Default Notices: time to remedy

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Peter, I'm not pretending to understand this as I think its a bit of a slim picky technical argument anyway and have no intention of using it unless absolutely desperate measures are needed in a genuine case, but it interests me and I'd like to understand.

In a particular case this is the scenario;


1) missed a couple payments creating £2k arrears

2) received a DN asking for the entire balance (£6k)

3) tried to pay up the arrears only (£2k) to stop default/reporting to CRAs and continue with the agreement as was (within the time for remedy)

4) contacted creditor to pay and was told by creditor that paying the arrears only (£2k) would not stop the default/reporting, event though it was pointed out that the DN was incorrect in asking for the entire balance.

5) so didnt pay the £2k as it would have had no affect, thus was defaulted and reported to CRAs for the £6k entire balance

What would you recommend in that situation ?

Hi
Please appreciate that I am again trying to look at this dispassionately.
Why did you think they where incorrect in asking for early repayment.
Peter

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Excellent post Amethyst.

Studying Peter's previous comments, I would expect him to say the following;

1. You are responsible for this because you created the arrears.
2. The DN is invalid but the creditor can terminate anyway and ask for the full balance so why try and defend on a defective DN anyway as it will end in tears like it has for LA's little friends.
3. The lender does not need to overly concern himself with s88 as there are no sanctions under s170.
4. s89 is irrelevant.
5. The contract endures because the lender is not entitled to terminate using a duff DN, but let's ignore the apparant 'fact' that the lender has terminated anyway under his 'entitlement' to terminate and has hidden that termination within his duff DN (God Almighty!).
6. The default is correctly recorded because it is independent of a s87 default.

I think most normal people will be utterly baffled by this. I certainly am, but remain hopeful of Peter unbaffling me with the various judgements that have been asked for.

As for termination not existing in law, I cannot accept this because it is simply ridiculous. The lender does terminate (as per his notice(s), recovery action and proceedings); how can it be argued otherwise? And by terminating on breach without complying with s88, he loses all the other entitlements that come with s87(1).

If a court judges that the contract endures in the face of both parties ending it, then that has to be a s140 issue (in particular, s140A(1)(c), "any thing done (or not done) by...the creditor").

That's my view anyway and I'm sticking with it until I see a judgement that might convince me otherwise.

LA

[dad]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

HI
My understanding of the ruling on Swain was that they where sent away with a refund of the amount paid on the faulty DN.
I do not think that the situation involving the contract was resolved was it?
I will have to look at it again.
I was under the impression that the £13000 was the original full term contract price of the hire, and the creditor tried to claim for loss of this.
I didn’t think that a decision was made on this within the copy of the judgement I have..
I presumed perhaps wrongly that since this was a hire agreement that there was no liabilities under the contract once the machine was returned other than a genuine pre estimate of losses, and for that they would have to proven repudiation of contract. I do not think they could although as you say I think that was their original idea.


Peter

Peter,

The opening paragraph of LJ Kennedy's judgment is:

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is the defendants' appeal from a decision of Assistant Recorder Higginbottom who, in Cardiff County Court on 3rd October 1997, gave judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of £13,453.07 with costs on the County Court scale 2.

So the result of the appeal was that a judgment for £13.5K plus costs was overturned and replaced by a judgment for £634 + interest.

HTH

Dad

[Amethyst]

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.

[paulb2905]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

LA/Peter not intentionally being argumentative and i welcome reasoned arguments/facts against my point of view.

Here is my first problem; how is a court able to order this when the lender has terminated the agreement?
The court can only enforce when he has terminate the agreement?
A creditor can use the court to enforce at anytime say for instance you refuse point blank to pay them, but are they entitled to enforce post termination....... good question (gotta think about this some more!)

Yes, the lender was not entitled to end the agreement, but the debtor has taken him at his word and accepted that termination as being an end to the contract.
The termination does not exist in law so there is nothing for the debtor to accept. The acceptance i think you mean is one of acceptance of repudiation this has not happened because the creditor cannot terminate.
Im puzzled are you saying that the Creditor cannot terminate or can terminate?

Of course ANY contract can be terminated AT ANY TIME, but the crux of the matter is whether its is lawful i.e. carried out within the terms of the contract AND/OR statute? In this instance the CCA OVERRIDES any contractual terms for termination that the lendor has decided to include due to "specific provisions for the protection of the Debtor" under S173

173-(1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any suretycontained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

"a slightly imperfect example:- Your sacked at work - no reason given, immediately effective - but your contract says 4 weeks notice unless gross misconduct - you go to Tribunal and they rule that your contract was terminated unfairly - you are entitled to go back to work, same position and pay - but what usually happens is you take a payout of your notice plus some compensation instead"

BUT as there is already case law on the UNLAWFUL REPUDIATION of contract the circumstances would be in this case to put the Lendor back into the position he was in before he terminated - which would now limit him to be only able to legally recover the arrears which were owing - so by unlawfully terminating he has forfeited his right to recover the full debt.

So for a court to order the lender to issue a new DN, it surely requires that the agreement and all T&Cs is resurrected. And if the debtor complies with the DN then the agreement continues as before?
Why section87 does not say entilted by the breach of a live account just that the account has been breached.
A defective DN can be remedied at any time prior to Termination with an effective DN.
Post termination it cannot be rectified as the contract has been terminated.

For that to be correct, then the court must tell the lender that his termination notices and the hearing at which all are in attendance is erroneous, which is plainly absurd! Or is it? If the hearing is erroneous then the debtor has been dragged to it against his wishes and so could commence a defence under s140 because there is no doubt in my mind that this could be considered an unfair business practice. Is that a potential defence?
This is a circular agrgument if the debtor was not taken to court then how could the court decide who was in the right, the court will not sanction the crediotr for enforceing the agreement, they may find that the enforcement was not compliant but if that is the case then the debtor has just to comply.

My second problem is that I do not see this in the Act at all. In fact, the Act makes considerable mention of the need for a DN to be properly formatted. S87 states that a DN compliant with s88 "is necessary", and so on. The Woodchester judgement told us that DNs must be "precise".
Agreed - With regards to amounts i think it is possible to argue that "they have refunded unlawful charges to other people" so is it reasonable to assume that where these charges havent been refunded should they reduce the amount claimed by the amount of the UC's + Compound Interest + Stat Interest? I think its a reasonable assumption.

I may have misunderstood your comment here but would nevertheless ask you to explain (if you feel up to it!) why courts allow such latitude in statute that appears to reject it.
The court does not allow any latitude, the act says the notice must be correct to within the confines of section 88 . If it is not, it is not valid it does not say that the agreement is then unenforceable it merely says a valid notice is nesesarry in order to enforce.
Agreed (unfortunately they do allow latitude under de minimus etc) but it could be argued that if you had raised the money to pay the arrears a couple of days after specified date would this be deemed "de minimus" too????
No sanction is specified for the erronious Dn section 87 only says that a compliant one is required.
The SANCTION is that they may not Terminate the account (Lawfully)

87-(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a " default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,- (a) to terminate the agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

"Lets assume that they havent sent a DN at all but have "terminated" the contract and sold it onto to a DCA. Which is correct - a) that they have terminated the account unlawfully (as no DN) or that b) they havent terminated the account and consequently UNLAWFULLY sold the debt?" Which is the "average person" to assume?

Yes, I understand this position but it is a bit like saying that we are not entitled to drive over the speed limit but we still do. The lack of entitlement doesn't mean that we don't do it. Similarly, lenders can terminate and sue the debtor; the fact that they are not entitled to doesn't alter the fact that they have.
Are you sayng that there is some ellement of blame being attached to the creditor in issuing a faulty Dn, may be difficult to prove for a variety of reasons. Firstly the debtor had 14 days to contact the creditor about the error on the DN he did not , isnt there a feature in common law about this contributory negligence or something i would have to look it up, secondly the crediotr will say he was acting in good faith and within the statue. The correct proceedure to decide if the notice is defective of not is to go to court and how else would he get there, he is mearly asserting the default is correct, the debtor dissagrees the sanction is that the creditor will have to re issue and re file if it is proved to be so that is all.
Its not that difficult to prove - case law provides that a person who is enabled by a company to issue and sign paperwork does so with the authority of the company.

Is there no defence to this?

Yes I see this argument. However, isn't it the case that the lender cannot terminate the agreement on breach without a compliant DN? Also, lenders have to give notice (I think, certainly with my accounts).
No notice is reqired to terminate an open ended agreement under the act. The trmination an take place at any time. Section 87 says a trminationon breach of agreement it ddoes not pohibit a termiantion for any other reason ie by virtue of the crediotrs contractural rights.
Notice IS required under S87 (see above) and they ARE prohibited from relying on contractual rights which are included as a provision of the act (see S173)

Also, why would the court assign liabilities to the creditor? Again, this requires that the court ignored s87(1)(b), or are the liabilities contained within the demand in the defective DN?

Would this require that the court overlook the lender's original mistakes (defective DN, erroneous TN and court proceedings) while offering the debtor an opportunity under s140?
Possibly, but i would have to look into this much more to be able to argue it either way
I know it's a lot of work Peter but I for one would greatly appreciate any links you can provide to the posts on CAG where the court ruled in this way.

Hope you can reply to this - no worries if not.

LA

[paulb2905]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Its polarised opinions Ame's, of which I am guilty also - but if it could be shown to me to be otherwise i would change my opinion.

1) missed a couple payments creating £2k arrears
The Creditor is entitled to register missed payments (or LP late payments) on the CRA

2) received a DN asking for the entire balance (£6k)
NOT an effective DN then

3) tried to pay up the arrears only (£2k) to stop default/reporting to CRAs and continue with the agreement as was (within the time for remedy)
They are obliged to accept the payment for the arrears, you would need to prove you made the offer (also why not just pay the arrears anyway)

4) contacted creditor to pay and was told by creditor that paying the arrears only (£2k) would not stop the default/reporting, event though it was pointed out that the DN was incorrect in asking for the entire balance.
Again would need to prove that offer was made and if it was paid they wouldnt be permitted to register default.

5) so didnt pay the £2k as it would have had no affect, thus was defaulted and reported to CRAs for the £6k entire balance
They would be entitled to write to the CRA with a copy of their offer to make payment of the arrears and have this registered against the default.

I would also be of the opinion that the Creditor was practising "unfairly" and defence permissable under this along with the breach of the DN

[dad]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Ames,

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.

if this is aimed at me - sorry, it is not my intention to rub anyone up the wrong way.

Peter raises some important points and many judges appear to think along the same lines - therefore it is important to tease out the detail of people's thinking.

HTH

Dad

[dad]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Ames,

my view on your scenario is:

1) missed a couple payments creating £2k arrears

Asking for arrears is not one of the actions listed under s87(1) so the creditor can just write to you and say pay up.

2) received a DN asking for the entire balance (£6k)

This is where things may have gone off the rails, but it depends on the precise terms of the contract. The creditor is now asking for the whole balance of the account £2K arrears + £4k and as it is a DN presumably on the grounds of the consumers default.

Asking for the £4k balance may involve these actions listed under s87(1): (a) terminate the agreement, (b) demand earlier repayment of any sum and/or (d) treat any right conferred on the debtor as terminated, restricted or deferred.

In Woodchester the arrears were £634 and the balance was £13.4K - £634. The CoA held that as a result of the defects in the DN only the £634 was recoverable - ie they were 'not entitled' to take the steps listed in s87(1).

What is not clear from the judgment is why they held that a new default notice could not have been issued (but they must have done - otherwise they would not have limited Woodchester to just the arrears. To my mind there are two possibilities either:

i. A DN is a one shot process for the creditor and if it is wrong that is the end of the line; or

ii. A DN has to be issued under a credit agreement and if the agreement has been terminated then there is no agreement to specify in the DN.

I tend to favour the latter proposition as that is closer to the general contract law

---
In the specified scenario, the correct answer is very contract t&cs specific and if the DN reflects the contract powers.

3) tried to pay up the arrears only (£2k) to stop default/reporting to CRAs and continue with the agreement as was (within the time for remedy)

As 2

4) contacted creditor to pay and was told by creditor that paying the arrears only (£2k) would not stop the default/reporting, event though it was pointed out that the DN was incorrect in asking for the entire balance.

If the DN did not reflect the contractual rights and only £2k was due then this would be the same situation as Swayne & Co.

5) so didnt pay the £2k as it would have had no affect, thus was defaulted and reported to CRAs for the £6k entire balance

This is a separate and bigger question depending on the circumstances above.

HTH

Dad

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Ames,



if this is aimed at me - sorry, it is not my intention to rub anyone up the wrong way.

Peter raises some important points and many judges appear to think along the same lines - therefore it is important to tease out the detail of people's thinking.

HTH

Dad

I think it was aimed at me.

I certainly value Peter's posts, it's just the constant little remarks that irk ("annoying little itch", "your fellow believers", blah blah), and being human I cannot help but respond.

Anyway, apologies to all.

LA

[Lord_Alcohol]

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.

I did think that CCA would always take precedence over contract T&Cs but reading Brandon I'm not so sure.

Part of Brandon's case was that he considered that the TN was defective as the DN had not given Amex entitlement to terminate. But the judge found that this was not so, as the the contract T&Cs allowed Amex to terminate "by giving immediate notice".

The judge then took this entitlement to terminate (not in breach) as the lawful means to end the contract, evading the fact that the TN was issued following Brandon's failure to remedy a breach. So Peter certainly has a point here, but it remains difficult to see how a lender can terminate via s98 when a breach has occurred that has caused a DN to be issued. It would require the lender to state to a court that the contract has not been terminated on breach, when it is clear that a breach has occurred.

I would simply say that this is an unfair business practice under s140 and defend on that basis.

LA
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Its polarised opinions Ame's, of which I am guilty also - but if it could be shown to me to be otherwise i would change my opinion.

1) missed a couple payments creating £2k arrears
The Creditor is entitled to register missed payments (or LP late payments) on the CRA

2) received a DN asking for the entire balance (£6k)
NOT an effective DN then

3) tried to pay up the arrears only (£2k) to stop default/reporting to CRAs and continue with the agreement as was (within the time for remedy)
They are obliged to accept the payment for the arrears, you would need to prove you made the offer (also why not just pay the arrears anyway)

4) contacted creditor to pay and was told by creditor that paying the arrears only (£2k) would not stop the default/reporting, event though it was pointed out that the DN was incorrect in asking for the entire balance.
Again would need to prove that offer was made and if it was paid they wouldnt be permitted to register default.

5) so didnt pay the £2k as it would have had no affect, thus was defaulted and reported to CRAs for the £6k entire balance
They would be entitled to write to the CRA with a copy of their offer to make payment of the arrears and have this registered against the default.

I would also be of the opinion that the Creditor was practising "unfairly" and defence permissable under this along with the breach of the DN

Yet all the lender has to do is issue a compliant DN and ensure that the debtor is given his lawful entitlement to remedy. If that happens, the lender is completely vindicated in any action he then takes.

I really do not understand why the lender is given so much leeway here, when the Act clearly shows he should have none.

LA

[The Debt Star]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Yet all the lender has to do is issue a compliant DN and ensure that the debtor is given his lawful entitlement to remedy. If that happens, the lender is completely vindicated in any action he then takes.

In our case HSBC issued a DN while the account was in dispute and a formal complaint was in progress. They can do what they like. The CRAs cheerfully processed the resultant Default and won't remove it. The ICO were advised 2 months ago and other than a holding letter we aint heard 'owt from them. The FOS are looking into it and have asked for a copy of the credit report but I suspect won't assist. So lenders can use and abuse DNs and there is little or no remedy.

[paulb2905]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I agree Debt Star, its clearly laid down in the Act so not open to interpretation and still the Judges are ruling against it this clearly forms the basis of impeachment, again in imho.

IMHO they got it wrong in Brandon (and im certain they are going this route with Zhanzibars case too) the judge permitted them to terminate on the back of 16.2 which is clearly voided by S173.

Unfortunately and as my "dad" says again and again - it goes against the fabric of society if the judges uphold the Act and open the flood gates for further action by huge amounts of debtors.

The judge in my SJ said at the beginning of the hearing that "he was going to deal with this as a commercial operation and that if you have had the money you should pay it back" and then admitted "he doesnt know the intracacies of the Act" and further that "he was aware that there were hundreds, if not thousands of similar cases being heard across the country which were log jamming the courts".

My answer to this is that;
are we supposed to start on the premise that the Banks, due to their size, have "got it right" from the outset. Surely not as they have well demonstrated that they lack the ability to even contain their own greed and obey the rules in place by the FSA, Banking Code of Conduct, Money Laundering Regulations, Companies Act for not only their own protection but ours too. Additionally factor in the huge scandal of rampant fraud in the USA with the lesser demonstrated fraudulent practices here in the UK, and I would include selling debts before sending DN's, TN's, notices of assignment and disputed accounts in this category, plus their inability to comply with the relatively "simple" rules of sending a Default Notice that is correct. This clearly proves a widespread lack of knowledge or simply plain arrogance that the rules do not apply to them.

For a judge to consider a legal system to be "clogged" with cases like this is appalling imho - surely the last recourse for any dispute to be remedied is via the law and its an indication by the number of cases of this ilk that the poorest/least able to defend themselves are the people who are being taken advantage of and to which the Act was primarily designed to defend.

Its also entirely arguable that the Judges in these cases by allowing the Solicitors to disregard CPR rules and ambush LiP's is clearly a prejudical treatment of a LiP. If a solicitor fails to disclose documents or serve witness statements in time then its quite simple the "Rules" say they should be struck out and may not be referred to, so by failing to comply with the rules they lose the right to depend on those documents at the time of that hearing. No one in their right mind would ever want to represent themselves but once again those with the least (and usually the most to lose) are unable to defend themselves adequately.

The courts time and process would be much better spent in insuring that the Creditor AND the Debtor had proper copies of the correct paperwork from the outset. If necessary bring in a set of rules for the minimum documents required BEFORE they will consider allocation to any track of the court its not that difficult to implement - there are new rules coming into effect later this/early next year (so amend them)

I cant comment on every lender but my particular issue, MBNA a wholely owned subsidiary of BoAmerica, have even stated that the UK laws dont apply to them as they are owned by a US company. Or the recent fine on GMAC (another US owned lender) of £2.8million (discount for prompt payment) and a further potential £7.7 million payable to the customers they have "ripped" off or Kensington in similar circumstances. Are they loan sharks? - no, are they disreputable however? - clearly they are! preying on the weak, increasing interest rates for those least able to pay or move debt around is evidence of this.

Unfortunately they only way to get things changed is "do the right thing" report the Creditor/DCA to the OFT each and every time they fail to comply with a legitimate request.

Report them to the ICO for failure to comply.

Report them to the Financial Ombudsman (it costs the CREDITOR £450/£500 for every complaint to be investigated) when they dont do things they should do.

CRA's report them to the ICO/OFT where applicable.

Solicitors who fail to comply with the Rules or who commit acts of fraud - report them too (presumably to the Law Society????)

Ultimately its only this action that will affect eventual change in the practices of the Creditors/DCA/Solicitors. Remember to tell every single person that puts up a new issue that if the Creditor/DCA/Solicitors dont comply they should complain to the relevant bodies that are there for our protection. Individual cases may be won and lost but by doing this they can assist others with ensuring proper compliance and ultimately less issues to be dealt with.

Personally i intend to see my action all the way through to the end, the worst that can happen to me is bankruptcy. If they pull out will I accept it, ofc i will because its in my best interest but I have already complained to the OFT/FOS and the ICO, still have the law society to complain to.

ps sorry started this post with one intention and ended up going another way entirely........

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Entirely agree with you Paul, DebtStar, dad and middenmess.

I just cannot get my head around this situation, as all the lender has to do is issue a notice that complies with s88, itself an easy section to follow. Clear rules are in place that tell the lender how to deal with data processing and collection.

It's all a piece of cake. Service of a proper notice instantly avoids a legal battle and the possibility that the lender will lose.

At the back of my mind is a cynical thought that wonders whether this situation is engineered as being advantageous to the lender and an effective way of removing a significant number of less-then-perfect borrowers from the marketplace. It is either that or gross incompetance on the part of the banks; I can think of no other reason.

LA

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

In our case HSBC issued a DN while the account was in dispute and a formal complaint was in progress. They can do what they like. The CRAs cheerfully processed the resultant Default and won't remove it. The ICO were advised 2 months ago and other than a holding letter we aint heard 'owt from them. The FOS are looking into it and have asked for a copy of the credit report but I suspect won't assist. So lenders can use and abuse DNs and there is little or no remedy.

In my case I complained to the FOS in May last year. They write every few months to tell me that they are swamped and ask me to wait. Over a year to investigate a complaint, while the lender continues his actions? Can't be right can it? Or do the banks know themselves how ineffective the FOS is?

LA

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

For a judge to consider a legal system to be "clogged" with cases like this is appalling imho - surely the last recourse for any dispute to be remedied is via the law and its an indication by the number of cases of this ilk that the poorest/least able to defend themselves are the people who are being taken advantage of and to which the Act was primarily designed to defend.

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.