Service, mis-stated the Arrears to be Paid by an amount that cannot be considered insignificant, or did not set out the DN in the Prescribed way.

 

They would only be entitled to the benefits of s87 if they got all of the above correct, which they didn't. The benefits being the Right to end the Agreement and Demand Full and early Payment of sums that until Termination were only Payable in the future, i.e. the Balance + Arrears, i.e.

 

========================

 

Payable During the Agreement

 

Monthly Minimum Payments

Arrears

 

Valid Default Notice can be issued if Arrears are genuine

14 Clear Days and no Payment from you, then...

s87 kicks in

Lawful Termination now allowed

Termination can proceed with s87 benefits

 

Payable After Lawful Termination

 

The Balance + any Arrears

 

========================

 

The above is how things should've gone for them if they had done their job properly. However, this is what happened:

 

========================

 

****Mis-Sold PPI****

 

Payable During the Agreement

 

Monthly Minimum Payments

Arrears

(but these now include mis-sold PPI)

 

s78(1) Request

if no CCA after 12+2 Working Days then s78(6) applies

 

s78(6) Constraint now active (go back to s78(1) above)

 

Invalid Default Notice (shouldn't have issued one anyway)

s87 does not kick in (as constrained by s78(6))

Lawful Termination not possible, only unlawful Termination

Unlawful Termination without s87 benefits (their problem, not yours)

 

Payable After Unlawful Termination

 

Any valid Arrears (but only if an Agreement exists in the first place!)

 

Any Balance can no longer be requested, as they have denied themselves the benefits of s87.

 

Harassment:

 

+ Harassment via NatWest Demanding Full Payment to which they are not now entitled

 

+ Harassment via DCA Demanding Payment for an Account they should never have in the first place.

 

+ Harassment via Lawyer Demanding Payment for an Account they should never have in the first place.

 

========================

 

Thus, if they ploughed on and Terminated without any of the above, then the Termination was unlawful, and they have burned their bridges. There can be no lawful going back to fix their mistakes.

 

So, the best they can ask for now is to request just the Arrears stated on the DN, assuming the Arrears were not miscalculated and contain Unlawful Charges or...mis-sold PPI!

 

Add Harassment and the passing of a clearly Disputed Account around to any lowlife DCA or slippery Lawyer that took their fancy, and you have a Counter-Claim ready made for you. One NastyWest created for you.

 

Finally, if they cannot even come up with an Enforceable Agreement, then most of the above is academic in any event...i.e. they never had a Right to charge you Interest and PPI, and had no Agreement to issue a Default Notice upon. Any monies paid to you become a Gift, and you owe them nothing in return.

 

Indeed, they owe you the mis-sold PPI and any balance you Repaid them over what you Spent during the life of the Card. Getting that back could be fun, so I'd just aim for the mis-sold PPI for now. Why not ask for all of the PPI back? I bet it was all mis-sold, not just the premiums Paid after Retirement!

 

I hope this helps...but do note the above are my own comments, not gospel. If in any doubt, do seek further advice.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity and typo fixing!
Link to post
Share on other sites

BRW

 

I'll try to answer your points as you put them down.

 

"One thing to make sure you pin down, is to establish that they have Terminated your Account. That means they will have no chance of being able to issue a valid Default Notice to fix the first one."

 

They terminated my account on 7th June 2007 before they had even sent me the illegible CCA. I have a letter to this effect and from DCA's demanding full payment. (I have every letter from NatWest and DCA's.)

 

"What I'm getting at is they will be stuffed on s87 if they Terminated the Account unlawfully, i.e. whilst they were constrained by virtue of s78(6), because they were in default of your s78(1) Request.

They should not have gone any further once they went past 12 Working Days from your s78(1) Request, because s78(6) puts the dampers on any further moves on their Part."

 

They were definitely in default by not providing the CCA, (as per s78(1). As you say this all academic as they don't have, and have never produced a valid CCA.

 

The account only went over the top because they added charges and interest without a valid CCA, and the DCA's have added legal fees on as well. (Cheeky beggars).

 

Having looked again at the first default notice issued 7 June, it may possibly be correct (although invalid because of the CCA),. What I don't understand is why they issued another one in December 2007. Were they trying to cover the illegallity of the June issue?

 

I am not too worried about a counter-claim for harassment as I just want to see the whole sorry business go away. If they have to cancel the alleged debt it will save me having to worry about £6000 (£1000 of that is added fees and legal costs), and I will have got one over the greedy beggars who have treated me with contempt. All they had to do was repay my PPI payments from retirement and I would happily have paid the rest. Their way of dealing with this has been appalling and it wasn't until I found CAG that I realised what was going on.

 

Your letter example for me was excellent and I shall send that off when I have refined it as you said.

 

I have just had another look at the table they sent me and this is actually a record of overlimit and late fees and does not refer to PPI payments at all.

 

I must do some more research and get all the facts right before I send it off.

 

The funny thing is When I started work from school over 40 years ago, my first job was with the National Provincial Bank (now NatWest) at 135 Bishopsgate. I was a filing clerk and earned £15 a month.

 

Many thank again BRW. More news when I have some sort of progress from NatWest.

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

They terminated my account on 7th June 2007 before they had even sent me the illegible CCA.

 

That could be very useful, i.e. if Termination came before they even sent a response to your s78(1) Request...provided that you sent them the actual s78(1) Request before they Terminated.

 

Having looked again at the first default notice issued 7 June, it may possibly be correct (although invalid because of the CCA),. What I don't understand is why they issued another one in December 2007. Were they trying to cover the illegality of the June issue?

 

The key is to establish when they Terminated, as issuing a 2nd Default Notice after Termination is a nonsense, rendering the 2nd Notice invalid as there was, by then, no live Account to Default.

 

That brings us back to the 1st Default Notice, so it could be important to try and work out if that was, indeed, valid.

 

If they later find the Agreement, and have a valid Default Notice, and Terminated on the back of a valid Agreement and valid Default Notice, then you may see they could end up in a stronger position.

 

So, the Agreement is important, as without that, then most of what follows starts to fall over for them.

 

Next is your s78(1) Request, and the issue of when, if ever, they actually complied with that.

 

If your s78(1) Request pre-dated their Default Notice and Termination, then their Notice and Termination should be invalid, as they were constrained from taking such actions whilst in default of your s78(1) Request by virtue of s78(6)...provided your s78(1) Request was indeed made whilst the Account was still live. Otherwise they may start to argue Rankine, i.e. where a s78(1) was made after Termination, which is allowed to see a Copy of the Agreement, but then the benefits of s78(6) don't apply, as the Account is already Terminated so s78(6) can't constrain them because they've already Defaulted and Terminated by then.

 

I must do some more research and get all the facts right before I send it off.

 

Yes, agreed, always best to be 100% on top before writing. In the interim get all of the above lined up. If you can, maybe Post a copy of that Default Notice for people here on CAG to take a look at. We might be able to help spot if it is compliant or invalid, and why.

 

The Counter-Claim for Harassment is just one to keep back, just in case you need something to throw back at them!

 

I have just had another look at the table they sent me and this is actually a record of over-limit and late fees and does not refer to PPI payments at all.

 

That could be useful too, because you can re-claim them too on the one hand, and having them on the Balance starts to render any Default Notice invalid if their Total affects the Arrears Total claimed by a reasonable amount, i.e. a percentage of the Arrears rather than by just a few pence.

 

That issue isn't clear, but in the case that is often quoted to support this, the Default Notice was inaccurate by around 38% (Woodchester v Swayne and Co 1998 ). So, a few pence would probably not be enough, and maybe not even a few pounds, but a percentage error would probably be considered to be significant enough to invalidate the Amount being stated. How big a percentage error to nail this I regret I do not know.

 

The funny thing is When I started work from school over 40 years ago, my first job was with the National Provincial Bank (now NatWest) at 135 Bishopsgate. I was a filing clerk and earned £15 a month.

 

There's another Claim...slavery!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following with interest as I'm in the same position as you Maggie (Thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/126191-bog-barlcaycard.html)

 

But, I'm being taken to court by a slimy profitering DCA - gonna fight it all the way tho'

------------------------------------------------------------

 

First Direct - Refund of Bank Charges...... **WON** (Offered full amount of £5200 2 days before court)

 

Amex - Refund of charges..... **WON** (£330 refunded without much fight)

 

First Plus PPI - **WON** (Full Refund of over £7000 + Interest)

Norton Finance - Owe me over £6000 for mis-sold PPI - Starting court action in the new year!

Barclaycard PPi - Ongoing (Being complete tos*ers!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

The default notice arrived dated 4th May and giving me till 18th May to pay up. (required 14 days?)

 

I applied for the CCA on 14th May (i posted it the same day) by recorded delivery, and signed for on 15th May.

 

They returned my cheque a couple of days later saying it was not necessary. I resent the cheque demanding my CCA.

 

They terminated the account on 7th June, so definitely AFTER I had applied for the CCA. The illegible copy of my application form was received on 22nd June. They stated then that the application had not been received in their office till 15th June, to which I replied that was their problem, as the letter requesting the CCA had been signed for from the post office on 15th May.

The second request for my CCA was signed for on the 24th May so they definitely had the CCA request before they terminated the account on 7th June. In fact they had two requests for the CCA before the 7th June. I think the above was a delaying tactic.

 

So it seems they cocked up with that one.

 

I will post the default notice tomorrow through photobucket. Perhaps then we can establish whether or not is valid.

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just remembered that there is a copy of the termination letter in post #30 and in post #44 there is a copy of the illegible application form they sent me and the letter about the CCA. Through photobucket of course.

 

Default notice will be posted tomorrow.

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I did!

 

Type anything...say

 

THIS

 

Find the URL that you want to point towards, i.e.

 

http:// s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb198/maggiebroom

 

(I've added a space after // just to stop the CAG Forum Software from turning it into a Link).

 

Copy that to your Clipboard by selecting it and Right Clicking to chose COPY.

 

Then drag your mouse over the word above (i.e. THIS) until it is highlighted.

 

Then, whilst THIS it is stil highlighted, click the little World+Chain icon, and a little box will pop up.

 

Paste the URL into that, and click OK.

 

Hey Presto, you should get a Word that has a Link, i.e.

 

THIS

 

Or, you can Drop an Image into the Thread by just viewing it full size when in Photobucket, and do a Right Click Copy.

 

Then do a Right Click and Paste into the CAG compose a new Post Window where you want it to appear, i.e.

 

 

defaultnotice0001.jpg

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Maggie!

 

The default notice arrived dated 4th May and giving me till 18th May to pay up. (required 14 days?)

 

I can't see a Date on the Default Notice. Where did they say it was Dated 4th May?

 

But if they have Dated it 4th May 2007, then saying you have to remedy the default by the 18th May 2007, that does NOT allow 14 Clear Days, as they have failed to allow for Postage.

 

It used to be 7 Days, but this was extended to 14 Days:

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561):

 

3

A specification of:--

 

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

 

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

 

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

 

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

 

The notes at the bottom of the section it states

 

NOTES

Amendment

 

Para 3: in sub-paras ©, (d) words "not less than fourteen days" in square brackets substituted by SI 2006/3094, regs 2, 3.

Date in force: 19 December 2006: see SI 2006/3094, reg 1.

 

The DN is also not set out using the Prescribed Form, as they have the emphasis wrong on the underlined words. They should also be in Bold and Underlined.

 

Read this from my Defence in this Thread:

 

BRW v A Particularly Nasty Bank

 

 

87. Fourteen days were not allowed between the Date of Service of the Default Notice and the time laid out where the alleged breach needed to be remedied. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof as to the Date of Service of said document.

 

88. In addition to the failure of the Default Notice to allow the prescribed time frame, I note the Default is also deficient in the following areas: Section 2 (5) and (6) of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 sets out the following:

 

(5) Where any statement is required to be in a form specified in a Schedule to these Regulations and is reproduced in the notice, then apart from any heading to the notice, trade names or names of parties to the Agreement-

 

(a) the lettering in the statement shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in the notice; and

 

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

 

(6) The wording in any such statement shall be reproduced in the notice without any alteration or addition, and in relation to any statement to be contained in the notice the requirements of any note shall be complied with, except that the words "the creditor" may be replaced by the name of the creditor, by the expression by which he is referred to in the Agreement or by an appropriate pronoun, and any consequential changes to pronouns and verbs may be used.

 

89. The notice fails to include the following statement in the prescribed form as shown below (note the correct use of Bold Text):

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH”

 

90. The Default Notice also fails to include the additional statement in the prescribed form as shown below:

 

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]"

 

91. The statements referred to in points 89 and 90 are laid out in Schedule 2 of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

92. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

93. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

94. The word must makes it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

95. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

Finally, to make up a full set of Default Notice mistakes, you now need to examine the figures to see if the Arrears Total they have stated is inaccurate...if by a reasonable amount (say +38%) then they are also stuffed on:

 

 

96. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey!!!

 

Thanks for that BRW.

Well now you have seen the default notice and given your expert opinion, I also think that they have stuffed up with this one.

 

There was no actual date on the DN, but the letter that came with it was dated the 4th May 2007.

 

Are the 14 days allowed working days or consecutive?

 

I have checked the figures and they appear to be correct, but I need to go over the payments again. Can't remember if I paid 117.00 per month or whatever. I will have a good look over the weekend and let you know.

 

Many thanks again

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hell

 

Yes I am well now, and I hope you are as well.

 

Me and my blooming links. :) I had the same trouble at the beginning of this thread. Remember??

 

The fight goes on ....and on..... and on....... just the old Ariston advert :p

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

Well now you have seen the default notice and given your expert opinion...

 

Well, I can't call myself an expert, and I must caution you thinking that I am! As always with CAG, this is a self-help Forum made up of lots of Litigants in Person who are not experts, but who do work hard to try and understand the issues.

 

Please do get a 2nd opinion on anything I say. I do try to show my reasoning, so that others can disagree if I am wrong and point out if anything I say is not valid.

 

...I also think that they have stuffed up with this one.

 

I think so!

 

There was no actual date on the DN, but the letter that came with it was dated the 4th May 2007.

 

That could be interesting...a Dateless Default Notice. But the main issue is the Date of Service, and that can be established via things such as the Envelope it came in, a Covering Letter that came with it (which you clearly have I think), or any proof of Postage they have.

 

Are the 14 days allowed working days or consecutive?

 

They are Calendar, or consecutive, they are not Working Days.

 

I have checked the figures and they appear to be correct, but I need to go over the payments again. Can't remember if I paid 117.00 per month or whatever. I will have a good look over the weekend and let you know.

 

Look for any Unlawful Charges as well.

 

But if all of the PPI was mis-sold, as might be the case, then that would mung up their Default Notice Arrears figures big time.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Folks

 

I spoke too soon about being well. Both Hubby and I went down with this flu thing doing the rounds, and this ruined Xmas for us. Cooked the biggest turkey for the day and then couldn't eat it. Hey Ho!!. New Years eve was a disaster as well with hubby throwing up all night and going to bed at 10 p.m.

 

I have been diagnosed with a reflux (don't ask I haven't a clue) not a stomach ulcer and there is nothing I can do about it. So every now and again my food goes down like the proverbial boiled sweet in one piece and hurts like hell.

 

Thank goodness the season is now well and truly over.

 

Back to the business in hand.

 

I sent the letter to the Company Secretary, but (as expected) I have heard nothing since. Wetscots still phone once a day (with break over Xmas -- BLISS), but they still only get the answer machine.

 

So at the moment, its stalemate. Not sure where to go from here. So I am just going to sit back and see what happens.

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear you've both been feeling so rotten! Concentrate on yourselves for now and get better soon! :)

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Folks

 

I am doomed with this site. I have had so much going on in my life at the moment that I am finding it hard to keep up with CAG.

 

Just before Xmas my son had a tumble on his motorbike and broke his back.

Of course with his luck, it was a pedestrian who stepped out in front of him and so he has no insurance to claim against. His beloved new motorbike was a right-off (You'd think it was me who had toddled of this earth, not just his b....y bike.).

It's cost him a fortune what with losing his bike, all his gear (the price of leathers and helmets is horrendous) plus his wages and all his overtime.

 

So things have been a nightmare to deal with. How is it girls that your kids give you trouble all your life :) ?

 

Anyway, back to business. I have heard nothing from Westcots since Xmas until a few days ago when I got a letter from a solicitor threatening court action as I have not paid up.

 

Anyone heard of Nelson Guest & partners. I am sure there is a letter somewhere on the site for solicitors in this sort of situation, but I can't find it. I need to tell them that there is no enforceable CCA and that I will not pay, until they produce one.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction or has anyone got a letter I can use (with suitable alterations of course). I have a fair idea of what to put but want to get it right.

 

Thanks in advance. :p

 

maggiebroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...