Caesar UE Diary

[Warwick65]

As far as I know one company can not issue a DN for another- Mercer’s caused bother for Barclaycard

As I have posted elsewhere on here but not sure where, a DN has to be served by post or so I think.

Also the wording has to be very specific but without seeing it I couldn’t even comment.

What clause did you break, how much do you have to pay ?
What are the names and addresses on the top of the DN
How long does it give you to remedy the breach , does it just say in 18 days or does it give a date?

What happens if you do fix it, what happens if you don’t?

Were there any other attachments to the email?


See it’s a minefield

[Caesar]

No it’s not normal but I’d it a notice of default or a Default Notice. They are different things entirely.

Dies it mention being served under S87(1) and does it give you a time scale to remedy it

Hi Warwick65 . Thanks for reply.

The title of the email says: ,,Notice of Default''

And later on in the email I can see this: ,,This is a default notice served on you under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because you have failed to keep to the terms of the agreement.'' And at the end they gave me a time scale to remedy it.

So, is this a notice of default?

I am still a novice but another thing that I consider odd, is one company to send notice of default in behalf of other company. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Warwick65]

No it’s not normal but I’d it a notice of default or a Default Notice. They are different things entirely.

Dies it mention being served under S87(1) and does it give you a time scale to remedy it

[Caesar]

P
Selling whilst in dispute doesn't change the absence of a Notice Of Default!

Thanks Roger

One more question.
I've received Notice of Default served by email and being issued by TMLS on behalf of ACI acting for Perch Capital, the legal owner of the debt. It is obvious that this 3 companies are actually one.

Is this something normal? To send DN after almost 4 years and debt was sold two times?

[Roger]

Perch Capital Limited
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11207867
Previous Company Name: TM ASSETCO LIMITED

Creating an Assignment Chain (selling from one Co to another) could prove a problem for them!
Selling whilst in dispute doesn't change the absence of a Notice Of Default!

[Caesar]

11. Uncle Buck payday loan

• Type of account (payday loan)
• Date commenced (2016)
• Approx balance £500
• Date last paid (2016)
• Arrangement: not paying
• Status (default)
• Account owner (Asset Collections and Investigations)

June 2018 Email from Uncle Buck that they have assigned my account to Asset Collections and Investigations. Now I have 2 accounts with Asset.
I had a payment plan with Uncle Buck which I stopped it when I complained to FOS. My complaint was rejected but I haven't restarted the payment?
Sept 2018 Letter of Assignment from Asset sent again
Sept 2018 Letter of Claim from TM Legal Services regarding this debt
Oct 2018 CCA request to Asset Collections
Oct 2018 GDPR (SAR) request to original creditor Uncle Buck
Oct 2018 Received email from TM Legal Services my requested credit agreement
Oct 2018 GDPR (SAR) received from Uncle Buck but no Default Notice or Assignment Letter on it.
Oct 2018 replied to Letter of Claim and denied the debts. I have requested the Default Notice
Oct 2018. Email from TM Legal :,,Thank you for your response to our letter of claim. Unfortunately we are not supplied information regarding how and when the Default Notice is served. You can request this information directly from Uncle Buck''
March 2019 a new Letter of Claim from TM Legal Services
March 2019. Replied to LoC and requested one more time Notice of Default. Email from TM Legal :,,Thank you for your response to our letter of claim. Unfortunately we are not supplied information regarding how and when the Default Notice is served. You can request this information directly from Uncle Buck''
Sept 2019. Email from TM Legal Services: Asset Collections sold my account to Perch Capital Limited. Perch Capital appointed ACI and ACI have instructed TM Legal to continue to manage my account.

Sept 2019. Email from TM Legal Services: Asset Collections sold my account to Perch Capital Limited. Perch Capital appointed ACI and ACI have instructed TM Legal to continue to manage my account.

Can someone explain me if this is correct? No letter or email from the owner of the debt telling me that they sold the account.

And why are they doing like this? I've googled about Perch Capital and no info, just they have same address as TM Legal.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Thanks for that Di. I have sent you a private message. I am not sure if it got through.

Yes I got your PM, and have replied

Di

[Downtrodden]

...

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

. . case that anyone who has made a s78 request and has either not received their CCA ,or a version which is unenforceable, could argue that the field agent does not have the right to turn up at their door making enquiries about payment on the basis that they do not have a valid CCA which incorporates that condition? Genuine question.

Here's my genuine answer

Only a Judge can rule a credit agreement unenforceable in law.

When making that decision (in court) a Judge has to be persuaded by the Defendant that the credit agreement doesn't comply with the required sections of the Consumer Credit Act.

Section 77/78 is for 'information purposes' not 'proof purposes'. So the creditor or subsequent debt purchaser can produce 'something' to satisfy that section of the CCA, but whether that 'something' complies with other sections (e.g. s61) is a different matter.

There's also more to a debt being unenforceable than just the credit agreement. In some cases you can have a perfect credit agreement but if the Default Notice is 'bad' then the claim can be dismissed.

This was the case with Santander v Mayhew (me ) where I lost on s78 but won due to an invalid Default Notice. Read Paras 11 and 13 of the judgment to see what I mean >

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

Di

[Downtrodden]

...

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

I wanted help with my particular problem, but so far I seem to be having problems with you. I now am unable to post my own problem because of the responses I am getting

Hello Downtrodden

I'm happy to help you with your particular problem.

Would you like to start a thread of your own and I'll post on there.

I look forward to helping you.

Di

[Downtrodden]

This sounds like a certain old site theories utgghhh!!!

I wouldn't know because I don't belong, and never have belonged ,to any other site. I joined on the AAD+ membership because I wanted help with my particular problem, but so far I seem to be having problems with you. I now am unable to post my own problem because of the responses I am getting from you. I was trying to make some suggestions for Caesar because I think I am about to go into a similar situation as them.

[The Tech Clerk]

If the agent is relying on the standard condition in a consumer credit agreement which roughly says that in the event of non payment they can instruct debt collectors, would it be the case that anyone who has made a s78 request and has either not received their CCA ,or a version which is unenforceable, could argue that the field agent does not have the right to turn up at their door making enquiries about payment on the basis that they do not have a valid CCA which incorporates that condition? Genuine question.

This sounds like a certain old site theories utgghhh!!!

[Downtrodden]

Sending a field agent would not be considered as harassment (unless they sent one every week ).

It's often done to establish whether you actually live at the address they have on record, especially if communication has been by email.

It's an awkward moment if they do show up, but no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Di

If the agent is relying on the standard condition in a consumer credit agreement which roughly says that in the event of non payment they can instruct debt collectors, would it be the case that anyone who has made a s78 request and has either not received their CCA ,or a version which is unenforceable, could argue that the field agent does not have the right to turn up at their door making enquiries about payment on the basis that they do not have a valid CCA which incorporates that condition? Genuine question.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Is it worth to send Harrasement template if they ignore it? And they turn up anyway.

Sending a field agent would not be considered as harassment (unless they sent one every week ).

It's often done to establish whether you actually live at the address they have on record, especially if communication has been by email.

It's an awkward moment if they do show up, but no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Di