car2403 -v- RBS PLC (Default removal)

[shane5408]

Hi Chris,

 

You've covered most of the points I think, also keep in mind s59(1) as long as you didn't sign on company premises.

 

Any t&c's sent? If not they haven't complied with a s78 request fully and remain in default

 

Also, the application form clearly contravenes the regs as they state not only prescribed terms but all info in schedule 1 should be shown together as a whole in the agreement, nowhere does it state they can be shown on separate doc titled t&c's.

 

regards,

shane

[shane5408]

Hi Chris,

 

It looks good, RBS will be a bit gobsmacked when they see that I think:D Will put some time aside later on this evening to examine it more closely. Two things spring to mind though, first you might want to ammend the reference to the Woodchester case to include citation details so the judge can look it up should he/she not be familiar with it, i would suggest

Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339

 

In point 39 you ask for an order from the court under 14(1) of the Data Protection Act to force removal of defaults and also with 3rd party cra's as well, I think for the latter you should also mention 14(3) as it covers this.

 

kind regards,

shane

[shane5408]

Car,

 

My understanding is that if it is a Full absolute Legal assignment as opposed to an equitable assignment then all legal rights, responsiblilites, duties etc transfer to tje asignee, as such you need to issue to the new legal owner, that being Triton was it?

 

Also, If the notice of assignment includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid (e.g. unlawful charges or DCA admin/collection charges).

Even if the amount doesn't include charges but is misstated it is still invalid.

If the date is incorrect it is legally invalid (i.e. does not tie in with the deed of assignment - the execution of assignment should be the same as the date shown on the notice).

The case that supports this is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

[shane5408]

Hi Chris,

 

have to admit I'm not 100% sure on this one, will have to do some research with regard to assignments and whether 'burdens of debt' are fully transferred to assignee or not.

 

However, with regard to the default as that has been recorded against you by Style it is either them or the CRA who you need to tackle to get it removed.

 

Send the recent correspondance you have drawn up for Triton, I am very interested in what their response will be.

 

kind regards,

shane

[shane5408]

the Ltd company is dormant but they trade under the same name as an unlimited company, which is OK.

 

Hi Moonhawk,

 

This was my assumption as well.