Default Notice Re-Issue

[surfaceagentx20]

An ineffective default notice will prohibit the Claimant recovering all those things on which the service of an effective default notice is dependant. In short, the claim will be reduced to just the arrears, See Woodchester v Swayne.

 

By when proceedings have commenced the Claimant will have terminated the agreement. The language of a default notice is framed on the basis there is a current agreement. That language is prescribed. If the Claimant terminated the agreement, to deliver an effective defalt notice will involve the fiction the agreement is current and never terminated. It would also involve the Claimant reinstating unilaterally. The debtor would be unlikely to agree to reinstatement if to do so would cure the Claimant's difficulties.

 

x20

[surfaceagentx20]

I'm not clear precisely who we are advising on this thread and where we are with GO'S's case. Evidently yesterday the Judge was dealing with assembling a set of directions to bring his case on for trial. If I am right, whether or not a creditor had complied strictly with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were off limits for the Judge at that time if it involved an assessment of the merits of the case.

 

If GO'S wishes the court to consider the merits and try the case summarily he may make an application for summary judgment. An application for summary judgment is made under CPR 24 and is appropriate where one party is able to show the other party's case has no real prospect of succeeding at trial and that therefore it is pointless in holding a trial.

 

Unless the case is decided summarily, the case will go to trial.

 

x20

[surfaceagentx20]

No worries GO'S.

If a default notice is prepared and delivered so as to create a situation where less than 14 days is expressed to be available for the debtor to meet the requirements of the DN, the DN is ineffective. The DN is a powerful tool in the creditor's armoury though it was created within a statutory framework designed to provide consumer protection. As such the DN must pass the requirements of section 88 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The period of 14 days is an express requirement of section 88(2). Once upon a time it said not less than 7 days was required. Then in late 2006 Parliament decided 7 days was insufficient and decided that the period of time should be not less than 14 days. If in 2006 Parliament had thought that 13 days or less was required, Parliament would have said so. When Parliament fixed the period as one which 'must not less than 14 days' that is what it meant and it is impossible to imagine in law that a DN is effective where the period is less than 14 days.

 

I am afraid this smacks of an example of a DJ's ignorance, failure to grasp the law or simply not being directed to the specifics of the statute. He might be on the ball when it comes to Landlord and Tenant work and if that were so I doubt he would, for example say a Landlord's section 21 Housing Act 1988 notice was effective where 6 weeks rather than two calendar months notice was given to the tenant.

 

Wherever a DJ is leaning towards declaring a DN effective where it plainly is not, let him know (as politely and deferentially as humanly possible) that if he carries on leaning that way, you will require him to set out his reasoning as part of his judgment and that you want him to spell out his reasoning so that it forms part of the record for appeal purposes. That should sharpen him up a bit.

 

x20