AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[Joanna Connolly]

Doyle v PRA Group (UK ) Limited springs to mind .....................

[Warwick65]

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

[BigAl1968]

I don’t 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.

[cymruambyth]

I don’t 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.

[BigAl1968]

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.?

[gravytrain]

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.

[pompeyfaith]

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.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Paul; I can see your point... Interesting

[Paul.]

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

[cymruambyth]

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

It's nice to dream.......

[Undercover Elsa]

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!!!

[cymruambyth]

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.

[Paul.]

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

i think we have to look at this in the correct light

Debtor fails to pay debt, thus breaches his contract. It would be absurd to say the creditor can chose to ignore this and contractually terminate or terminate under 98A.

If that were correct we would simply not need s87 ever cos the creditor would never elect to use that provision if he didnt need to, i mean 98A is far easier, there is no form requirement on a 98A notice

If the above is right, why didnt parliament repeal 87-79 when it brought in 98A?

[Silverback]

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

Hello Garlok!

Ah well undoubtedly there will be dissection appearing on Credit Today telling us that it is all irrelevant anyway.

I think the Debt Industry's spin backlash has already started, via their odious double agents now going active over on the dog site.



Silverback

[garlok]

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

The last few posts have been really interesting reading. Thanks. I am not surprised at the quote Riz has posted and the source. As I see it, the CoA has reinforced the Statute as it must do. The Statute says 14 days and was therefore Parliament's will. I have always found these "get out jail" cards propounded by DCA/bank sympathisers to have the intent of clouding the issues putting off those who have been wronged.

Ah well undoubtedly there will be dissection appearing on Credit Today telling us that it is all irrelevant anyway. LOL


regards
Garlok