Anatomy of a Default Notice

[lord_tiger_putin]

Any chance you could point me to where the ICO states this please so that I can have a look?

 

Thanks:)

 

It is here:

 

http://www.Information Commissioner`s Office.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guide s/default_tgn_version_v3%20 %20doc.pdf

 

Have a look from section 17 onwards.

[lexis200]

Thanks very much!

[lord_tiger_putin]

They do talk about DMP arranged by a 3rd, 'not for profit' party which concerns me a bit. Mine was done by a commercial company.

 

On the other hand the guidance is clear that should you make alternative arrangements for a reduced payments that is deemed a significant amount (not token payments), and accepted by the lender, then they should not Default you as long as you keep up the payments.

[means2anend]

duplicate

Edited July 22, 2010 by means2anend

[means2anend]

Can I just point out that the date issue has been gone over time and again, and I think it's highly unlikely that a judge will not just ignore the fact that it says 28 days instead of giving a date.

 

I know the Act specifies 'date' etc, and I know that to the letter of the Act it should be invalid if there is not a date, but can you honestly see yourself trying to argue that 28 days is not enough time to remedy, date or no date? All a judge will see is that the notice gave 14 days and then some, as required. How are you going to argue that it did not give enough time when you have an extra two weeks?

 

Granted this is not right and it could be abused in all manner of ways, which is precisely why the Act states a date and not just a number of days. I would lay odds on this not being an issue to them though.

 

The fact there isn't a date on the notice is possibly a little more problematic for them as it's right that there should be one there on the notice itself. Again though I doubt this would on its own be enough to cause them consternation as they'd just get x employee to swear they are all sent with a covering letter bearing the date. In addition to that they will likely have records of when it was sent on their files, and as we all know it's deemed served after x days (depending on what class post was used) in the ordinary course of the post.

 

Cap1's notices are decidedly dodgy (I have one myself), but they are unfortunately not as clear cut as 'they haven't put a date so they're screwed'.

 

If there are other issues I've not seen them as the link just seems to go to Photobucket's front page.

 

 

I know that much time and discussion has been spent on whether it is 'de minimus' whenter sufficient time has been allowed anyway etc etc....However much discussion has also been spent on the DJ lottery and that CC level there is no 'reigning in' of these people.

 

However it is precisely because of that as well that unpredictability flourishes and it depends upon what approch that that particular DJ espouses...

 

For example we know that aids to statutory interpretation adopt at least three approaches...

 

1-Literal (Classical Traditional approach)

2-Purposive (has been more prevalent since entry into EU 1972 as this is the more EU type of interpretation)

3-Golden Rule (Mischief behind the offence that Act is trying to prevent)

 

In DN type cases it is becoming apparent more and more that because of the nature of the allegations that there is a conflict between the Literal V Purposive....and ultimately it will depend on what type of Judge.

 

If applied Literally then yes the DN becomes invalid

If applied Purposively then No...because the purpose of the Regulation is to give the debtor ''no less than 14 days'' and it would be argued that the debtor has indeed received a ''betterment'' a word commonly used in contract.

 

But ultimately if a Judge from the ''old school'' sits in that Judge may espouse the classical Literalist approach and find that the DN is ineed invalid....It truly is a Lottery and UNTIL this is settled at a more senior level...we'll just have to present our individual case more carefully

Edited July 22, 2010 by means2anend

[means2anend]

So... FossilFinder I only wished to make you aware of the Law so that you could make up your own mind

 

rgds

 

m2ae:)

[lord_tiger_putin]

Well al these make think of the folowing situation, been there a couple of times with slight variations (and I believe most of you as well):

 

* Direct Debit leaves my account on date x leaving my account over limit

* Salary comes in date x+1day (as always and track record therefore)

* Phone bank and aks not to apply penalty charge because didn't know DD on that date but remedy was next day

* Bank says, sorry, we pocket £25 because this is the letter in the t&c's and you are aware of it

 

I know this is a topic that has been discussed many times but to me it is just that the following fact gets ignored, as we all know:x:

* The bank applies the letter of the agreement and I have to pay

* The bank ignores the letter of the law when applying DN and gets away without complying

[means2anend]

FF you ALSO raised concerns that the Consumer Credit Agreement request had not been complied with...

 

An interesting point to note is that ''enforcement'' in MgGuffick only went as far as bringing the proceedings but not being able to enforce judgement..a strange anomaly

 

In a strange twist of fate the Lender has effectively shut off that route for itself .....So while they can threaten to take you to court they cannot obtain Judgement...whilst the account is in dispute'' and therefore this shortcircuits the issue of the ''valid'' DN.

 

If you find time google MgGuffick v RBS ....

 

It may well be that this double entendre of CCA missing and DN issued may work in your favour....and they may decide not to report you to CRA's

 

It seems that a cca request not complied with on it's own does not stop them from reporting you to CRA's because that was not defined in MgGuffick as ''amounting'' to enforcement....as at common law they can show that you had an account sometime in the past and that consent to data processing would in all probability have been given by you.

 

But with the issue of a DN involved as in here they cannot actually obtain Judgement (which is obviously enforcement)

 

The difference here is A CCJ or DN on Credit File....or in the meanwhile neither of them

 

Yet somehow they both appear to carry the same weighty consequences...

 

m2ae

Edited July 22, 2010 by means2anend

[lexis200]

It seems that a cca request not complied with on it's own does not stop them from reporting you to CRA's because that was not defined in MgGuffick as ''amounting'' to enforcement....as at common law they can show that you had an account sometime in the past and that consent to data processing would in all probability have been given by you.

 

This is so wrong!!! Not what you've said M2ae, but the inequality of it!

 

I have accounts - several of the buggers - where yes they can show that I did indeed have the account due to statements and an application form (albeit an illegible and unenforceable one), but what they can't show is consent. Co-op for instance in their app form clearly state that they will use my data only in order to confirm my identity etc. There is absolutely no mention of them being able - or indeed wanting to - use it after the application has been agreed, and there is no implication in the wording they use which suggests as such either. Despite this, I have a big fat 'D' on my file from them.

 

In short, they have no agreement, terminated with no DN, then 2 years later sent a dodgy DN followed by a termination a few days later, and, according to the app form they've sent (which is apparently my executed agreement!) they don't ask for permission to process my data.

 

Sadly this is not a one off, and as you say it may as well be a CCJ for the damage it does!

[lord_tiger_putin]

This is just my 2 pence on the dates on a DN:

 

 

My arguments on the date for remedy of the alleged breach described in a Default Notice:

 

Fourteen days between Date of Service and Date of Remedy:

 

Date of Remedy:

Schedule 2 of the CCA 1974 states:

3. Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

“if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date not less than fourteen days after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken;”

 

 

The legislator clearly decided that the receiver of the Default Notice must have 14 days to his/her disposal to remedy the alleged breach. This is 14 days from the Date of Service of the Default Notice to the Date of Remedy.

 

Method of Servicing:

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

 

According to the above the Method of Servicing of the Default Notice is deemed to be by either first or second class mail and therefore the Date of Service is the date that it dropped through the receiver’s letterbox. Therefore the length of time between the Date when Mailed to the Date of Service is variable and can be a significant number of days (Royal Mail is not always reliable and there are sometimes postal strikes). The receiver can proof the Date of Service by either keeping the envelope it came in or by having a sworn witness statement of the exact date.

 

The following argument can be use when the receiver has no proof of the Date of Service as a result of not having the envelope available or when it is impossible to have a sworn witness statement to verify the Date of Service. Therefore this gives the receiver 2 working days between the Date on the Notice and the Date of Service. The receiver can use the argument that it was send 2nd class and therefore he/she has 4 working days between the Date on the Notice and the Date of Service, but unless it is true, it can be easily defeated by the sender introducing a sworn witness statement that these documents are always been send by first class.

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

 

Common mistakes made by Issuers of Default Notices regarding the Date of Remedy:

 

First Mistake:

They miss the point that it is 14 days between Date of Service and Date of Remedy and interpret it as 14 days between Date of Issue and Date of Remedy. HSBC is a classic example. There are at least 2 reasons why having the clock starting on the Date of Services is a good thing:

 

• If it was 14 days between Date of Issue and Date of Remedy then the receiver is at a clear disadvantage, usually he/she will have 12 days to remedy but what if it takes 5 or more days to reach the receiver? It can even be longer if there are postal strikes.
  
• The other issue is also that there could be a significant delay between the Date of Issue and the Date of Mailing and leave the door open to a deliberate delay on the side of the Issuer.
  

 

Therefore the legislator gives the receiver a fair advantage of ensuring that it will always be 14 days, no matter how long it takes from the Date of Issue to the Date of Service.

 

This do create a dilemma for the Issuer though, when to set the Date of Remedy? Either the Issuer allows enough days to allow for any occurrence between Date of Issue to the Date of Service by setting the date well in advance or by using recorded mail. The last option will allow the Issuer to confirm that the Default Notice was served and on what date. However, this will be costly and time consuming and can fail by the receiver not signing it. Therefore the only viable option is a date well in advance.

 

Second Mistake:

Many Issuers do realise that it is 14 days between Date of Service and Date of Remedy and try to overcome the problems mentioned above by not setting a date by using a statement of “Remedy within xx days”, Welcome Finance is a classic example here. xx days from when? Some do state “Remedy within xx days from date of receiving the notice”. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that is breaks the letter of the law and the second is that it introduce ambiguity.

 

The first point is a technical one and it is certainly valid. The downside is that it could be easier for a Judge to ignore than the number of days in the first common mistake. The point of ambiguity could be a very important argument because the Issuer and Receiver can have completely different perceptions of the Date of Remedy. The Issuer issues it with a statement that the Receiver has 14 days to remedy it after receiving the Default Notice, therefore it is 14 days + 2 working days after issue in the Issuers mind. The Issuers computers could be set up to Default the Receiver should payment not been receive by that date. The Receiver receives it 7 days after it was issued and calculates Date of Remedy as 14 days + 7 days after issue and remedy it within this time, the Receiver do not know the intentions of the Issuer and believes he/she is the clear but it could be after the Date of Remedy perceived by the Issuer. The Receiver believes he remedied it in time, the Issuer believes otherwise.

 

Therefore the legislator gives the receiver a fair advantage of ensuring that it will always be 14 days from the Date of Service to the Date of Remedy by ensuring the Issuer gives a Date for the Remedy which is un-ambiguous and not a timeframe which could be ambiguous.

[lord_tiger_putin]

That is very interesting LTP...

 

When I had to go onto a payment plan I was told by a good proportion of my creditors that I needed to be served a DN before they would consider it, or as soon as I started it.

 

The reference has to do with the ICO guidance on filing Defaults with CRA's and has nothing to do with the issuing of DN's. Seeing that we have some of those been filed while in DMP I decided to make a study of the ICO's guidelines.

 

My conclusion is that these companies can issue DN according to their t&c's BUT THEY CANNOT FILE IT WITH CRA's according to the guidelines. Therefore I could not care a rat's ass if they issue them as long as they are not allowed to file them (off course they ignored it but I believe the ICO guidance give one some firm ground).

 

Off course, not filing them basicly makes them irrlevent and therfore the t&c's that says they can issue them!

 

 

Data Protection Technical Guidance - ICO

Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

Our general approach

6 It is now recognised within the credit industry that information placed on a credit reference file should meet consistent standards and, therefore, that defaults should be filed in similar circumstances to each other. As far as possible these circumstances should be defined objectively. This guidance does not relate to lenders’ internal policies regarding collection activities or decisions to write off debts, and so on. It is concerned solely with the filing of information for credit referencing purposes.Such internal policies and practices should not be the determining factor in when and how a default is filed.

7 This does not necessarily mean that every lender must adopt exactly the same approach. The criteria for filing defaults may vary according to the particular product involved although significant differences in the standards between product types should only exist where necessary to give an adequate reflection of customers’ financial standing. The crucial point is that lenders offering the same product type should operate to the same standards in filing defaults. Those standards can also allow some flexibility in when and how defaults are filed within a product type.

8 One consequence of allowing some differences is that it increases the likelihood that default records for different product types will not be able to predict bad debt equally. To make sure they process data fairly, lenders should take account of this possibility when they develop scorecards.

The definition of a default

9 A ‘default’ can be said to occur as soon as a borrower fails to meet the terms of their credit arrangement. However, adopting this definition for credit referencing purposes would create difficulties since it is accepted that not all these defaults should be reported, for example, where weekly payments are late but are quickly remedied.

The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when “the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down”.

10 Indicators of a default

The following indicate that a breakdown has occurred in most types of product (excluding those in the section on Exceptions at paragraphs 12-15). This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

􀂃 The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.

􀂃 The account has been referred for legal action.

􀂃 The account has been included in a bankruptcy, IVA, or similar.

􀂃 The asset financed has been repossessed or instructions for repossession have been given.

􀂃 The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided (or would do so if they were not prevented on social rather than commercial grounds or by other regulations, codes of practice or statute).

􀂃 The customer has not made satisfactory proposals in response to a demand for repayment.

􀂃 The customer has given a clear indication, for example, by handing back an asset, that they do not intend to meet their contractual obligations.

􀂃 The lender has evidence that an account has been opened or used for fraudulent purposes by the applicant.

11 Time framework

Although there will be some flexibility in the definition of a breakdown, we believe there should be general rules for the minimum period of arrears which should exist before a default can be filed. Equally there should be a maximum period after which, if anything is to be recorded with a credit reference agency, a default must be filed. The following are in line with the practices currently adopted by most lenders.

• Accounts should not be routinely filed as being in default where full payments or those due under a rescheduled agreement are fewer than three consecutive months in arrears.

• Accounts should normally be filed as being in default where those payments due have not been received for six months.

This time framework only relates to filing defaults. It does not affect the lenders’ ability to continue to report accurately on the extent of arrears using monthly status codes. We recognise that may not always be appropriate for products which advance credit over either a very short or very long-term.

Variations in payment schedules - Keeping the record up to date

17 Lenders should not file a default where there is a genuine and agreed variation in the payment schedule. (The only exception to this is where a debt management programme is put in place where the level of repayment represents only a token sum which is only accepted by the lender because the customer cannot afford to pay more. The reporting of debt management plans is discussed at paragraphs 22-26.) Customers should not be led to believe that they have agreed a change to the arrangement to repay a loan, when the lender considers that the customer has defaulted. A lender filing a default in these circumstances is likely to be processing personal data unfairly. In all cases it is important that lenders and debt advisers explain to borrowers how their credit reference files will reflect the changed situation. This is necessary to avoid misunderstandings and disputes about what a customer has agreed to and what will be reported to a credit reference agency as a result of variations in payment schedules.

Debt management programmes

22 A debt management programme (DMP) is when a customer enters a programme of repayment of all or a number of their credit agreements that has been negotiated by a third party, ‘not for profit’, debt adviser. By entering the programme the customer shows that he is acting more responsibly than someone who makes no effort whatsoever to pay what is due. However, in financial terms, DMPs include markedly different situations. Repayments vary from a level acceptable to a lender to those where the sums repaid are only nominal amounts which a socially responsible lender agrees to accept because it recognises that in entering a debt management programme the customer is trying to act responsibly but cannot afford to pay more, and this is the only way to recoup any of the debt[1]. Consequently the record filed on a credit reference file should discriminate between these situations so that an adequate reflection of the financial standing of these customers can be shared with other lenders.

23 Moderate to high levels of repayment

If the payment set out in the DMP is at a level of repayment that a lender considers at least adequate, the agreement should be marked as included in a DMP. A lender may be willing to reschedule the agreement at a later stage at which point the record should be changed to reflect the agreed rescheduling.

 

[1] This difference is recognised by the Consumer Credit Counselling Service in their use of an ‘Extended Payment Plan’ as well as their usual ‘Debt Management Plan’.

[means2anend]

Courtesy of Lord_Tiger_Putin

 

First Mistake:

They miss the point that it is 14 days between Date of Service and Date of Remedy and interpret it as 14 days between Date of Issue and Date of Remedy. HSBC is a classic example. There are at least 2 reasons why having the clock starting on the Date of Services is a good thing:

 

• If it was 14 days between Date of Issue and Date of Remedy then the receiver is at a clear disadvantage, usually he/she will have 12 days to remedy but what if it takes 5 or more days to reach the receiver? It can even be longer if there are postal strikes.
  
• The other issue is also that there could be a significant delay between the Date of Issue and the Date of Mailing and leave the door open to a deliberate delay on the side of the Issuer.
  

 

Therefore the legislator gives the receiver a fair advantage of ensuring that it will always be 14 days, no matter how long it takes from the Date of Issue to the Date of Service.

 

This do create a dilemma for the Issuer though, when to set the Date of Remedy? Either the Issuer allows enough days to allow for any occurrence between Date of Issue to the Date of Service by setting the date well in advance or by using recorded mail. The last option will allow the Issuer to confirm that the Default Notice was served and on what date. However, this will be costly and time consuming and can fail by the receiver not signing it. Therefore the only viable option is a date well in advance.

 

Second Mistake:

Many Issuers do realise that it is 14 days between Date of Service and Date of Remedy and try to overcome the problems mentioned above by not setting a date by using a statement of “Remedy within xx days”, Welcome Finance is a classic example here. xx days from when? Some do state “Remedy within xx days from date of receiving the notice”. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that is breaks the letter of the law and the second is that it introduce ambiguity.

 

The first point is a technical one and it is certainly valid. The downside is that it could be easier for a Judge to ignore than the number of days in the first common mistake. The point of ambiguity could be a very important argument because the Issuer and Receiver can have completely different perceptions of the Date of Remedy. The Issuer issues it with a statement that the Receiver has 14 days to remedy it after receiving the Default Notice, therefore it is 14 days + 2 working days after issue in the Issuers mind. The Issuers computers could be set up to Default the Receiver should payment not been receive by that date. The Receiver receives it 7 days after it was issued and calculates Date of Remedy as 14 days + 7 days after issue and remedy it within this time, the Receiver do not know the intentions of the Issuer and believes he/she is the clear but it could be after the Date of Remedy perceived by the Issuer. The Receiver believes he remedied it in time, the Issuer believes otherwise.

 

Therefore the legislator gives the receiver a fair advantage of ensuring that it will always be 14 days from the Date of Service to the Date of Remedy by ensuring the Issuer gives a Date for the Remedy which is un-ambiguous and not a timeframe which could be ambiguous.

 

 

 

Well Put

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

BUT L_T_P

 

There is always going to be a problem with your analysis..in that there will constantly be a conflict between applying the Regulation literally against using a broad purposive interpretation.

 

As Lexis said previously some Judges are ignoring the strict 14 day rule and plumping for the purpose rule...

 

For example: the Purpose is to give a date specified being a date ''no less than 14 days'' which is the phrase used in the Regulation ..

 

Where a date is NOT specified yet the time given is 28 days it seems that that purpose is fulfilled.

 

It will boil down to what the Judge espouses to on the day as I mentioned in my previous post and this itself lends to what is termed the ''lottery''

 

A debtor may be fortunate in that the Judge they have actually espouses the traditional classical literalist approach or unfortunately the European style broad and purposive interpretation which maKes it all the more harder to advise which way it will go.

 

Thats why they need to be reigned in by a definitve statement form the Higher Courts on this issue...County courts do not bind County Courts.

 

A Judge on the same facts in County Court A may decide differently to a Judge in County Court B

[lord_tiger_putin]

Should a Judge ask the question what is in a day? Being that it is 12 or 13 days for the Date of Remedy.

 

The answer would be:

 

Sorry to be sounding outrageous sir,

MILLIONS!!!

 

How many times have I missed something by a day? A DD leaves my account a day before my salary comes in or I made a payment one day late.

 

The banks response:

“It is in the terms and conditions which you signed that the funds must be in your account when payments are been made.” Meaning: You are bound by the CCA 1974 and if you miss a payment with even one day, we can add a significant penalty charge.

 

I am sure I am not the only one to whom this have happened and therefore the banks are making MILLIONS out of a single day.

 

If they say 28 days and not 14 then it could make it much harder, as you say, it depends on the Judge but all what will be needed is for a real case to happen. Say they say 28 days and for one reason or the other it takes 7 days for the DN to reach you. They think after 30 days you haven’t responded and then Defaulted you but on the 31st day you do make the payment which is within the remedy date of 35 days. The Default will appear but you will be able to prove that you responded appropriate and that the Default is wrong.

 

To me the problem is that the banks can just do what they like, make their own interpretation and do not have to convince any Judge that what they are doing is incorrect. You, on the other hand, have the burden of proof and you must convince the Judge of their wrong doing. Then, as you said, whether you will succeed depends on the Law as well as the Lotto!

[diddydicky]

This is so wrong!!! Not what you've said M2ae, but the inequality of it!

 

I have accounts - several of the buggers - where yes they can show that I did indeed have the account due to statements and an application form (albeit an illegible and unenforceable one), but what they can't show is consent. Co-op for instance in their app form clearly state that they will use my data only in order to confirm my identity etc. There is absolutely no mention of them being able - or indeed wanting to - use it after the application has been agreed, and there is no implication in the wording they use which suggests as such either. Despite this, I have a big fat 'D' on my file from them.

 

In short, they have no agreement, terminated with no DN, then 2 years later sent a dodgy DN followed by a termination a few days later, and, according to the app form they've sent (which is apparently my executed agreement!) they don't ask for permission to process my data.

 

Sadly this is not a one off, and as you say it may as well be a CCJ for the damage it does!

 

the "flip side(s) of the coin are that:-

 

once they have trashed your file- then further threats to your credit rating are of no consequence and thus they lose an important "weapon" in their armoury

 

secondly- you wont be getting into any further credit difficulties for 6 years!

[hammyhound]

Just subbing with great interest, I have a Notice of Default Sums which the Claimant insist is the Default Notice - balance 0.56. In court at the moment with this with a hearing soon. According to them in their original reply to defence the DN will be sent asap, in their witness statement the Notice of Default Sums document appears six different times with either late payment charge of £12 or payment not received, one of which they now say is the DN hilarious. Oh by the way this Notice of Default Sums appeared in their original witness statement but still said "we are waiting for the DN".

 

Judge has ordered copies of DN and terms and conditions at next hearing. Dying to see what they produce.

 

I love this thread.

 

HH

[pumpytums]

They are numpties aren't they hammy,

I suppose you could take a copy of s88 and the relevant SI and ask them where all the relevant parts are then maybe also take a copy of s86 for comedy affect.

 

Maybe you could call their "witness" and get some of the LCD they have been taking.

 

Good Luck hammy.

 

Pumpytums

[hammyhound]

Well got my hearing date but as of course they have not provided the requested documents by the requested date from the Claimants will give the court a ring on Monday to check it out but will go to the hearing and say "no documents received again". They have listed for 3 hours, my reckoning in and out in 5 minutes

 

HH

 

OOps just noticed posted in the wrong thread again apologies- havent got used to the new site yet.

Edited August 21, 2010 by hammyhound

[means2anend]

Keep us posted

 

In these situations Judges tend to be more lenient on the Lender in view of the number they have to contend with.

 

m2ae

[cymruambyth]

Hi everyone, I'm still working my way through LTSB and DNs and terminations.

Can someone please clarify.............. DN received in 2003, followed by a letter requesting full balance from [problem]. Does this constitute termination even though nominal payments were subsequently paid?

They have sent a letter varying t&cs (2008) and have now requested full monthly payments and issued new DNs whilst threatening hell, fire and damnation.

So does the first DN still stand, can they issue a new one etc etc. I have mentioned this before, but have just found the [problem] letter and am losing the plot and the will to live!!!!!!!!

Thank you

Cy

[silverfox1961]

Hi everyone, I'm still working my way through LTSB and DNs and terminations.

Can someone please clarify.............. DN received in 2003, followed by a letter requesting full balance from [problem]. Does this constitute termination even though nominal payments were subsequently paid?

They have sent a letter varying t&cs (2008) and have now requested full monthly payments and issued new DNs whilst threatening hell, fire and damnation.

So does the first DN still stand, can they issue a new one etc etc. I have mentioned this before, but have just found the [problem] letter and am losing the plot and the will to live!!!!!!!!

Thank you

Cy

 

Once a default has been placed on your credit file-that's it, no more. If they sent you a DN but didn't act on it, that's another matter

 

With a letter demanding full balance, my opinion is that you can only assume it's terminated. I would want to get the word "terminated" in black and white

[cymruambyth]

Hi, unfortunately in pre CAG days I didn't have the knowledge to request such things! The original default has fallen off my records; of course this new one has restarted the clock!

I'm trying to work out whether I can argue that even though reduced payments were made, the demand for the full balance meant that these were payments of goodwill as the account had been terminated.

[cerberusalert]

Hi, unfortunately in pre CAG days I didn't have the knowledge to request such things! The original default has fallen off my records; of course this new one has restarted the clock!

They cannot legally enter a second default after the first has expired. Complain to the CRA and the ICO because of erroneous data being recorded on your credit record.

[silverfox1961]

What about doing a SAR to the CRA. That should show up the original default.

 

Even if they did manage to swing this new default (highly unlikely) you would have cause for complaint as that would be against OFT guidelines. They say a default should be placed in a timely manner and certainly within 6 months of defaulting on your payments (and that includes reduced payments)

[cymruambyth]

What about doing a SAR to the CRA. That should show up the original default.

 

Even if they did manage to swing this new default (highly unlikely) you would have cause for complaint as that would be against OFT guidelines. They say a default should be placed in a timely manner and certainly within 6 months of defaulting on your payments (and that includes reduced payments)

 

However (life is never simple) they are now defaulting because I have failed to increase my payments to the full amount that they are demanding. I have increased the reduced payment, but cannot pay the amount that they want.

 

PS Congrats on joining the Site Team (I have only just noticed)