Default Notices - Updated Information!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default notices

Is there anywhere we can upload DN that are bad, just I have a couple that both have the same issue date but vary in many ways. So maybe useful to posters in finding the pitfalls in MBNA defaults

I have a section set up for this but it's temporarily closed. I'll open it up tomorrow and provide details here. Basically, blank out your personal details and upload it to the link I'll provide in morning.

By the way, we do have a secure section that only I can access - as detailed in my signature. That's where users upload their cca's as only I can see it (other mods etc can't even view the content)!

This section is now live, found here: ---> Default Notice Database

[midastouch]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Great stuff Paul - very helpful to my situation.

Thank you!

[jet set willy]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Thanks for the interesting info everyone. Bit of a bummer, i think i have had one of the only legit default notices that mbna have ever put out lol. Just my luck :-p

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Thanks for the interesting info everyone. Bit of a bummer, i think i have had one of the only legit default notices that mbna have ever put out lol. Just my luck :-p

Load it up - lets check?

---> Default Notice Database

[jet set willy]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Will do mate when i finish work. Until they find any sort of CCA then its mostly irrelevant anyhow lol. Long may that continue as well ;-)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Will do mate when i finish work. Until they find any sort of CCA then its mostly irrelevant anyhow lol. Long may that continue as well ;-)

Well yea, we don't argue unenforceable debt, for default removal etc so unless you're planning on capitulating and paying them (yep, right!) they can go and jump!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Here is a success, as a result of this judgement: ---> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...4&postcount=20

Well done Wispa

* For those without the password, see the image below

[BigCraigJohn]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

So in simple terms if the arrears asked for in the notice are not enough to bring the account under the credit limit the notice is incorrect because the account is still in breach of the agreement?.
Mine was £400 over the limit but the notice only asks for £180 arrears.
That was Lloyds also so not sure about the missing paragraph.

[midastouch]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

So in simple terms if the arrears asked for in the notice are not enough to bring the account under the credit limit the notice is incorrect because the account is still in breach of the agreement?.
Mine was £400 over the limit but the notice only asks for £180 arrears.
That was Lloyds also so not sure about the missing paragraph.

The missing paragraph is only on DN notices issued by LTSB for their credit cards and during the times Paul indicated.

If it was a loan agreement, the paragraph will be there.

[BigCraigJohn]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Was a credit card mid 2010, i'll have to dig it out and have a look.

[BigCraigJohn]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Just checked and the paragraph is certainly not there.

[midastouch]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

That's good news!

[peterbard]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Firstly i must say this does not constitute legal advice whatsoever. If you need assistance consult a qualified legal professional.

The humble default notice has been subject to large amount of interest from the Courts from County Court level right up to the High Court ( Harrison vs Link) and also the Court of Appeal (Brandon vs Amex)

So, can a default notice being bad lead to a claim against you being dismissed? i believe it can yes.

I must stress that a defective notice will not lead to the debt being written off but it will place the creditor in all kinds of trouble and will assist you in your bargaining position undoubtedly. Not least because if the notice is bad its likely if a claim has been issued then the Creditor will have to look at discontinuance and pay your costs, very very helpful in lowering your liability.

So what can make a notice bad.

District Judge Grand (Isle of Wight) handed down a judgment that struck a blow to the heart of Lloyds TSB Defaults and will now cause Lloyds a big problem.

Lloyds TSB did not amend their template in Oct 2008 when the amendments were made to the 1974 Act and the Default Regulations.

So from 2008 until recently, Jan 2011 is the most recent i have seen, Lloyds TSB credit card default notices have omitted the information required by Schedule 2 Para 10a of the Default Regs.

District Judge Grand ruled that this was enough to defeat Lloyds TSB claim as he relied on Harrison v Link Financial Para 75 as the authority for a bad notice not allowing any enforcement.

Seems Lloyds have a problem


Turning to the other creditors out there. One thing people often miss is that the terms and conditions of the contract wil normally include a term that says something like this

1) you must pay us immediately any amount which exceeds your credit limit
2) you must pay us any arrears you have built up............

However, (and MBNA seem a good example) many firms will seek one or the other.

An example here is a clients case which recently went to court.

In that case the over limit amount was £914, the arrears were £594.

So the default notice said you must pay us £594 to remedy the breach.

The problem was however that even if the client did pay what he was asked for, then he would still have been in breach of contract.

I submit that this is absurd and that the correct approach would have been for the notice to ask for as a minimum the £914 if not the full combined amount of the two.

In any event it was conceded that the notice was bad.

Link Financial also seem to keep asking for the full balance in their notices which is a no no, they can only ask for accelerated payments AFTER the Default notice has been issued and expired.

HFO Capital limit also seem to have a headache in getting it right, they always issue in the name of HFO services when the creditor is Capital.

This is a breach of schedule 2 para 1 of the Default Regs as the name and address of the creditor NOT his agent must be stated on the notice.

Also they seem to ask for the full balance or 40% down payment. This is contrary to the requirements it seems as they should state the action to be taken to remedy the breach. Now if you ever saw a HFO default notice you will know that they put TWO balances on them but never tell you which balance to pay 40% of??????

These are just points ive picked up over the past couple of years. I wanted to get them down on paper to help others,

I will continue to add to this thread as and when i get time

I have uploaded the regulations to this thread to assist people. The relevant schedule if you breach your contract is schedule 2 and this sets out what the notice must contain

Admin Note:
This thread is duplicated (and closed) over in Defaults: ---> Default Notices

HI

Good to see default notices being used to give the protection they where designed to do.
Taking about under payment reminded me of this from the summary of the Woodchester case. It is not definative of course as it was not part of the judgment but an interesting observation nevertheless.

The decision would apply equally where the default notice states too small a sum as required to cure the breach. Here, theposition is that the owner is not bound by that statement by virtue of s 172, but arguably might be estopped at common law from demanding more; on the other hand s 89 specifically provides that compliance with a default notice cures the primary breach. In that case, it is suggested, the inneffectiveness of a notice specifiying too much should not be mirrored by the complete ineffectiveness of a notice specifying too little - s 89 should prevail

This would suggest that a smaller payment would cure the breach.
Peter

[peterbard]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Hi
Another thought

Wouldnt it be an interesting scenario if an understated amount was found to be none compliant and therfore inafective and the creditor was estopped from altering the amount.

He would not be able to re-issue or enforce.
Peter

[Paul.]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

HI

Good to see default notices being used to give the protection they where designed to do.
Taking about under payment reminded me of this from the summary of the Woodchester case. It is not definative of course as it was not part of the judgment but an interesting observation nevertheless.

The decision would apply equally where the default notice states too small a sum as required to cure the breach. Here, theposition is that the owner is not bound by that statement by virtue of s 172, but arguably might be estopped at common law from demanding more; on the other hand s 89 specifically provides that compliance with a default notice cures the primary breach. In that case, it is suggested, the inneffectiveness of a notice specifiying too much should not be mirrored by the complete ineffectiveness of a notice specifying too little - s 89 should prevail

This would suggest that a smaller payment would cure the breach.
Peter

that is of course Proff Goodes own analysis on the Goode Law report and it remains untested of course.

And attached is the judgment with exactly that commentary on it, nothing like a spot of plagiarisim is there huh