dodgy defaults ????

[wotsitallabout]

Hi all

First post so Please be gentle ,

Can u Please point me in the direction
Of latest news, updates, implications of

Ré brandon v amex outcome

Because after a year of silence from
MANY dca, they have a renewed interest
In tracking me down (after a move)
And wanting their monies again , and i Was
Wondering The above case Was the issue ???

My story is too long to explain But my headlines
Are :- lost job & house in 2009 , nearly family ,
Stressed to the Max which involved medical
Help to get back on track .. still no job But ok now ,

and i fear its all starting up again , wont cope !!!

Regards

[garlok]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Just written an essay for you and lost it. be back in a while.

regards
Garlok

[wotsitallabout]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Ok Ty

[garlok]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Try again G.

Simply Brandon has put to bed all of the silly arguments on forums various about Default Notices. This with the full authority of the Court of Appeal. No longer can any judge in any court other than the Supreme Court dismiss defects in a Default Notice as de minimus issues. They have reinforced the Statute completely as they are bound by their oaths to do, i.e DNs MUST comply with the law in every way. For example, 14days means 14 days. It is not a de minimus issue for the creditor to give you say 12 days and by not taking action for 28days skirt around their statutory obligations surrounding the issue of a DN under s87(1) of the CCA1974. No compliant DN, no termination, no cause of action.

Very simple overview, but both the judgement and the commentaries are worth a read.

regards
Garlok

[wotsitallabout]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Ty G

For yr reply , could u Please provide
Link , to read about mention case

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Case Law is here: ---> Case Law Database

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

could u Please provide link , to read about mention case

AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[garlok]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Thanks mate beat me to it ---- again

Garlok

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Try again G.

Simply Brandon has put to bed all of the silly arguments on forums various about Default Notices. This with the full authority of the Court of Appeal. No longer can any judge in any court other than the Supreme Court dismiss defects in a Default Notice as de minimus issues. They have reinforced the Statute completely as they are bound by their oaths to do, i.e DNs MUST comply with the law in every way. For example, 14days means 14 days. It is not a de minimus issue for the creditor to give you say 12 days and by not taking action for 28days skirt around their statutory obligations surrounding the issue of a DN under s87(1) of the CCA1974. No compliant DN, no termination, no cause of action.

Very simple overview, but both the judgement and the commentaries are worth a read.

regards
Garlok

Thanks Garlok, that is the best summary of Brandons appeal that I've seen that explains the issue and the outcome and in terms I can understand!

I had a go at reading the judgement and by brain seeped out my nose!

Cheers
SnV

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

I had a go at reading the judgement and my brain seeped out my nose!
SnV

Hmmm, brain stew - served with chiante...?

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Hmmm, brain stew - served with chiante...?

I needed alcohol. I nearly ran out of breath reading this doozey of sentence in the first paragraph. Speak english man! John Precott couldn't have twisted the english language any further!

As will be seen, a principal issue on this appeal is whether Amex was entitled to summary judgment on its case of contractual termination introduced for the first time on appeal before HHJ Denyer QC, should the sole case it successfully advanced before DJ Gisby, based upon default, prove unsustainable.

[wotsitallabout]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Many thanks too all

Ho Ho Ho !!!!

[bosdog]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Try again G.

Simply Brandon has put to bed all of the silly arguments on forums various about Default Notices. This with the full authority of the Court of Appeal. No longer can any judge in any court other than the Supreme Court dismiss defects in a Default Notice as de minimus issues. They have reinforced the Statute completely as they are bound by their oaths to do, i.e DNs MUST comply with the law in every way. For example, 14days means 14 days. It is not a de minimus issue for the creditor to give you say 12 days and by not taking action for 28days skirt around their statutory obligations surrounding the issue of a DN under s87(1) of the CCA1974. No compliant DN, no termination, no cause of action.

Very simple overview, but both the judgement and the commentaries are worth a read.

regards
Garlok

Hi there
Just a question regarding this matter, I received a default notice on 06/07/11 and a confirmed termination letter 12/11/11 are you saying that the default has to be registered exactly after 14 day and if so, does this mean my default mat be incorrect?
Also the letter provided subsequent to the default notice shows a completely different amount in arrears.
Btw if I had paid the dn arrears I still would have been way over the limit of the original agreement.
Thank you in anticipation
Bos

[garlok]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

I don't know what you mean bosdog by "registered". The DN had to be in a prescribed format, it has to give you 14 days at least to rectify the default (from the day it fell through your letterbox --- envelope needed). It has to be specific date as well it cannot just give you a number of days. It has to state the original creditors name and address in full, it has to be accurate and it has to be clear that it is served under s87(1) of the CCA1974.

If it is defective it is defective. It is of little consequence when they attempt termination which can take the form of a demand for any monies not yet due or a demand for the full outstanding amount. They cannot terminate on the back of a defective DN and they cannot enforce in a court. BUT they can rectify by issuing a fully compliant DN, so you never tell them that they have screwed up.

If you mean registration at a Credit Reference Agency this is irrelevant to the issue of a Default Notice under s87(1) although this "should" be done by the creditor no earlier than three months and no later than sixmonths after you defaulted on the account.

The two things are entirely separate.

It is my view that unless there are very pressing reasons to have a clean CRF, then ignore it, live with it because the moment you enter a dispute with a bank they will, justly or unjustly default your file at some point. This was the professional legal advice given to me way back in 2009.

regards
Garlok

[bosdog]

Re: dodgy defaults ????

Hi Garlok
Many thanks for your reply,
Yes I realise I was being stupid now, I meant do they have to issue a dn within a specific time after the 14 days, I now realise my stupidity.
Sorry, i was grabbing at straws, getting a bit desperate here : (
kind regards
bos