Invalid Default Notices

[cymruambyth]

Hi BB, hope your battles are progressing well;)

My understanding is that 2 days are allowed for 1st class posting which tales it to Friday 18th, then the 14 days work from there, they are not working days. If it was 2nd class that would be 4 working days for posting, which means 22nd, then 14 days would be the 5th.

I think i am right, but double check, sorry.

[bradfordlad]

Hi again everyone,

 

I have a Default Notice here from Barclays. I was hoping that someone may take a look at them as I believe this to be a little 'Faulty'. There is prescribed text missing and the dates will not work if it was posted 2nd class, also ther eis a difference between the Arrears and the Final amount. I also have an unenforceable credit agreement (as proved by a claims management company prior to this). I am currently going through a similar procedure with RBS but was hoping a quick eye over these would reveal further discrepancies?!!

 

Many Thanks to one and all here for there great work.

 

Kindest Regards

 

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice001mod.jpg

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice002.jpg

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice003mod.jpg

 

 

Hi mate, just looking at the dates makes it defective in my book assuming 2nd class post - if first class then I'm not so sure.

 

good luck..

[cymruambyth]

Also, do a SAR to see what date it was actually sent. I have a LTSB DN that was shown to have one date but the SAR showed it being despatched a day later, which added weekends

[brooooooooooce]

Hi. I have just received a letter from HSBC headed 'FINAL DEMAND'. It goes on to state, 'We now DEMAND (their emphasis) immediate payment of £xxxx.xx (the full amount outstanding). Current interest arrangements will continue to apply.'

 

The DN was defective as it didn't allow any time for service. Do you think I should send the unlawful rescission letter as they have asked for the full balance. The letter doesn't state it is a TN, just a final demand with a DEMAND for full payment!

 

Cheers in advance.

 

Can anyone explain why (if it is the case) a letter demanding payment of the full amount outstanding is as good as a TN? I can understand with a TN that once the account has been terminated it can't be reinstated therefore they can't issue a new DN. But with a letter asking for the full balance what's to stop them retracting it and simply issuing a new DN?

[nks22]

Under the credit agreement you can borrow money and repay it over time. By demanding full payment the creditor is no longer offering credit so has demonstrated that the agreement has been ended.

[emandcole]

Hi, you need to look at the matter as a sequence of events. This sequence is not moveable and is entirely rigid. For example to get to number 3 from the starting point at number 1 you absolutely must pass through number 2.

 

Hope that's a good start? Bear with me . Your credit agreement affords both parties privileges, typically for the debtor it means you can borrow X amount and pay this sum back, not all in one go as that would suck, but over a period of time that suits you (agreed beforehand of course).

 

In return for this flexibility the main privilege the creditor enjoys is the fact that they'll charge you interest over that period, more for longer, less for shorter. The end result being that they lend X amount but also make a return exceeding X amount. Nice little profit.

 

That's the basics we all understand of course. However, in the past some bright spark realised that there could be an abuse of relationship between the banks and the debtors (that would never happen surely ) and the result was legislation to regulate it all. Even playing ground for all...great.

 

With this in mind the creditor now has to abide by those rules if they want to seek enforcement when and if the creditor starts to miss/avoid payments. So...first off, if payments have been missed (this number of payments varies and the general rule is that the number of payments missed should be proportional to the length of the loan before a default is issued) the creditor must issue a correctly formed and accurate default notice, the legal document, which must be composed according to a prescribed format. This would represent number 1.

 

Number 2 would be the letter of termination (if that's how the creditor wished to proceed) and in order for the termination to be valid the previous step must have been passed through correctly. So, the default notice must have been accurate in every way. If the creditor realises that it made a mess of the first step it is within its rights to re-issue that default notice, but only before it has actually stepped to number 2.

 

Assuming then that it has got number 1 correct, has moved to number 2 and got that correct it can now 'enjoy' all of the rights afforded to it that sit at number 3.

 

The legal jargon would be as follows:

 

Demanding the full balance (point 2) before having issued a compliant Default Notice (point 1) means the provider is not entitled to enjoy the provisions of Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act, which includes the full payment of any sums outstanding (point 3).

The right to demand early payment is only available to them if they are already in possession of an effective s87(1) Default Notice. Without that, it's a Catch 22 situation for them, because they need an effective Notice to use s87 and, if they are found to have used s87 without an effective Notice, then they have clearly Terminated the Agreement via unlawful Rescission of Contract.

So, to go back to your question about how a letter demanding the full balance is akin to termination you only need to realise that by doing so they are effectively trying to secure the rights afforded to them at point 3. If they do this before having completed point 1 (point 2 is the letter itself) then they cannot secure the right to request the full sum.

 

By demanding the full balance now they are removing the main privilege of the contract you enjoyed, as explained above (the ability to repay on a monthly basis) and in doing so are seeking to withdraw that contract between you. As there are two parties in this if one party seeks to cancel that contract you have the choice of either trying to ignore it (pointless if they've followed the correct sequence) or accepting it (all the better if they haven't follwed the correct sequence) ideally by sending them a letter.

 

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

 

So, a correct default notice followed by a termination letter ends the contract. 1 is correct, 2 is correct so they have the right to move to point 3 and 'enjoy' all that affords.

 

An invalid default notice followed by a termination letter ends the contract but you can accept unlawful rescission. Do it quickly.

 

A plain termination letter with no default ends the contract but again you can accept and claim unlawful rescission. Do it quickly.

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

 

Finally, a termination letter can take many guises. Any letter or action from the creditor, or DCA demanding the full balance can be considered as termination. Any court action is also instant termination. The key being that if the creditor is demanding the full balance they are/have removed the main privilege of the agreement you had, which was to pay the debt over a period of months instead of in one go.

 

Hope that's not too wordy but hopefully it's clear enough and will help people to picture the process clearly in their minds .

[brooooooooooce]

Hi, you need to look at the matter as a sequence of events. This sequence is not moveable and is entirely rigid. For example to get to number 3 from the starting point at number 1 you absolutely must pass through number 2.

 

Hope that's a good start? Bear with me . Your credit agreement affords both parties privileges, typically for the debtor it means you can borrow X amount and pay this sum back, not all in one go as that would suck, but over a period of time that suits you (agreed beforehand of course).

 

In return for this flexibility the main privilege the creditor enjoys is the fact that they'll charge you interest over that period, more for longer, less for shorter. The end result being that they lend X amount but also make a return exceeding X amount. Nice little profit.

 

That's the basics we all understand of course. However, in the past some bright spark realised that there could be an abuse of relationship between the banks and the debtors (that would never happen surely ) and the result was legislation to regulate it all. Even playing ground for all...great.

 

With this in mind the creditor now has to abide by those rules if they want to seek enforcement when and if the creditor starts to miss/avoid payments. So...first off, if payments have been missed (this number of payments varies and the general rule is that the number of payments missed should be proportional to the length of the loan before a default is issued) the creditor must issue a correctly formed and accurate default notice, the legal document, which must be composed according to a prescribed format. This would represent number 1.

 

Number 2 would be the letter of termination (if that's how the creditor wished to proceed) and in order for the termination to be valid the previous step must have been passed through correctly. So, the default notice must have been accurate in every way. If the creditor realises that it made a mess of the first step it is within its rights to re-issue that default notice, but only before it has actually stepped to number 2.

 

Assuming then that it has got number 1 correct, has moved to number 2 and got that correct it can now 'enjoy' all of the rights afforded to it that sit at number 3.

 

The legal jargon would be as follows:

 

Demanding the full balance (point 2) before having issued a compliant Default Notice (point 1) means the provider is not entitled to enjoy the provisions of Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act, which includes the full payment of any sums outstanding (point 3).

 

The right to demand early payment is only available to them if they are already in possession of an effective s87(1) Default Notice. Without that, it's a Catch 22 situation for them, because they need an effective Notice to use s87 and, if they are found to have used s87 without an effective Notice, then they have clearly Terminated the Agreement via unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

So, to go back to your question about how a letter demanding the full balance is akin to termination you only need to realise that by doing so they are effectively trying to secure the rights afforded to them at point 3. If they do this before having completed point 1 (point 2 is the letter itself) then they cannot secure the right to request the full sum.

 

By demanding the full balance now they are removing the main privilege of the contract you enjoyed, as explained above (the ability to repay on a monthly basis) and in doing so are seeking to withdraw that contract between you. As there are two parties in this if one party seeks to cancel that contract you have the choice of either trying to ignore it (pointless if they've followed the correct sequence) or accepting it (all the better if they haven't follwed the correct sequence) ideally by sending them a letter.

 

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

 

So, a correct default notice followed by a termination letter ends the contract. 1 is correct, 2 is correct so they have the right to move to point 3 and 'enjoy' all that affords.

 

An invalid default notice followed by a termination letter ends the contract but you can accept unlawful rescission. Do it quickly.

 

A plain termination letter with no default ends the contract but again you can accept and claim unlawful rescission. Do it quickly.

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

 

Finally, a termination letter can take many guises. Any letter or action from the creditor, or DCA demanding the full balance can be considered as termination. Any court action is also instant termination. The key being that if the creditor is demanding the full balance they are/have removed the main privilege of the agreement you had, which was to pay the debt over a period of months instead of in one go.

 

Hope that's not too wordy but hopefully it's clear enough and will help people to picture the process clearly in their minds .

 

Bloody brilliant that! Absolutely perfect. Thanks so much for taking the time, I really, really appreciate it! Post office he we come - then the pub!!

[emandcole]

Sweet . Get that letter recorded and print it all off to show they've had it. If the default is inaccurate as you state it is you are only indebted to them for the amount specified on that default notice.

 

Not that they'll like it but I had a friend who did it with HSBC for the best part of 18k and to date HSBC have been speechless! Perhaps they'll start realising that such notices are actually quite important . All the best.

[cosalt]

Of course you still have to get this through to the judge, I am in court tommorrow despite a totally invalid DN, they have even changed the details on the DN they have put with the witness statement despite me having the original which is completly different.

 

I have spelled it out in a witness statement of my own in the hope it would get thrown out or they would back down, less than 24hrs to go and nothing yet !

 

Cosalt

[Worsteve]

BUMP!!

 

Hi again everyone,

 

I have a Default Notice here from Barclays. I was hoping that someone may take a look at them as I believe this to be a little 'Faulty'. There is prescribed text missing and the dates will not work if it was posted 2nd class, also ther eis a difference between the Arrears and the Final amount. I also have an unenforceable credit agreement (as proved by a claims management company prior to this). I am currently going through a similar procedure with RBS but was hoping a quick eye over these would reveal further discrepancies?!!

 

Many Thanks to one and all here for there great work.

 

Kindest Regards

 

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice001mod.jpg

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice002.jpg

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/DefaultNotice003mod.jpg

[brooooooooooce]

Sweet . Get that letter recorded and print it all off to show they've had it. If the default is inaccurate as you state it is you are only indebted to them for the amount specified on that default notice.

 

Not that they'll like it but I had a friend who did it with HSBC for the best part of 18k and to date HSBC have been speechless! Perhaps they'll start realising that such notices are actually quite important . All the best.

 

Thanks for that. Do you know if your friend ever received a TN or just the demand for full repayment?

[emandcole]

They got the works, made a lovely set actually all laid out in transparant A4 binders! One invalid default notice followed by a seperate letter headed Termination Notice blah blah with all the details demanding the full amount of the account is repaid before 21 days. (It was a heavily inflated charge stricken managed loan compiled from a credit card account, student account, personal loan and business account - penalty field day for the bank). Proof of delivery was all printed out as well, the bank cannot claim they didn't get the acceptance letter.

 

The unlawful rescission letter was sent accepting their unlawful termination and confirming the account had been closed with each party no longer having to perform, finally asking for the accurate arrears balance to be sent. The bank have tried to ignore it, then they farmed it out to a third party DCA who wrote demanding the full amount or else.

 

I knocked up a simple letter for them explaining the situation and nearly three months later the DCA wrote back, having obviously checked the matter out with the bank, stating they'd noted the contents and would not be pursuing the matter unless the bank instructed them to do so once more.

 

That was about 6 weeks ago, nothing from anyone and the unlawful rescission was accepted many months ago. My guess is they know they've messed up and have moved on to more pressing matters with this account currently being in limbo. There were added complications for them too as the loan figures didn't add up, they were about £4.50 out but the bank repeatedly refused to comment or explain why the figures were wrong.

 

So, it does work and regardless of their threats quite simply it is their own actions that resulted in the mess they find themselves in today .

[brooooooooooce]

They got the works, made a lovely set actually all laid out in transparant A4 binders! One invalid default notice followed by a seperate letter headed Termination Notice blah blah with all the details demanding the full amount of the account is repaid before 21 days. (It was a heavily inflated charge stricken managed loan compiled from a credit card account, student account, personal loan and business account - penalty field day for the bank). Proof of delivery was all printed out as well, the bank cannot claim they didn't get the acceptance letter.

 

The unlawful rescission letter was sent accepting their unlawful termination and confirming the account had been closed with each party no longer having to perform, finally asking for the accurate arrears balance to be sent. The bank have tried to ignore it, then they farmed it out to a third party DCA who wrote demanding the full amount or else.

 

I knocked up a simple letter for them explaining the situation and nearly three months later the DCA wrote back, having obviously checked the matter out with the bank, stating they'd noted the contents and would not be pursuing the matter unless the bank instructed them to do so once more.

 

That was about 6 weeks ago, nothing from anyone and the unlawful rescission was accepted many months ago. My guess is they know they've messed up and have moved on to more pressing matters with this account currently being in limbo. There were added complications for them too as the loan figures didn't add up, they were about £4.50 out but the bank repeatedly refused to comment or explain why the figures were wrong.

 

So, it does work and regardless of their threats quite simply it is their own actions that resulted in the mess they find themselves in today .

 

Fascinating. The mores stories I read about the ineptitude of our banks the more incredulous it all seems. That they can't be bothered to get simple bits of paperwork right is just nuts.

[InformedSearcher]

Sweet . Get that letter recorded and print it all off to show they've had it. If the default is inaccurate as you state it is you are only indebted to them for the amount specified on that default notice.

 

Not that they'll like it but I had a friend who did it with HSBC for the best part of 18k and to date HSBC have been speechless! Perhaps they'll start realising that such notices are actually quite important . All the best.

 

 

BUT the DN remains on CRA files I bet! The same as a CCJ in the eyes of any potential finance provider ... for 6 years! The challenge of course is to get the DN entry removed. VERY much easier said than done.

 

Michael

[brooooooooooce]

Of course you still have to get this through to the judge, I am in court tommorrow despite a totally invalid DN, they have even changed the details on the DN they have put with the witness statement despite me having the original which is completly different.

 

I have spelled it out in a witness statement of my own in the hope it would get thrown out or they would back down, less than 24hrs to go and nothing yet !

 

Cosalt

 

Good luck with it!

[emandcole]

Aha...cue the second part! As we all know the role of the Credit Reference Agencies is to maintain an accurate record of debtor performance (simplistically speaking). The fact that the default the bank would have registered was 1) inaccurate and 2) invalid means that it has no place on the files of the CRA's. If it does then we might as well throw the entire system into anarchy as it becomes both useless and damaging, both to the consumer as they can't access financial services and to the financial industry as there's no one left who is deemed to be credit worthy.

 

It follows therefore that an incorrect/invalid DN has no place in the CRA files and accordingly the consumer can demand that such an incorrect entry is removed. As the account has been terminated by the creditor and accepted by the debtor there is no longer any right to allow the creditor to re-issue another DN. A letter to the data controller of the creditor requesting this invalid entry is immediately removed should be complied with as it is inaccurate. The CRA also has a duty to ensure all records it holds on a data subject are entirely accurate.

 

Your line of attack is therefore twofold. A letter to the CRA about an entry will normally result in the CRA asking the creditor to substantiate the accuracy of the entry. If the creditor fails to respond or to substantiate the entry the CRA will or should remove the offending entry. Also, the data controller of the creditor should be under no illusion as to their responsibilities and if you can demonstrate their default is invalid it certainly should be removed immediately if termination has occurred.

 

Of course if termination hasn't happened the creditor can merely correct the default notice to avoid scrutiny at a later stage. I've had success with this before, informing a creditor that unless they remove the invalid default I will litigate for injury to credit and breach of data protection and had a letter back from the DCA handling it confirming it will be removed from all CRA's apologising for the 'oversight' on their part.

 

Remember, the CRA's MUST record accurate information and an invalid default on a terminated account is in no way accurate. It follows that it should be removed however the account performance and record of payment will be accurate and that of course will stay there...as it should if it's perfectly correct.

[lookinforinfo]

It is a bit of a dog's breakfast.

 

First they say you have to take action on or before 14/04/2009. then the next line says if you do not take action before the date shown ....which would be the 13/04/2009 and would I think, then make the date one day short even if posted 1st class. Don't know if any one disagrees?

 

There are three pieces of information that should all be capitalised and they haven't done so.

 

The DN should have said “This notice should include a copy of the current Office of Fair Trading information sheet on default. This contains important information about your rights and where to go for support and advice. If it is not included, you should contact us to get one.”

 

I notice that they are charging interest when they can't-this is what should happen-

 

We are not entitled to charge you interest on the default sums for the first 28 days after we have given you this notice. However if the sums are not paid in full by that date interest will be charged at the rate of…….[NOTE 1]. Since this interest rate is a variable rate, the rate which we will apply to the default sum once the 28 days have passed may be different.”.

 

And of course there is the Final Warning posted after the expiry of the DN time limit giving you a further 10 days to pay up. Despite their strictures in the DN where they say they will

terminate the agreement. In addition, the arrears are now less than they were when the DN was issued. Have you paid any money within that time? If not, cross your fingers that it is the Final Notice figure that is the correct amount.

[emandcole]

 

First they say you have to take action on or before 14/04/2009. then the next line says if you do not take action before the date shown ....which would be the 13/04/2009 and would I think, then make the date one day short even if posted 1st class. Don't know if any one disagrees?

 

 

Hi, pretty certain from numerous discussions on here that the fact the creditor states the DN must be remedied before a date shown does automatically mean that you actually have until 23:59:59 of the day before remedy is required in order to avoid any further action listed.

 

Technically then this removes an entire day from the remedy time actually available to the recipient.

 

So, in many cases yes, I certainly believe this would invalidate a DN even if the time for service was correctly given...yet another peculiarity of the DN wording!

 

It's all complete madness

[diddydicky]

Hi. I have just received a letter from HSBC headed 'FINAL DEMAND'. It goes on to state, 'We now DEMAND (their emphasis) immediate payment of £xxxx.xx (the full amount outstanding). Current interest arrangements will continue to apply.'

 

The DN was defective as it didn't allow any time for service. Do you think I should send the unlawful rescission letter as they have asked for the full balance. The letter doesn't state it is a TN, just a final demand with a DEMAND for full payment!

 

Cheers in advance.

 

a demand for you to pay immediately, those sums which are not yet due under the agreement is an unlawful repudiation on the part of the creditor (they are refusing to allow you to continue making monthly payments ) since they are not entitled, by virtue of the defective DN, to make that demand therefore go ahead and make the punks day (accept their unlawful repudiation)

[cosalt]

Good luck with it!

 

 

Thanks, I will post the outcome asap !

[diddydicky]

Of course you still have to get this through to the judge, I am in court tommorrow despite a totally invalid DN, they have even changed the details on the DN they have put with the witness statement despite me having the original which is completly different.

 

I have spelled it out in a witness statement of my own in the hope it would get thrown out or they would back down, less than 24hrs to go and nothing yet !

 

Cosalt

 

they will back down outside the courtroom door-

[diddydicky]

BUMP!!

 

the DN is also faulty if posted first class - if it was posted other than royal mail (for instance uk mail) since they would not have collected the letter until Monday 29th and it would not have entered the royal mail system until tuesday 30th

 

the effective date by which you should have remedied the DN is the 13th not the 14th since they say that you must do so BEFORE 14th

 

the DN went out of its way to become a termination notice since they said quite clearly that the agreement is terminated as of 14th April therefore you can ignore their letter of termination dated 15th April as they had already terminated the agreement on the 14th

 

i do wish other creditors would Pre terminate in the same way on a dodgy DN!!

Edited April 15, 2010 by diddydicky

[cosalt]

they will back down outside the courtroom door-

 

 

Do you think ? I was confident up to this point but now not so sure :-|

[diddydicky]

unless they have not realised that they have altered the Dn (doubtful) i think that they will attempt to "have a conversation" with you in the waiting room about the DN and possibly try to persuade you that they are on firm ground

 

you will say- no deal- they will go away and use the phone and then when they go in to court will discontinue

 

if they don't- then why worry- if what you have said is correct then an altered DN will be FATAL to their claim= they have shown a willingness to alter this evidence- you simply invite the judge to the conclusion that as they have been prepared to tamper with and alter this evidence- then none of their evidence can be relied upon as truthful

[InformedSearcher]

Aha...cue the second part! As we all know the role of the Credit Reference Agencies is to maintain an accurate record of debtor performance (simplistically speaking). The fact that the default the bank would have registered was 1) inaccurate and 2) invalid means that it has no place on the files of the CRA's. If it does then we might as well throw the entire system into anarchy as it becomes both useless and damaging, both to the consumer as they can't access financial services and to the financial industry as there's no one left who is deemed to be credit worthy.

I am agreeing with ALL your comments and yes, in an ideal world it'd all go like clockwork. I have, however had numerous conversations with CRA customer services (now there's a laugh!) who have been trained well and that means 'not' in your favour.

There's no anarchy at all, the system works in favour of the CRA's client, as in a financial instiution. To a CRA and the bank, it's not them at fault but 'you'. Amazingly banks reply within their allotted 10 days with often nice little replies such as, 'The details entered are accurate, please contact 'X' if there is anything further to discuss'.

 

It follows therefore that an incorrect/invalid DN has no place in the CRA files and accordingly the consumer can demand that such an incorrect entry is removed. As the account has been terminated by the creditor and accepted by the debtor there is no longer any right to allow the creditor to re-issue another DN. A letter to the data controller of the creditor requesting this invalid entry is immediately removed should be complied with as it is inaccurate. The CRA also has a duty to ensure all records it holds on a data subject are entirely accurate.

With respect have you ever actually gotten a CRA to abide/adhere to your request/demand with success? A CRA wins on both sides and are biased towards the bank (their client) at all times.

 

Your line of attack is therefore twofold. A letter to the CRA about an entry will normally result in the CRA asking the creditor to substantiate the accuracy of the entry. If the creditor fails to respond or to substantiate the entry the CRA will or should remove the offending entry. Also, the data controller of the creditor should be under no illusion as to their responsibilities and if you can demonstrate their default is invalid it certainly should be removed immediately if termination has occurred.

This was replied to after your first paragrah, sadly. ...

There's a huge difference in so much as a CRA requires it's clients to respond within 10 days and I've never seen this 'not' happen. Their client who happens to be your bank will however take weeks to reply to you and then like politicians, it is never a straightforward answer. All the time that DN remains there even though you might add a notice or correction - To a potential creditor viewing your file, it might as well say 'I am guilty!'.

 

Of course if termination hasn't happened the creditor can merely correct the default notice to avoid scrutiny at a later stage. I've had success with this before, informing a creditor that unless they remove the invalid default I will litigate for injury to credit and breach of data protection and had a letter back from the DCA handling it confirming it will be removed from all CRA's apologising for the 'oversight' on their part.

There's actually debate if this is permissable. You hold a letter that reflects one of the few 'real' bits of what you to believe to be truthful that a bank will issue. My view is that once a DN is issued then it should be considered final with/without Final Demand - Otherwise they never need issue the final if it remains 'in house' as many are. Waiting anything up to a year for an ICO final reply kind of makes one a bit disillusioned and occasionally desperate.

 

Remember, the CRA's MUST record accurate information and an invalid default on a terminated account is in no way accurate. It follows that it should be removed however the account performance and record of payment will be accurate and that of course will stay there...as it should if it's perfectly correct.

Well that maybe so BUT a CRA will say that their clients are both professionally and responsible otherwise they would not be allowed to trade in the business they do.

 

I have often said that a bank is cunning. A DN is as bad as a CCJ in the eyes of any potential creditor. These days a bank need not bother with court but just leave the DN there and continue to pressure you. If you feel brave their view is that you can take them to court. They are fully aware that by doing so, you'll be doing all the 'donkey' work whilst they just sit back. To take a bank to court over say, a small error on a DN might well put you at a disadvantage.

 

I feel a lot of this is so sad. I was a person brought up to respect companies like banks. These days with their aggressive manners, that type of belief long ago left me. I have a great example of two letters sent 3 days apart both offering '7 days' but opportunities to call within '14 days'! To top it all they regard the same CC account with totally different views and options! I like to feel this has more chance in court to humiliate them rather that the wish that some nice judge will take pity on me with an erred DN.

 

Michael