Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I am sure PT has stated the act prevents them from terminating without a valid DN.
If they cannot terminate (& neither can you) then the agreement continues???

As you have missed further payments they now issue a new DN, you either comply in which case they terminate on notice & pay the balance at contracted monthly payments or they issue for your failure to make payments

if I understand correctly

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I am sure PT has stated the act prevents them from terminating without a valid DN.
If they cannot terminate (& neither can you) then the agreement continues???

As you have missed further payments they now issue a new DN, you either comply in which case they terminate on notice & pay the balance at contracted monthly payments or they issue for your failure to make payments

if I understand correctly

But they have already issued which just complicates it. Believe me I'm far from clear about this myself.

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

They have issued the current set of proceedings, maybe they are prohibited from winning.
The defendant would win costs
The creditor then issues a new, compliant Dn
Off we go again
?

[Amethyst]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

lol, PPPPPPPPPPPPTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTT !!! (bit hard to shout PT in text without it looking like you're choking on a cake)

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

MMMMMMM cake, now there's an idea...

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

looks like PT may not be able to answer Ame, maybe the course of this thread is getting too close to the judgement he cannot reveal yet.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

looks like PT may not be able to answer Ame, maybe the course of this thread is getting too close to the judgement he cannot reveal yet.

Maybe, I wonder if he can say that he can't comment?

[diddydicky]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Arrears already paid in this case, I paid them just outside the default notice period.

how far outside of the DN notice period did you pay the arrears?

did they accept them as a remedy?

I say this only because it would seem to fly in the face of the brandon decision
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I am sure PT has stated the act prevents them from terminating without a valid DN.
If they cannot terminate (& neither can you) then the agreement continues???

As you have missed further payments they now issue a new DN, you either comply in which case they terminate on notice & pay the balance at contracted monthly payments or they issue for your failure to make payments

if I understand correctly

if he has missed monthly payments since they issued a termination notice- he can hardly be said to be in breach of the agreement to pay monthly payments - since the creditor TOLD HIM in the termination letter- that monthly payments were no longer acceptable and he must pay the whole balance immediately!!

[toomanycalls]

Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

how far outside of the DN notice period did you pay the arrears?

Paid the arrears March 29th, Date on default notice 4th March, remedy by 18th.

did they accept them as a remedy?

Can't say for sure, did it over the phone not knowing anything about any of these implications at the time. They happily accepted this payment though. (like they wouldn't!)

I say this only because it would seem to fly in the face of the brandon decision

It sides with the brandon judgement in that respect.

if he has missed monthly payments since they issued a termination notice- he can hardly be said to be in breach of the agreement to pay monthly payments - since the creditor TOLD HIM in the termination letter- that monthly payments were no longer acceptable and he must pay the whole balance immediately!!

After this I paid reduced payments for three months under an arrangement agreed but they terminated because I couldn't pay the full loan payment even though they froze interest and charges on my bank overdraught.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

Just a bump so TMC can locate it xx

[toomanycalls]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

AQ received today from my local court so I have untill 14th March inclusive to get it in. Time to go for a strikeout?

[toomanycalls]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I also recieved this letter from the bank a few days ago


which makes the amount stated on the POC incorrect, do I need to counterclaim the amount as well as defending on the DN?

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I also recieved this letter from the bank a few days ago
[ATTACH]4723[/ATTACH]

which makes the amount stated on the POC incorrect, do I need to counterclaim the amount as well as defending on the DN?

Wow. Thats good news. The letter I mean.


No need to counterclaim just defend that £311 based on the letter, they should really amend the claim to reflect the change.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

I think they must have had a slap from someone official as Nationwide were by far the most difficult creditor to negotiate with when we hit difficulty last year and as I said earlier in the thread were not prepared to accept any less than the full monthly payment for this loan £400ish after that three month deduction that they are now giving the interest back. Even though they accepted low payments on my current account overdraughts.

Just a little suspicious that its happening now...

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Re: Me V Bank - defective DN and unfair relationship defence.

You might want to have a quick skim through the documents on this thread Lending Standards Board compliance testing and hardship(it wasn't good) - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum and bear in mind the lending code is changing shortly so yes I suspect it is a proactive 'we dont want a slap' issue rather than anything suspicious....be interesting to see if there are others with similar letters from nationwide though.