Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

    Viewing this from a selfish view (as always), does this have any impact on a case when the claimant won and the DJ stated that the fact that the DN did not allow the requisite 7 days on the balance of probabilities this was of no importance.
    I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

    If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

      Interesting point Cymru.
      Unfortunately I doubt it would apply retrospectively, unless perhaps the defendant had asked for an extension or stay pending the results of the appeal and was refused?
      I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though..imagine the chaos to creditors!!!
      Last edited by Undercover Elsa; 30th October 2011, 08:06.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

        It's nice to dream.......
        I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

        If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

          Heres a thought

          What if, by confirming what the law is and always WAS, the unlucky defendant could appeal out of time citing brandon

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

            Paul; I can see your point... Interesting
            I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

            If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

              Heres a thought

              What if, by confirming what the law is and always WAS, the unlucky defendant could appeal out of time citing brandon
              Paul; I can see your point... Interesting
              Me too, that would be great specially with mine where the default was out of time and the solicitors knew it so put a fraudulent one in the bundle.

              Sadly though I doubt very much if it would be allowed oh well nice thought though.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

                I realize this is an old thread, but I only recently came across this commentary by Squire Sanders.

                Some may find it interesting

                Comment


                While Mr Brandon may take the Court of Appeal's decision as a success, it is unlikely to ultimately change the
                position that he is liable to Amex for the balance under the agreement. The Court of Appeal was simply asked
                to decide whether it was right for Amex to be granted summary judgment on its claim against Mr Brandon. In
                the County Court, DJ Gisby decided Mr Brandon's defence, based on an allegation that the default notice was
                defective, failed to disclose any real prospect of success and entered judgment against him. In the High Court,
                HHJ Denyer QC thought Mr Brandon's point on the default notice was not unarguable but Amex's alternative
                argument, which was unpleaded and raised for the first time before HHJ Denyer QC, of contractual
                termination under clause 10(2) was fatal to Mr Brandon's defence. The Court of Appeal was plainly unhappy
                with the conclusion it felt compelled to reach. As the claim must now proceed in the County Court, it seems
                likely that Amex will simply re-serve a default notice and amend its Particulars of Claim to rely on that notice in
                the alternative and formally set out its position under clause 10(2).


                The Court of Appeal's decision should not be taken as an authority for the suggestion that a defective default
                notice cannot be overlooked if the debtor is not prejudiced by the defect. The Court of Appeal expressed no
                view on this point and it was not required to do so. It is therefore open to creditors or owners, who are faced
                with allegations that a statutory notice is defective, to argue that the debtor or hirer is not prejudiced by any
                non-compliance. The only change after the Court of Appeal's decision is that there is no binding High Court
                authority to support that argument. Whether or not such an argument succeeds is likely to depend on the
                factual position and the exercise of a judge's discretion. But even if the court decides that a notice is
                defective, it should be remembered that a default notice is only required to (a) terminate an agreement, (b)
                demand earlier repayment of any sum, (c) recover possession of goods, (d) treat any right conferred on the
                debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred or (e) enforce any security. It is not
                required to recover arrears under the agreement which have fallen due by the time of trial.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I know its an old thread now

                  But did Amex ever pursue further action against Mr Brandon?

                  There is a lot of info available online as to the Brandon appeal win, but very little of what happened afterwards?

                  Do invalid default notices render a terminated account unenforceable in its own right or are debt purchasers in general still going ahead with cases where known invalid default notices exist.?


                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I donít think Amex took any further action on this case.

                    A valid DN has to been issued for a company to win at court.

                    Debt purchasers still go ahead because they rely on ignorance and fear to win at court.
                    I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                    If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by cymruambyth View Post
                      I donít think Amex took any further action on this case.

                      A valid DN has to been issued for a company to win at court.

                      Debt purchasers still go ahead because they rely on ignorance and fear to win at court.
                      Thanks for the update.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        There are also more recent cases where the need for a DN was upheld at appeal. I am sure Di or Jo would be able to provide more help

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Doyle v PRA Group (UK ) Limited springs to mind .....................
                          Legal Disclaimer
                          I am a solicitor Advocate who specialises in consumer credit and my firm is Joanna Connolly Solicitors. My leading case of Carey v HSBC set the legal precedence for creditors compliance with s.77 & s.78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 statutory requests & enforcement of debts in court. Any posts I make on the AAD Consumer Forum are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide on the forum is without liability. If you are unsure please seek formal legal guidance or contact your local citizens advice bureau at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk.

                          If you need to contact me you can send me a message by clicking my username or by emailing me at jo@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk or by telephoning 0330 053 9340.

                          Comment

                          Who's Viewing Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
                          Working...
                          X