Anatomy of a Default Notice

[means2anend]

As long as envelopes are kept it matters not what they swear...so long of course what they swear 'tallies' with the nature of the service that is 'in your possession'

 

m2ae

[charlie*]

Post 408 >>>>>>

 

Cerb sez one thing,

Dicky sez another....

and it was defective in any case....(why?)

 

The waters are very muddy, PLEASE, can we have inarguable clarification... I could live with what the Judge sez, which is what Dicky sez and others... it's what Cerb sez that throws doubt in my mind.... and there for the lack of a proper understands goes my missus.

 

charlie

Edited July 2, 2010 by charlie*

[diddydicky]

They may swear that it was posted that day, backed up by their computer records, but without proof of posting how can a court determine whether it was posted 1st or 2nd class?

 

 

the court does not have to "determine" whether or not it was posted first or second class- it will make a decision on the balance of probability-unless you postively assert that it was not sent first class in which case you will have to show the court why- on the balance of probability- it wasnt

 

as has been said- the envelope is the best way to do this- without which- i am afraid you will have an uphill battle

[Deb T]

Post 408 >>>>>>

 

Cerb sez one thing,

Dicky sez another....

and it was defective in any case....(why?)

 

The waters are very muddy, PLEASE, can we have inarguable clarification... I could live with what the Judge sez, which is what Dicky sez and others... it's what Cerb sez that throws doubt in my mind.... and there for the lack of a proper understands goes my missus.

 

charlie

 

If you want inarguable clarification you'll be waiting a long time, the beauty of this forum (and sometimes it's downfall) is that there are so many differing opinions, no one more right than the other simply because they are 'opinion's if you want some authority to an opinion seek one from chambers and be prepared to put your hand deep into your pocket.

 

My opinion is to nuke China

[diddydicky]

there is no argument between cerberusalert and myself- he seems to have merely made a slight error in stating (for the benefit of caggers) that the date of service is the third working day after posting when it is in fact the second (first class)

 

what we are both saying is that the DN is defective in any event since whenever it was served it did not give you sufficient time to remedy- confusion cleared up!!

[charlie*]

okay, no problemo... I just need things very clearly spelled out as best as possible because my short term memory lets me down very badly.

 

As far as keeping envelopes goes, these DN's came before I found this

forum, so, no envelopes.

 

Many thanks to everyone for the various thoughts.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Can someone please comment of this DN. My wife received the first letter and a week later the termination notice. It is for an overdraft on a current account. Needless to say, the amount is full of theft charges. They registered a Default on her CRA file.

 

Is this a valid DN? I am unsure about current accounts.

 

Thanks

 

This is the original letter, will upload the DN in the next message.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Seems the letter is far too small

[lord_tiger_putin]

Seems to have problems with images, uploaded it as a pdf file.

Doc1.pdf

[pumpytums]

Interesting,

I have one similar from Nastywest, S76(1) & 98(1) should only be used when the debtor has not breached their agreement. I assume as you have gone over your OD that you have breached your agreement.

 

76.—(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to enforce a term of a regulated

agreement by—

(a) demanding earlier payment of any sum, or

(b) recovering possession of any goods or land, or

© treating any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as

terminated, restricted or deferred,

except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days' notice of his

intention to do so.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned

in subsection (1),

but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party i5 entitled to

terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

 

(3) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.

(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on

any credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make

the restriction or deferment effective.

(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements

described by the regulations.

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a right of enforcement arising by reason of any

breach by the debtor or hirer of the regulated agreement.

 

98.—(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement

except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days' notice of the

termination.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

 

(a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in

subsection (1), but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any

party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified. (3) A

notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.

(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any

credit as restricted or deferred and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

(5) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by

reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.

 

Did the Termination notice give you 7 days or was it in effect immediately?

 

Oddly I received a S76(1) & 98(1) notice prior to receiving a termination notice. You have a combined one, which I have never seen before.

 

DO NOT return your card under any circumstances. If anyone comes knocking say you posted it.

 

Pumpytums

[cymruambyth]

I've posted this elsewhere with no replies, what do people think please?

What happens if you default, get the notice get the termination then go on to reduced payment plan, then as above then suddenly take you off the plan, increase payments (ha ha) then default you again?

[silverfox1961]

I've posted this elsewhere with no replies, what do people think please?

What happens if you default, get the notice get the termination then go on to reduced payment plan, then as above then suddenly take you off the plan, increase payments (ha ha) then default you again?

 

 

That shouldn't happen.

 

If you get a default and clear the arrears before the cut off date then it will be as if the default never happened.

If,however, you get a default followed by termination then the original default stands. You cannot be defaulted for the same debt twice.

[cymruambyth]

Thanks for your reply, I'm almost happy ......... as this is LTSB received a DN in 2003 ish, could pay the arrears, went through all the world having been tols cc terminated, then come to an arrangement to pay a very small amount (pro rata) pcm. After several years they terminate this, add hundreds in interest pcm demand hundreds to be paid pcm and then when i don't they send a new DN.

I have all the paperwork.

[Undercover-Elsa]

I take it LTSB stands for "Licensed To Suck Blood" then?

[gh2008]

IMHO, when you enter a 'repayment plan' there *should* be a new CCA agreement .......

How can the original still be effective when you are not paying the amounts contractually required. (or would they say that the terms was varied - in which case you can reject the new varied term(requiring higher repayments))

[cymruambyth]

Thanks for the comments, having had one unsuccessful bout with **** I'm starting early before the real problems start!

[citizenB]

I take it LTSB stands for "Licensed To Suck Blood" then?

 

Nice one, Elsa..

 

Thanks for your reply, I'm almost happy ......... as this is LTSB received a DN in 2003 ish, could pay the arrears, went through all the world having been tols cc terminated, then come to an arrangement to pay a very small amount (pro rata) pcm. After several years they terminate this, add hundreds in interest pcm demand hundreds to be paid pcm and then when i don't they send a new DN.

I have all the paperwork.

 

 

So, was the new DN issued after 19 December 2006 ?

[cymruambyth]

Nice one, Elsa..

 

 

 

 

So, was the new DN issued after 19 December 2006 ?

 

Oh yes, alot after 2006;). It gave lots of time to comply etc

[citizenB]

Oh yes, alot after 2006;). It gave lots of time to comply etc

 

Excellent:D

[lexis200]

Thanks for your reply, I'm almost happy ......... as this is LTSB received a DN in 2003 ish, could pay the arrears, went through all the world having been tols cc terminated, then come to an arrangement to pay a very small amount (pro rata) pcm. After several years they terminate this, add hundreds in interest pcm demand hundreds to be paid pcm and then when i don't they send a new DN.

I have all the paperwork.

 

This is exactly what happened to me cymruambyth:mad: Even though I have a recorded phone call (which I told them about when they cancelled the plan) telling me I was on a long term plan and would not be contacted till 2014, they wrote a few months ago asking for full minimums again and interest.

 

The only way to get them to accept a payment plan was for them to issue defaults again.

 

More than that though, they haven't included the original DN or demand for full payment (from [problem]) in the SAR anywhere which I thought was an absolute requirement. And, when I queried the DN being crappy both on the phone and in a letter, they said a) it wasn't in the SAR and so hadn't been issued and b) that their letters could look 'very legal' and that I'd obviously misunderstood it.

 

As with you I have all of this - even the default and termination on which I've noted what the telephone operator said to me at the time; 'it's just a standard letter, ignore it and throw away'!

[gh2008]

As with you I have all of this - even the default and termination on which I've noted what the telephone operator said to me at the time; 'it's just a standard letter, ignore it and throw away'!

 

lol I'm sure that would go down well in Court.

 

If it ever got that far that would be one witness where it would be worth every penny of their 'reasonable expenses' to call to give evidence

[pumpytums]

As with you I have all of this - even the default and termination on which I've noted what the telephone operator said to me at the time; 'it's just a standard letter, ignore it and throw away'!

 

Makes you wonder if they are either untrained or very well trained.

 

Pumpytums

[lexis200]

Quite pumpytums - surely they can't all be as thick as pig squit? It'd be a hell of a coincidence for them all to be employed in the same job sector; if they were trained to be this dense however...

[cymruambyth]

Oh yes, alot after 2006;). It gave lots of time to comply etc

 

citizenB your 'excellent ', am I missing anything in the significance of this please:razz:

[citizenB]

This is exactly what happened to me cymruambyth:mad: Even though I have a recorded phone call (which I told them about when they cancelled the plan) telling me I was on a long term plan and would not be contacted till 2014, they wrote a few months ago asking for full minimums again and interest.

 

The only way to get them to accept a payment plan was for them to issue defaults again.

 

More than that though, they haven't included the original DN or demand for full payment (from [problem]) in the SAR anywhere which I thought was an absolute requirement. And, when I queried the DN being crappy both on the phone and in a letter, they said a) it wasn't in the SAR and so hadn't been issued and b) that their letters could look 'very legal' and that I'd obviously misunderstood it.

 

As with you I have all of this - even the default and termination on which I've noted what the telephone operator said to me at the time; 'it's just a standard letter, ignore it and throw away'!

 

lol I'm sure that would go down well in Court.

 

If it ever got that far that would be one witness where it would be worth every penny of their 'reasonable expenses' to call to give evidence

 

That is just priceless

 

citizenB your 'excellent ', am I missing anything in the significance of this please:razz:

 

Cym, I think I may have misinterpreted what you actually said.. If they gave you plenty of time.. then it is irrelevant if it was issued after 2006, unless there was something other that lack of time that was wrong or they terminated prior to the remedy date. My apologies.