I have read various posts that set out that a Default Notice is required to enforce a Current Account Overdraft. Can you explain that in a little more detail as I have confused myself with a historic issue that has resurfaced (and I am worried that Limitation wont help me having read posts about PRA v Doyle here and elsewhere).
Whilst I can see that a Default Notice would be required for termination of the Agreement, if, being an overdraft, the debt is payable on demand, could a creditor not sue for the whole debt owed without service of anything other than a demand for payment on the basis there is no accelerated recovery (and use that to escape an allegation that the Default Notice was defective … but then on this matter get caught by limitation as the Default Notice was not part of the cause of action like in Doyle)?
Whilst I can see that a Default Notice would be required for termination of the Agreement, if, being an overdraft, the debt is payable on demand, could a creditor not sue for the whole debt owed without service of anything other than a demand for payment on the basis there is no accelerated recovery (and use that to escape an allegation that the Default Notice was defective … but then on this matter get caught by limitation as the Default Notice was not part of the cause of action like in Doyle)?
Comment