Well you could be right. The requirements of section 7 do state that the notice must be sent in order for the enforcement can continue. Many have taken a view as you have. Some have taken the more equitable view ad it has been found to be enough that the information was supplied. Really the creditor should send your payment to the bailiff and then he should take his fees, as per the schedule 12,and credit the balance to the sum due to the court. AS a result you would still owe off the debt.

So you are saying, the bailiff had done their work in contacting you, within the statutory timescale but because the notice was not compliant in form, you do not have to pay their fees? That is even though the showed the writ

. Was the date on the notice of the bill, (the document which informed you the debt was with AW ), before or after you paid the bill, by what means did you pay the bill and to whom did you pay it , creditor or bailiff?

Also, lets see what Boris says later this week, he promised help for small businesses didn't he? I dont think the hirers are demonstrating the forbearance we are all going to need in the coming months.

I dont believe the OP asked about forced entry? Why do you say the bailiff cant enforce anything? Not being argumentative, just wondered if you had spotted something I missed.

Bit like being in a time capsule this, back to 2006.

OK, perhaps keep in reserve.

Getting there. It should be included in para one, that the signature box should be included within the same page as the prescribed terms, and not in another document as per section 61, and the agreement regulations. (a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, The other Terms and conditions, as said are just a generic page which may or may not apply to the loan/card. These are referred to in subsection 61(b} as being embodied with the executed document, this means in the same carrier as the executed document. A document can of course contain many pages.

hi Does this mean he has now defaulted the plan he negotiated on the phone? if so. Yes they will call. So if you have a car or expensive lawn mower etc. hide them out of the way. Do not at this stage let them in. Has he contacted them to explain the missed payment? If not, he should, not that they will do anything, but it will serve him well when he contacts the authority. We need some more detail please and please name the bailiff and the authority., sum owed. dates of the liability order.

Needs work I am afraid. 1) I realise that a "True Copy" does not have to represent a copy which if signed would constitute an an enforceable agreement. But what I received from the claimant was a generic statement of terms and conditions. Which could have been used at any time, there is nothing to support the contention that it applied to my unexecuted or executed copies, that is the one I signed. Not even a date. Therefore the requirements of sections 180 and 78 of the of Act and the 1983 Copy regulations remain to be satisfied. Which in turn means that proceeding cannot continue, until a compliant copy is presented. please adapt but do consult before amending.

Hi Can I ask for a little background. When was the possession order made, and did you attend the hearing. Also did you receive a copy of the original agreement. As Andy said earlier, this is a regulated loan and the agreement does have to comply with the CCA. Also. if they have capitalised any arrears, that means added them to the amount originally credited, and are charging contractual interest , they cannot change their minds and call them arrears again.

Hi Regarding the overdraft the SB date will have commenced on the first demand to repay, so, I should think it is well statute barred. As for the PDL, thishas been subject to "an action, so the SB will no longer apply, however since the action was discontinued they would be unlikely to re- issue a claim. I agree that you should ignore, and do not pay anything, It would not restart anything, but there is no need as they cant enforce anyway, unless they received permission, which is highly improbable.

Hi You mention a ppi claim, was this also before the 2012 date?

Good, no other repayments, so, no SB. That takes care of the enforcement issue. You have notified them of this, so under the new rules they are not even allowed to demand payment, unless they can prove otherwise. creditor or DCA. You said they had reissued a default on your file, as said, this is not right if your account had been defaulted before either by the original creditor or any one else. You can query the CRA if you like, but it will get you nowhere, just a letter saying, we have contacted the other party and they say it is fine. and advice to contact them. Contact the last owner of the debt, I would just ring them, but it doesn't really matter. Make your complaint. Then ask for your DATA under GDMPR.I would back this up via an email addressed to the person you talked to on the phone, say "Just to confirm" our earlier etc. Main points being that, there should not be two defaults issued on the same account, as it is not legally possible to irredeemably breach a contract twice, its a bit like murdering the same person twice, lol, no perhaps not the last bit. If they say they can under the, "new law" ask them to show it to you.

Sthe statute bar will not apply until six years from your last payment via the DMP. I am unclear, did you make some payments by the plan? Just to save me going through the thread again. Is your main issue that they wrongfully applied another D on your file, or is it that you wish to dispute the debt, or both. How much do they say you owe? Have they sent a new section 87 default notice to you.

It is correct that no new default should be recorded on a single account, that is unless a new contract was formed on the inception of the re-payment plan. Which they may claim, but rarely actually happened. All you have to do is ask for a copy of the new agreement, and the claim just drops away.

Hi. I see you asked A question regarding the relationship between, "a default notice", that is the letter sent from the creditor to the debtor under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act, giving fourteen days to pay. : and a "notice of default " sent from the creditor to the debtor advising a marker will be placed on his/her file in 28 days. Strictly speaking there is no relationship as you can see above. The date you were defaulted on your file has nothing to do with on a warning of enforcement in 14days. and: Therefore, as far as statute bar is concerned. Since the SB runs from the Section 87 notice, it also has nothing to do with the CRA record. However, on many occasions both these notices are sent out at the same time, or even on the same document, so it is fair to argue both dates may be similar. I see you were on a DMP after the original default was registered. If this is so, the start date will have re-set on every payment. there will be no statute bar until six years from that payment. Even if the "D"has fallen off your record.

As I mentioned earlier and was also mentioned in the judgement. Section 127 only says "WAS" signed, there is no prerogative to show a document is signed, in order to comply. It is down to the burder of proof which in a civil case is the balance of probability, or is it likely one was signed, containing.. etc. Then he says that an accusation of improper execution cannot be made solely on the evidence of a copy, there must be other supporting proof. No it wasn't. at least if it did this does not prove it one way or the other. As far as name and address is concerned, it is not a prescribed term so no automatic enforceability not even in 2004 . You can plead that the info should have been there if you like, but it would be a 127(1) breach and any sanction would be related to prejudiced caused. Did you suffer any damage through your name and address not being their, I doubt it You can challenge the credibility of the copy by examining it together with any earlier agreement- for conformity with: interest rates, default charged, this is a big give away. As any default charges must be listed on the agreement, and should comply with those raised on statements, if both are from the same era. I should also say that the ONLY prescribed term on a credit card of that time would be the payment intervals in any case. So that kind of unenforceability is not going to happen. You need to concentrate on section 78, 108 and regs and the inability to enforce when no true copy is supplied.

One other thing, which I dont know if it has been mentioned. You can argue that the copy, which they have not sent contained an incorrect prime term, but y0u have to have other proof to support this. A section 78 request has no effect on section 127(3) unless you have a separate reason to think a prescribed term, (interest payment intervals,) was missing from your original agreement. The need to enclose a copy is only dependant on a tempory ban on enforcement and not agreement unenforceability. what you need to do here is challenge the authenticity of the copy they sent. This can be done a number of ways, is it likely to be the one you signed? if no, say so and why, then they have to prove it.

If you are talking about unenforceable under section 127(3) then the defect you speak of would not render an agreement unenforceable. It would merely require an enforcement notice under section 65 If you are talking section 78 it is a fault but one easily remedied and a court w,ould consider the requirements of that section satisfied.

No, sorry. A contract of sale is only made when both receive their prescribed consideration.

I have dealt with a few of there in the last few months. There is a lack of consistency in the deisions made by creditors unfortunately. Where a new arrangement has been made they sometimes say a new default can be registered, but, I think that in order to do this a new agreement must be signed. I have won with this argument, sometimes they aw an original default was never filed, there re arguments to counter this also. DPR have brought up a new argument as regard AP markers, under the fairness principle. In that the debtor who tries to re-pay gets a marker which lasts longer than someone who just defaults and does nothing, I have won with that also. So I would say, stand by your guns and see the lay of the land, or would be one to many metaphors.

HiDD There seems to be a lot of this lately. The CRA will do nothing. You will get a letter back saying they cannot alter your file without the permission of Arrow. Which sadly is correct. Did you get a default notice from the OC? I know it is a long time ago. You need to do a GDPR. They may say you signed another agreement, so a section 78 would be a good idea. My opinion, but I would not cancel the payment until you know what is going on. How much of the debt have you paid in all this time?

It looks like many fees have been posted to the capital. Its called capitalisation.This will probably apply to the arrears also and will be why the statement shows zero arrears. https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/capitalising-arrears-masks-true-figures/ It is also one of the reasons there is still so much left to pay.

personally I would forget the "legal Jargon". If its usage is not spot on it will suggest internet help, we know that there is nothing wrong with this, however Judges have a distinct downer on it. If you do get it right you may prejudice the LIP leeway which the court applies. Just say what you mean. Instead of "de minima's" you could just say, it is unfair to say you have breached the contract over such a minor thing. Your own words. There is nothing stopping you using all the suggestions of course.