Default Notices: time to remedy

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Why do you two manage to rub each other up the wrong way constantly ? Its quite strange and makes it a bit difficult to actually get anywhere in a discussion.

Anyway in response to Peter's question (it is a part which does confuse me)

The credit card company has the right by virtue of its terms and conditions to terminate and recall the entire debt at any time (though I don't think they can call in sums not yet due despite having terminated the use of the credit they have to allow repayment on the same terms ? ie they can stop you using the credit card but it had to be repaid at same rate as before termination?? loan has to be paid at same rate over same period....whereas an overdraft can be called in in full within 28 days as its not regulated by the CCA ?)

However because it is regulated by the consumer credit act that right seems to have gotten confused somehow by the CCA rules in that in order to call in the entire debt (sums not yet due under the agreement) a default notice must be served in accordance with the CCA giving 14 clear days to remedy and if not remedied can be called in in full.

Like I say, I dont understand it fully (the corolation between contractual rights of termination and rights under the CCA) and would like to, but would prefer to be able to discuss it without the sniping bits if we can, then it might actually help peeps.

Hi A
sorry about the delay
Yes a credit card can be terminated at any time by either party currently without notice in feb next year there will be new sections added to the act that will require the creditor to give a months notice and an explanation of why the account is to be terminated.
This does mean that the creditor can ask for repayment of all liabilities under the agreement ( all outstanding balance). However this could not be enforced nor has the creditor got any right to enforce accelerated payments on the account.
This is a common law matter no president has ever been set where a creditors can enforce the early repayment of a loan on a contract without the breach of the debtor. All he is doing by terminating the contract without default is ending the debtors rights to draw down credit
However this does not prevent the creditor using this termination on breach of the agreement ,section 87 says that the creditor is entitled to by breach of the agreement( not exact wording but I am sure see what I mean) to terminate it does not say that he cannot terminate by any other means thus if the 14 days has passed the termination issued contractually can be used as in Brandon.
Section 87 is issued on a repudiatory breach of an agreement not on a term of an agreement, it does not matter that the agreement has been already terminated under a contractual provision.
The agreement is breached by the debtor when he ceases to fulfil his obligations under it.
No an over draft is regulated by the CCC, it just does not have to have an agreement , section 74 of the act exempts an overdraft from all of the requirements of Part V which is signing of agreements etc so no agreement has to be produced.
An overdraft simply has to be repaid on demand because of a term in the contract.
A default notice gives the creditor two options he can ask for arrears and remedy the breach or he can ask for full payment if the breach cannot be remedied usually they go for the latter in a consumer credit agreement in a hire agreement they usually go for the former as the are not recovering liabilities on the agreement again unless it is a genuine ore estimate of future charges as in Brandon..
I do not mind at all going through this at all, but I have repeated this time and time again to LA and I do not seem to be getting through. I am willing to say it is probably down to a lack of communication skills on my part perhaps we will have better luck.
Pleaas ask if you wish me to clarify further

peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Hi A
sorry about the delay
Yes a credit card can be terminated at any time by either party currently without notice in feb next year there will be new sections added to the act that will require the creditor to give a months notice and an explanation of why the account is to be terminated.
This does mean that the creditor can ask for repayment of all liabilities under the agreement ( all outstanding balance). However this could not be enforced nor has the creditor got any right to enforce accelerated payments on the account.
This is a common law matter no president has ever been set where a creditors can enforce the early repayment of a loan on a contract without the breach of the debtor. All he is doing by terminating the contract without default is ending the debtors rights to draw down credit
However this does not prevent the creditor using this termination on breach of the agreement ,section 87 says that the creditor is entitled to by breach of the agreement( not exact wording but I am sure see what I mean) to terminate it does not say that he cannot terminate by any other means thus if the 14 days has passed the termination issued contractually can be used as in Brandon.
Section 87 is issued on a repudiatory breach of an agreement not on a term of an agreement, it does not matter that the agreement has been already terminated under a contractual provision.
The agreement is breached by the debtor when he ceases to fulfil his obligations under it.
No an over draft is regulated by the CCC, it just does not have to have an agreement , section 74 of the act exempts an overdraft from all of the requirements of Part V which is signing of agreements etc so no agreement has to be produced.
An overdraft simply has to be repaid on demand because of a term in the contract.
A default notice gives the creditor two options he can ask for arrears and remedy the breach or he can ask for full payment if the breach cannot be remedied usually they go for the latter in a consumer credit agreement in a hire agreement they usually go for the former as the are not recovering liabilities on the agreement again unless it is a genuine ore estimate of future charges as in Brandon..
I do not going through this at all but I have repeated this time and time again to LA and I do not seem to be getting through. I am willing to say it is probably down to a lack of communication skills on my part perhaps we will have better luck.

Pleaas ask if you wish me to clarify further

peter

Your words, Peter?

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/cons...edit-directive

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Mmmm.
Thread on CAG now closed by site team...

Invalid Default Notices



???

Wonder if it was anything todo with this . I postd it just before the thread was closed after a site helper stuck his nose in

This really feel needs some affirmative action taking by the site team and I thought perhaps you may raise the matter on my behalf( basically because I do not seem to be able to get a reply,) I do not want to complain formally at this point.
You may copy this to whoever you feel appropriate.
There is advice being given that defective default notices can be used as a device for permanently avoiding payment on Consumer Credit Agreements.
I will not go into the legal aspects of this claim needles to say it is incorrect..
As is usual for me I have tried to dissuade people from following this “advice”, as usual I have been ignored. Now the results are becoming evident as thread after thread of people who have had there agreements enforced are being posted.
There really does need to be something done by the administration at CAG this cannot continue.
I know that there are many knowledgeable people on CAG many much more than I. I also know that they must realise that these arguments are ill founded and have no basis in law.
So why am I , time after time the only country voice being forwarded.
I do not say that I am always right on these things , I am not, but these matters do not really even approximate a legal argument.
I post on many other forums now, many not in the public domain and I can tell you that this idea would not be entertained on any of them, accept maybe for LB and that is just overspill from CAG.
I am even getting reports yet again of people proffering this is idea at Ashton under Lyne CAB .and where do you think they are getting the idea from
So why on CAG. Why do the more knowledgeable members of the team not step in and scotch these daft ideas before they do damage or at least represent an alternative view?.
Is it a case of keeping the punters at any cost I cannot believe that but is see no other explanation.
I say this and you can ignore me if you like but The OFT are watching sites like this, it only takes a few of these badly advised punters to get together and complain and regulation is just around the corner.
Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Your words, Peter?

Of course what are you trying to insinuate

Peter

[middenmess]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Coincidence I'm sure but it does seem that CAG runs scared quite often lately.

Posted by PB on CAG

This really feel needs some affirmative action taking by the site team...

There really does need to be something done by the administration at CAG this cannot continue.

I say this and you can ignore me if you like but The OFT are watching sites like this, it only takes a few of these badly advised punters to get together and complain and regulation is just around the corner.

or is it?

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

http://www.berr.gov.uk/Policies/cons...edit-directive

Thanks i havent seen this i have however been studying the EU legilstion on Bailii

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Coincidence I'm sure but it does seem that CAG runs scared quite often lately.

or is it?

As you will see rom the post above it certainly was, is that supprising?

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I disagree with that. This is far less than people being taken advantage of the banks but people attempting to take advantage of the law and the banks to sort out debt problems as it has been bandied about as a get out of debt free card, people have fallen for it/jumped at the chance, and rather than considering routes to sort the debts out at affordable rates over a longer period are trying it on with technicalities that in reality had no disadvantage on them whatsoever.

People are stopping paying on purpose. They are pushing the banks to take them to court.

Look how many people we see on here that are in too deep with these type of argments, unable to demonstrate any detriment, that have been dumped by CMcs/other forums, and we have a massive struggle to try and get these people back to where they would have been had they just accepted they cocked up and took on too much and sorted out repayment at affordable rates in the first place.

In LA's case he could have paid the £2500 and argued the default notice was incorrect to get rid of the default, but decided, as he said himself, off the back of Woodchester, (so from reading forums and correct me if I am wrong LA) not to pay any of it.

how many people have now doubled their debts in costs, incurred a mass of stress, and in cases years of effort, still result with a charge order and installments ? How many of those people could just have gone in with admissions and offers to pay and defend any actual detriment to them like unfair charges and extortionate interest and got themsleves installment rates straight off.

Now we're in the ridiculous position that people who claim unfair charges have a high court judgment against reclaiming so that is being shut down and anyone that mentions a consumer credit agreement is considered to be trying to avoid their debts.

Hi

Just regained my faith in human nature and this forum. Stalwart member now for what it is worth.

Thanksl

[dad]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Sooooo.... if you recieve a default notice that is invalid or wrong date wise and they terminate off the back of it and you write to them to accept the termination, they come back and say ahh the DN was incorrect and cancel the termination - you havent got an argument.


If the default notice was wrong and they refused to correct it or accept the correct remedy and terminate regardless and go on to report to CRAs, call in full amount etc .... then you have an argument.

(I'm still not entirely sure what the argument is or where it gets you though has something to do with only paying arrears?)

Ames,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this query. After the 'Eminence' judgment above I believe you have correctly stated the position.

So a creditor who receives an acceptance of a repudiatory breach, has an opportunity to write back and admit that they were mistaken.

If however, as is my experience, they ignore the letter and carry on insisting that they have acted correctly - especially if they plead that they have taken the s87(1) action in any PoC, then their conduct makes it difficult for the creditor to say that there was a mistake.

As I said it all depends on the conduct of the creditor.

Lastly, as the 'Eminence' judgment shows, this is an area where the law is still developing. Both you and Peter Bard are correct to caution against using these arguments unless you really understand the law and are prepared to find yourself in the higher courts arguing it out with a well represented creditor.

HTH

Dad

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Hi A
sorry about the delay
Yes a credit card can be terminated at any time by either party currently without notice in feb next year there will be new sections added to the act that will require the creditor to give a months notice and an explanation of why the account is to be terminated.
This does mean that the creditor can ask for repayment of all liabilities under the agreement ( all outstanding balance). However this could not be enforced nor has the creditor got any right to enforce accelerated payments on the account.
This is a common law matter no president has ever been set where a creditors can enforce the early repayment of a loan on a contract without the breach of the debtor. All he is doing by terminating the contract without default is ending the debtors rights to draw down credit
However this does not prevent the creditor using this termination on breach of the agreement ,section 87 says that the creditor is entitled to by breach of the agreement( not exact wording but I am sure see what I mean) to terminate it does not say that he cannot terminate by any other means thus if the 14 days has passed the termination issued contractually can be used as in Brandon.
Section 87 is issued on a repudiatory breach of an agreement not on a term of an agreement, it does not matter that the agreement has been already terminated under a contractual provision.
The agreement is breached by the debtor when he ceases to fulfil his obligations under it.
No an over draft is regulated by the CCC, it just does not have to have an agreement , section 74 of the act exempts an overdraft from all of the requirements of Part V which is signing of agreements etc so no agreement has to be produced.
An overdraft simply has to be repaid on demand because of a term in the contract.
A default notice gives the creditor two options he can ask for arrears and remedy the breach or he can ask for full payment if the breach cannot be remedied usually they go for the latter in a consumer credit agreement in a hire agreement they usually go for the former as the are not recovering liabilities on the agreement again unless it is a genuine ore estimate of future charges as in Brandon..
I do not mind at all going through this at all, but I have repeated this time and time again to LA and I do not seem to be getting through. I am willing to say it is probably down to a lack of communication skills on my part perhaps we will have better luck.
Pleaas ask if you wish me to clarify further

peter

Peter

I agree with most of what you say but there a couple of important parts to this which I would ask you to clarify.

Section 87 is issued on a repudiatory breach of an agreement not on a term of an agreement, it does not matter that the agreement has been already terminated under a contractual provision.

Is this the case? My understanding was that, as per s89, it is a last chance for the debtor to put matters right. If there remains an option to remedy the breach, then the contract cannot be repudiated at this point. Repudiation would come after the DN expired and the debtor had done nothing, as I understand.

Moreover, I do not understand how a s87(1) notice can be issued when the agreement is already terminated, because a Section 87(1) notice must comply with s88 and s88 offers the debtor an opportunity to put matters right. He cannot do this if the agreement is already terminated.

I think that s87 is being somewhat misinterpreted. It offers the lender entitlement to terminate the agreement, but only if a notice complying with s88 is served first. The lender cannot just end the agreement when a breach occurs; he must first serve a compliant DN.

If it is now being said that he can end the agreement any time anyway, then where on Earth is the point of having a DN and sections within CCA to describe it to lenders and borrowers alike? Is a DN merely a vehicle for delivering to the debtor a notice to say he is stuffed, his credit file mangled and a note requesting the balance will follow in due course?

A default notice gives the creditor two options he can ask for arrears and remedy the breach or he can ask for full payment if the breach cannot be remedied usually they go for the latter in a consumer credit agreement in a hire agreement they usually go for the former as the are not recovering liabilities on the agreement again unless it is a genuine ore estimate of future charges as in Brandon..

A DN should not give the lender any options at all. It should simply state what the arrears are and when they must be paid, as per the 1983 Regs, unless I am mistaken. To satisfy s89, only the arrears should be demanded as that is the only amount that can remedy the breach and return the position to how it was before the breach occurred.

The lender cannot, therefore, use a DN served under s87(1) to demand, and expect to be paid, everything under the agreement, AFAIK.

LA

PS: Peter, you accept that your comments are not definitive (as above), yet chastise me for questioning you. For the benefit of others, could you leave this patronising style out of any response I sincerely hope you will make?

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Peter

I agree with most of what you say but there a couple of important parts to this which I would ask you to clarify.

Section 87 is issued on a repudiatory breach of an agreement not on a term of an agreement, it does not matter that the agreement has been already terminated under a contractual provision.

Is this the case? My understanding was that, as per s89, it is a last chance for the debtor to put matters right. If there remains an option to remedy the breach, then the contract cannot be repudiated at this point. Repudiation would come after the DN expired and the debtor had done nothing, as I understand.

Moreover, I do not understand how a s87(1) notice can be issued when the agreement is already terminated, because a Section 87(1) notice must comply with s88 and s88 offers the debtor an opportunity to put matters right. He cannot do this if the agreement is already terminated.

I think that s87 is being somewhat misinterpreted. It offers the lender entitlement to terminate the agreement, but only if a notice complying with s88 is served first. The lender cannot just end the agreement when a breach occurs; he must first serve a compliant DN.

If it is now being said that he can end the agreement any time anyway, then where on Earth is the point of having a DN and sections within CCA to describe it to lenders and borrowers alike? Is a DN merely a vehicle for delivering to the debtor a notice to say he is stuffed, his credit file mangled and a note requesting the balance will follow in due course?

A default notice gives the creditor two options he can ask for arrears and remedy the breach or he can ask for full payment if the breach cannot be remedied usually they go for the latter in a consumer credit agreement in a hire agreement they usually go for the former as the are not recovering liabilities on the agreement again unless it is a genuine ore estimate of future charges as in Brandon..

A DN should not give the lender any options at all. It should simply state what the arrears are and when they must be paid, as per the 1983 Regs, unless I am mistaken. To satisfy s89, only the arrears should be demanded as that is the only amount that can remedy the breach and return the position to how it was before the breach occurred.

The lender cannot, therefore, use a DN served under s87(1) to demand, and expect to be paid, everything under the agreement, AFAIK.

LA

PS: Peter, you accept that your comments are not definitive (as above), yet chastise me for questioning you. For the benefit of others, could you leave this patronising style out of any response I sincerely hope you will make?

HI
Firstly I must apologise if appear to be patronising, I am trying to get to grips with a lot of this as much as you are.
The repudiation of an agreement takes place when the action of repudiation is accepted, this in my view would be on the issuance of the default notice. It may be that the analogy of repudiation is totally misplaced and the act introduces another concept but the effect is the same.
The function of section 87 is to introduce a grace period before the creditor can enforce. If the agreement can be remedied then the payment (usually of arrears) will do it.
In a consumer credit case usually there has been a long period proceeding the issuance of a default notice where the creditor has sent arrears letters , warning notices etc. In fact the act requires the creditor to do so (CCA2006).
In this case the default would in most cases be unlikely to be remedied and the creditor would terminate and demand the full balance.
I asked a financial journalist on another forum Annie Shaw if she would look into this for me and she came back with this , its from a high street bank the bank in question did not want to be named as it is just for general information
Quote:
Our card agreement, and the card agreement of almost every other bank, has
a term that allows either party to terminate the agreement at any time.
Given that these are open-ended agreements, this is reasonable. Neither
party is required to give reasons for exercising this right. The customer
can give notice to terminate the agreement with immediate effect. Where the
bank terminates, it is required by law to give the customer written advance
notice of this: Although the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires at least
seven days notice, the Lending Code (formerly the Banking Code) requires
banks to give at least 30 days notice. Recent changes to the Consumer
Credit Act will mean that from February 2011 two months advance notice of
termination must be given to the customer.

There are many reasons why a bank may wish to terminate the card agreement
without fully explaining its reasons for doing so. For example: the bank
may have been notified of or put on suspicion of fraudulent,
money-laundering or other illegal activity on the card or any other account
and to tell the customer this may be a breach of anti-tipping off
provisions in UK legislation or may otherwise prejudice investigations; The
relationship with the customer may have broken down to an extent that the
bank no longer wishes to transact with the customer; The bank may become
aware that the customer is involved in illegal activities with which the
bank considers it may become associated if the agreement is allowed to
continue. In short, there are any number of reasons why a bank may want or
have to give notice to terminate the card agreement without fully
explaining its reasons for doing so and these are only a few of the most
obvious.

[Bank] is a subscriber to the Lending Code and two of its key commitments are
to lend responsibly and to act sympathetically and positively when
considering a customer's financial difficulties. Where notice to terminate
the card agreement is given by the bank then the bank will generally give
time for any debt on the card account to be paid, for example allowing the
balance to be paid down on the same terms as under the card agreement.

An agreement cannot, under the Consumer Credit Act, be reinstated once it
has been terminated, a new card agreement would have to be concluded.

　
　
　
It would seem from this that the banks think that legally they have the right to demand payment after a contractual termination, but because they are such nice chaps they would not do it in actuality.
Hmm
My view is that the bank would be unable to enforce the early repayment in court I think if they ried the court would just rule on a repayment period that matched the original terms of the agreement , I think the banks know this and that is why they would not try.
As for the mechanics of the enforcement I am not really sure to be honest. Under common law if an agreemet is terminated (lawfully as this would be) then the liabilities under that agreement must be repaid, the method of repayment is however up to the court as we have said.
If the question is , can a default notice be issued after a contractual termination as occurred again my opinion on this is yes it can. I do not accept that an account has to be live before a section 87 notice is issued although I welcome any argument to the contry.
Section 87 says nothing about a live agreement just an agreement regulated by the act, does the fact that the agreement has been terminated alter the fact that it was regulated by the act?
It may be that the court would decide that the agreement was not active at the time of the breach and therefore unregulated, that would be a matter for the judge.
It must be noted however just because the agreement is not regulated does not prohibit enforcement, unregulated agreements are enforced every day.
The reason consumer crdedit contracts that do not have an agreements cannot be enforced, is because they have failed to comply with Part v of the act. A terminated contract will still have been correctly executed.
Section 87 entitles the creditor to terminate the agreement because of a breach, it does not prohibit him from terminating for any other reason. If it did then contractual termination would be impossible and we know it is not.
I now believe it does not prevent him demanding earlier payment either, what it does do is prevent him enforcing that demand in court.
This is why the repudiation of contract because of unlawful termination / demand for payment wont work, its because there is no situation where such a demand would be unlawful. There is nothing in the ACT that prohibits either of these actions, section 76 and 98 actually state that this is possible only stating that notice is required.
A section 87 notice gives the lender options either to ask for arrears if the breach is capable of remedy or if it is not, the money that is owed I think that is what is said in the regulations and the act isn’t it.
The remedy mentioned In section 89 would apply to both in that it would stop any enforcement action, in one case the contract may continue in the other the contract would be at an end and settled.
I am afraid that I you think that the default notice cannot be used to demand the full repayment of the loan you are wrong.
Re examine the evidence the regulations even say how the sum required to settle the loan must be calculated in order to comply with the early settlement requirements. I think most of us know from personal experience that you are incorrect in this.
　
Peter

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Thanks Peter, that is a very helpful and interesting post. The info from your bank insider is revealing isn't it?

I think there are only two points where I'm struggling at the moment; these are service of a DN after contract termination and claiming the full amount in a DN. I completely agree with everything else!

I unable to see anything in the Act that enables a lender to issue a DN post-termination because the entire point of the notice (it seems to me) is to notify the borrower that he has one last chance to rectify his mistake. Given that a DN served under s87(1) is only served under regulated contracts that have been breached by the debtor, receipt of a DN can only mean that the agreement is live and that the debtor may pay the arrears "and the breach shall be treated as not having occurred" (s89).

If the contract is terminated, then I think that lenders are wrongly using s87(1). It makes no sense to use this section, as the borrower would never be able to avail himself of s89.

So I'm at a loss to understand how banks believe they can issue s87(1) DNs after the contract is terminated although understand what you mean about the enforcement element.

As for demanding the entire balance in the DN, you mention s88(1)(b) "if the breach is capable of remedy". Are the banks using these words to signify that no breach is capable of remedy? That would be a very scary situation but one that does explain a lot of their antics.

Additionally, to satisfy s89, I still do not see how the full balance may be demanded in a s87(1) DN and I think this is why the majority of DNs I have seen only demand the arrears. Were the bank to demand the full balance in a DN, then surely they would fall foul of a Woodchester-type scenario?

If you have any more thoughts please let us have them!

LA

[middenmess]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

From Annie Hall

An agreement cannot, under the Consumer Credit Act, be reinstated once it
has been terminated, a new card agreement would have to be concluded.

Read more at: Default Notices: time to remedy - Page 9 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Following most of the argument about rights to terminate OK but having difficulties with the view of AH above as I need to understand what irrevocably defines the termination of an account which would then prevent a new Default Notice being issued to correct a previous incorrect D/N?

Is it...

when the creditor at any time notifies the customer using words along the lines of ''we have terminated your account'' irrespective of whether the ''correct'' procedures have been followed as long as the customer accepts that decision in writing?

OR

is it only when all protocols and procedures have been followed to the letter of the law that termination is allowed?

OR

can the status of an account only be decided in court on an individual basis which will obviously maintain the current inconsistency as each judge will interpret the facts before him differently?

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Thanks Peter, that is a very helpful and interesting post. The info from your bank insider is revealing isn't it?

I think there are only two points where I'm struggling at the moment; these are service of a DN after contract termination and claiming the full amount in a DN. I completely agree with everything else!

I unable to see anything in the Act that enables a lender to issue a DN post-termination because the entire point of the notice (it seems to me) is to notify the borrower that he has one last chance to rectify his mistake. Given that a DN served under s87(1) is only served under regulated contracts that have been breached by the debtor, receipt of a DN can only mean that the agreement is live and that the debtor may pay the arrears "and the breach shall be treated as not having occurred" (s89).

If the contract is terminated, then I think that lenders are wrongly using s87(1). It makes no sense to use this section, as the borrower would never be able to avail himself of s89.

So I'm at a loss to understand how banks believe they can issue s87(1) DNs after the contract is terminated although understand what you mean about the enforcement element.

As for demanding the entire balance in the DN, you mention s88(1)(b) "if the breach is capable of remedy". Are the banks using these words to signify that no breach is capable of remedy? That would be a very scary situation but one that does explain a lot of their antics.

Additionally, to satisfy s89, I still do not see how the full balance may be demanded in a s87(1) DN and I think this is why the majority of DNs I have seen only demand the arrears. Were the bank to demand the full balance in a DN, then surely they would fall foul of a Woodchester-type scenario?

If you have any more thoughts please let us have them!

LA

Hi La
I think there is generally a misunderstanding of how the statue works. Broadly statute does not tell the creditor what to do , it tells him what he must not do or the way he must do a thing.
The reason why termination on a contract is because the ACT does not say that it cannot be.
So you cannot say where does it say they can do a thing in the act , you have to say where in the act does it prohibit such an action.
The purpose of the default notice is to enable enforcent and allow the recovery of sums due.
This from the regs
A clear and unambiguous statement by the creditor or owner indicating--
(a) which (one or more) of the following types of action he intends to take, in order to enforce the term of the
agreement,--
(i) to demand earlier payment of any sum;
(ii) to recover possession of any goods or land;
(iii) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred;
(b) the manner and circumstances in which he intends to take such action; and
(c) the date, being a date not less than seven days after the giving of the notice, on or after which he intends to take
such action.
Demanding earlier payment of any sum
5
Where the creditor or owner states that he intends to demand earlier payment of any sum,
(a) the amount of the sum before deducting the amount of any rebate on early settlement;
(b) where any rebate on early settlement is allowable under the agreement or by virtue of section 95 of the Act--
(i) the amount of the rebate allowable calculated on the assumption that early settlement takes place on the date
The default notice is the last step before enforcement the recovery of sums owed is its usual purpose.
The recovery of arrears on a live account can be surd for without a default, this is why if the defauolt is found to be ineffective only the arrears are payable. The agreement then remains active as the termination would also not have been effective.

The remedy of the breach does not mean that the agreement is restarted. The breach that is remedied is the one that entiles the creditor to enforce that is all, it does not mean anything else other than than section 87 cannot entitle the creditor to enforce

Action by the creditor or owner to be ineffective if breach remedied or compensation paid
4
Where any action is specified under paragraph 3(c) or (d) as required to be taken, a statement that the provision for the
taking of any action by the creditor or owner such as is mentioned in paragraph 6 will be ineffective if the breach is duly
remedied or the compensation is duly paid in the following form--
"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER
ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH".

Despite what is widley believed the default notice is not a last chance to revive your relationship with the creditor ,it is your last chance to avoid enforcement for repayment of the loan.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Following most of the argument about rights to terminate OK but having difficulties with the view of AH above as I need to understand what irrevocably defines the termination of an account which would then prevent a new Default Notice being issued to correct a previous incorrect D/N?

Is it...

when the creditor at any time notifies the customer using words along the lines of ''we have terminated your account'' irrespective of whether the ''correct'' procedures have been followed as long as the customer accepts that decision in writing?

OR

is it only when all protocols and procedures have been followed to the letter of the law that termination is allowed?

OR

can the status of an account only be decided in court on an individual basis which will obviously maintain the current inconsistency as each judge will interpret the facts before him differently?

HI
Just a minor point the quote was from the manager of a major high street bank Anne just kindly relayed it to me.

The issuance of a defective default would also make the subsequent termination inactive so there would be nothing stopping the creditor from reissuing a new DN.
I
n order to terminate an account under a contractual term notice must be given according to section 76 and SI 1983/1561

Peter