RBS Default Notice July 2012.

[mike'y]

I've found my default notice from RBS and having researched the excellent information on this forum I reckon it's defecient. If that can be confirmed I'd be quite pleased. I'm also adding it to the database in case it's helpful to anybody else. I'm at the stage where mediation is not to far away. Are RBS able to issue another default notice in the correct format should their current proceedings fail? Thanks.

Mike.

[ATW]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Lordy. That is a clear breach. No totting up of days and deemed dates of service needed for this one.

Unfortunately they can serve as many default notices as they like until they manage to get it right. How that would affect a claim that is already heading to trial is another question though.

[ATW]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Is this the one where the Claimant was being all coy about sending you a copy of the default notice when you asked for one?

[PlanB]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

I've found my default notice from RBS and having researched the excellent information on this forum I reckon it's defecient.
.

Did RBS include the OFT fact sheet with that DN? If not then read paragraph 13 of this judgment in the case of Santander vs Mayhew ( Plan B = Mayhew ) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

[happy_bunny]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Lordy. That is a clear breach. No totting up of days and deemed dates of service needed for this one.

Unfortunately they can serve as many default notices as they like until they manage to get it right. How that would affect a claim that is already heading to trial is another question though.

Out of interest, what's wrong with it?

thanks

HB

[mike'y]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Is this the one where the Claimant was being all coy about sending you a copy of the default notice when you asked for one?

Yes it is Andrew. it should have been in my RBS file but I found it in another file, doh.

[mike'y]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Out of interest, what's wrong with it?

thanks

HB

They state 'the payment must be credited to your account no later then 17 days after the date of this Notice shown above'. I think they have to be quite specific and name an actual date ie 10th august 2012. An actual date is required.

[mike'y]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Did RBS include the OFT fact sheet with that DN? If not then read paragraph 13 of this judgment in the case of Santander vs Mayhew ( Plan B = Mayhew ) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

No. All I have is the default notice and an accompanying letter. Good link btw

[ATW]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

Out of interest, what's wrong with it?

thanks

HB

Ahhh. You might have a point there happy bunny. I had a brain storm earlier and had 2 weeks as being 24 days which at a glance made it non compliant. The regs say that the notice should state a "date [not less than fourteen days ] after the date of service of the notice". A DJ may well find that asking for payment "no later than 17 days after the date of this notice" is sufficient notification of that date. That is certainly what the bank would argue.

If its posted by 1st class post on the day it is dated then it is deemed to be served 2 days later. 2 days for deemed service plus 14 days for payment = 16 days so saying within 17 days of the date of the letter might get through.

Its risky and would depend on how pedantic the DJ was feeling as to whether the wording applies I reckon now I've looked at it again.

[ATW]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

The Default Notice must comply with Schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 to be valid. Paragraph 3 (c) states that the notice must specify “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 breach is not paying at least the minimum payments each month. That can be remedied by paying the amount stated on the default notice to bring payments back up to date (this is assuming the amount stated on the default notice is correct of course).

The time that the notice should allow for payment should therefore be not less than 14 days after the notice has been received. If served by 1^st class post it is deemed to be delivered 2 days after having been posted. If we assume that the notice was sent by 1^st class post on the same day that it is dated i.e. the 24^th July 2012 then it is deemed to have been served 2 days later which is the 26^th July 2012. To comply with the regulations (and therefore also s88 CCA 1974) it should state that payment should be made on or before the 9^th July 2012. A date later than the 9^th July is fine. One early than the 9^th July is not.

17 days after the date on the notice is the 10^th July 2012.

It certainly gives long enough for payment so the question for the court would be whether saying pay up within 17 days of the date of this letter is akin to giving a date not less than 14 days after service so that the regs and the CCA are complied with.

[mike'y]

Re: RBS Default Notice July 2012.

I've posted the latest news elsewhere.