The dfn point is not an easy argument at all with fixed sum hire purchase with fixed repayments, but worth a shot. Could you argue estoppel in that they made representations the agreement continued in subsequent letters and notices which you relied upon to your detriment? Just thought vomiting here.

Because per doc1 above DFN 8th March 2017 termination 30th March 2017...

DFN is dated 8th March 17 and gives 21 days for compliance and appears to be in the prescribed format. if the arrears are not overstated it's good and so is their termination if I were you I'd complain on the misleading info and s140a and look to refer to the FOS and see where it gets you. Legally assuming the DFN is good, as it appears, you lost the right to terminate as they have said IMHO

S98 consumer credit act dx. But it's a moot point if the DFN is compliant as the nosia issue doesn't invalidate it

Not surprised, as per post #28. Perhaps try the s140a avenue.

Sorry, late ro the party on this but.... Given a breach of s86B gives rise to temporary unenforceability under the CCA until remedy and an inability to charge during the period of non compliance and considering that enforcement is held as being entering judgment What grounds are there for suggesting the DFN and termination are invalid? Also if the DFN was somehow invalid what makes the termination invalid (Could it be treated as a simple termination of contract outside of provisions for breach)? In which case could it be unlawful? Start line do appear shockingmy inept but if the initial termination notice is good, the later notices dont mean anything as you cannot rescind termination amd you cant terminate twice. In my view Very complaint worthy on misleading consumers and s140a unfair relationships. Could be worth arguing that and that the appropriate remedy is to accept the vt they have by their conduct led the debtor to beleive was a right that available to her. Also your proposed letter could be treated as abandonment were you to carry that out and leave the vehicle as suggested.

Bmw v Hart re unregulated hp has little application in the Times. We cha agree to disagree.

It has determined the date from Which cause of action arises for the purpose of the limitation act. In that respect it is cast in stone barring an appeal to the supreme court Arguments can be made where there is some egregious delay in issuing a default notice that it gives rise to an unfair relationship under s140 cca but that's a different argument, though one touched on in Doyle and which a district judge would likely find persuasive when considering any prejudice asserted. As an aside registering a default with a CRA is an entirely different matter to a creditor issuing a s87 default notice.

That's what forums are for, learning and sharing knowledge

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/12.html Here you go fodder.

Its a determined point of law. Of someone argues purely limitation on facts where the default notice expired within 6 years of the claim being issued they will lose it's that simple. If they take other points (for example the agreement is unenforceable for want of a prescribed term) and win on that it doesn't detract from the limitation argument being wrong in law.

Depends entirely on the nature of the contract, the nature of the breach and of the claim. A contract may require Notice of Breach, or a Demand in order to bring terms in to effect and missing a payment may not be a sufficient breach (not of the essence) as to give rise to a claim for termination/repudiation or indeed anything other than payment of the missing instalment and nominal damages. In terms of Consumer Credit debt, Doyle binds the Court in all matters, otherwise than where a debt is payable on demand. We must be talking about debt other than payable on demand here, given the OP's reference to a Default Notice, in which event S87 acts as a statutory bar to cause of action arising for anything other than arrears. Cause of Action in a claim for accelerated recovery of the balance of the debt owed can only arise upon expiry of the Default Notice (S89 providing that if the Notice is complied with it is treated as though default never occurred). Being a Court of Appeal decision, its binding on both the County and the High Court. It was not the decision of "one Judge" it was the decision of the Master of the Rolls and two Lord Justices, Flaux and Jackson. The OP asked which scenario would win in Court, if we are talking consumer credit, unless he fancies taking it to the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of very eminent Judges in the Court of Appeal the finding Doyle will be the precedent followed.

Could fall within S4 of the Fraud Act 2006 BF, certainly fits in with the definition of Theft, guess we won't find out which the CPS prefers as the OP isn't going that route. £489 p/h solicitors rates seems to fall within the Theft Act too, that's an astounding rate. It is odd that Ladbrokes cannot trace an account with the details you have given (presumably the details of your wife), are you positive she gave her details and not (and this would be a major complication) yours as presumably she would know them all?

Given that you do not want to see your wife prosecuted. My suggestion is that you gp and take legal advice from a regulated law firm to understand exactly where you stand and the consequences of any actions you take as, being as blunt as dearest Ethel, what you do will influence what they do

Having a sum of money in an instant access bank account does not convey some greater culpability on the account holder. Don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion the wife shouldn't be blamed or punished for taking and spending 13k that wasn't hers. Its black and white

I'm fairly sure that would be the Theft Act 1968 Mart

blunter than I was going to say it but in a nut shell what Ethel said

Putting Ladbroke's conduct aside. It's considerably different to a spouse using a card for shopping with authority. Ultimately the Bank is within its rights to refuse to credit the loss without substantive evidence of what is an allegation of fraud. If it was your business being faced with a loss of £13K because an account holder alleged that his wife (who had authority to use his debit card, had possession of that card, and the phone linked to it for authorisation) would you just accept what was said? refund the £13K and then take no action on reporting it or recovering that loss? Notwithstanding that the Bank doesn't appear to bear the fault of the transactions. The bank clearly wants evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible that they are obligated (to you and to their investors, shareholders etc) to refer it to the Police. I imagine that they are at the very least obligated to pursue the wife for the loss and to insist that the husband stands to give evidence of the fraud where it is not admitted. The sums here are not nominal and a decision not to pursue recovery will likely be a decision to be taken at a certain level, given the sums that would have to be written off.

There was previously two schools of thought on when the initial cause of action arose in respect of a Consumer Credit Agreement where service of a Default Notice was required (there are occasions where no default notice is required). I have always been of the school of thought that it was the date of expiry of the time for compliance with the Default Notice (though there were substantial arguments for the alternative view). It has now been confimred by the Courts that the creditor's initial cause of action starts to run from the date of expiry of the time for compliance with the [valid] Default Notice (see PRA V Doyle). As such the initial cause of action in the above scenario will commence 20/10/2011 and, per S29 - 31 Limitation Act 1980, will be refreshed on the event of each subsequent payment or written acknowledgment of the debt. In other words, if you made payment up to 20/11/2012, cause of action is treated as accruing on that date and it would appear that the debt is not estopped by statutory limitation. I know that is probably not what you wanted to hear

It depends on the circumstances of the judgment Andy and "should" is the operative word there. forthwith judgments given at a hearing and paid in 28 days should not be registered, default judgments and, as my case demonstrates, instalment judgments given on defended claims are registered as are any judgments that are subjected to enforcement action. Registry Trust confirms "Registry Trust Ltd (RTL) is contracted to the Ministry of Justice to maintain the statutory public Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines for England & Wales, one section of which includes details of county court judgments. Most CCJs will appear on the register but there are some that don’t. To be capable of being registered the judgment must either have been issued in default (i.e a judgment without trial where no defence was entered) or else defended and payment is by instalment order or where enforcement action is being taken."

Looks like the court or smc have dropped the ball and the case has fallen into a black hole. Having caught up with the thread, given that OP confirms at post 3 that he received the NOA and Default Notice, it is surprising that this was not picked up by members reviewing the defence. Notwithstanding the obvious issue of misleading the Court (lets hope that cant be demonstrated by the Claimant - Les did you respond or have any contact with the original creditor regarding receipt of the Default Notice or with the Claimant about Notice of Assignment? if you did then if the Claimant produces it, at best, your credibility as a witness is going to take a beating. Notwithstanding, if you received it, we know it exists and if it existed then, whilst it may take time to produce it or may need to be reconstituted it is highly likely that either a copy or a reconstitution will be available. As to reconstituted document they are not on their own of evidential value but if they are backed up by compute records confirming the details that is a very different story and the Judge would likely prefer that evidence to "I didn't receive a default notice sir", particularly given (a) that appears to be false and (b) the test is service and not receipt (see S176 Consumer Credit Act 1974). Also, a default notice is only a pre-requisite where there is accelerated recovery, so the statement above that a lack of a default notice is fatal to the claim is not strictly correct as it is a statutory bar that only applies where the statute says it does. If the full balance is in arrears due to non payment then they could argue that S87 does not bite (that's the point I lost on a few years back, it was found that no default notice was served (so I thought happy days this is in the bag but the judge reserved judgment on the point of whether s87 applied to consider it further and came down on the side of the debt purchaser, he also mentioned woodchester v Swayne and said that even if S87 did bite he would grant judgment for the arrears as there is no bar to this) It looks to me as though S78 defence may be your best defence if there has not been full compliance as yet but bear in mind that as confirmed in the Carey decision the creditor can satisfy that by provision of reconstituted documents and that in fact they are only required to give you "true copies" of your agreement, the original terms and conditions, a copy of the terms and conditions as varied and a statement of conduct of the account (this is not necessarily a statement of account). Also the creditor can give a compliant s78 reply on the morning of the trial and that's you sunk, you could argue that there should be no costs or interest on the basis of the conduct but the judge is going to give judgment for the principal debt in all likelihood.

a judgment paid outside of 28 days from when it was made requires the debtor to apply to the Court for a certificate of satisfaction, if that has not been done, then unless the creditor has a process in place to notify the court then the Court and thus registry trust would not be aware the judgment has been satisfied. If it was paid inside of 28 days a debtor can apply for a certificate of cancellation (which removes any reference to the judgment), I'm sure I recall paying a nominal fee for mine when I lost a challenge a few years back.

DX, not wanting to cause any hostility but it needs to be said that, other than further venting your clear opinions on the firm mentioned, which are quite colourful (read as potentially libellous and in breach of the forum rules) that response is about as useful as a chocolate teapot to the OP.

Im sure Natwest will have been a little slower to refund me if we were talking about several grand, in my case it was only about £400.00 and they didn't bat an eyelid. You can still raise an action against the bank, but on one claim settling, the other should automatically fail and you could be exposed to costs (unless you can get around that by consolidating the proceedings), it may be worth looking to enjoin the bank into the existing proceedings if the complaint is not upheld or responded to. As an aside, creditors are bound by FOS adjudications - consumers are not. If the Bank do not answer your S75 Complaint, sadly it does amount to an admission of liability or acceptance of a claim and as you say there is no time limit on it (save the FOS guidelines) what sticks out for me is that they do not appear to have even given you an update such as we have raised your points with the supplier and are awaiting their comments). S75 imposes a statutory liability but than can only be enforced by litigation where it is not accepted and settled by the creditor. As such, otherwise than pants customer service and cause for complaint as to pre-action conduct (which can then go to costs) in that regard, sadly it doesn't prevent them from filing a defence to Court action and thus contesting proceedings but as you say the bank has the Wonga (perhaps an inappropriate phrase now lol) whereas the trader may not be flush with cash. Obviously if you do raise a claim against the bank they will put it in the hands of their solicitors instantly and that is something to be kept in mind, not sure who they would instruct from a their panel but they wont be cheap

Presuming this is on the basis of a complaint and not two separate legal actions, you should always approach the trader in the first instance, if they refuse pursue S75 (the creditor may well agree to pay out on economics and/or place pressure on the trader as they did for me with regards to a flooring company without going anywhere near a court action). If in respect of two legal actions, you cannot be placed in a better position or see a double recovery and it may be worth looking to consolidate the proceedings. Under a S75 action you may find (dependent on the value of the claim and economics) that the creditor enjoins the supplier into the proceedings anyway which, if the action for any reason fails could be very costly to you as there are costs from two parties. As above the creditor's liability is statutory and does not hinge on the creditor receiving payment from the retailer. It does however hinge upon you proving your case to the satisfaction of a Judge where the claim is contested.