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

[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?

[Amethyst]

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

Just a bump so TMC can locate it xx

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

[New_Age_Biker]

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

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

[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.

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
?

[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.

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.

So the argument would be the termination was without a DN ?

I agree, wonder what PT thinks?

The POC does state the first DN though.

[Amethyst]

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

If this case was without the lack of contractual payments after the arrears were paid up I think I'd be 100% with you on this, but as you paid up the arrears (whether after or before the date given) and then missed a further three contracual payments before they terminated I don't think I am.

The notice was incorrect in that they asked for sums not yet owing (WvS) so completely with you on that. You calculated and paid the arrears sum only, thus the first DN allowed you to recify the breach and you did so the agreement should have continued - if you had of made the next three contractual payments properly then it would have continued as if there had been no breach.

However...You missed a further three contractual payments (paid a lower amount than due) so there should have been a second default notice before they terminated and took action.

So the argument would be the termination was without a DN ?

[toomanycalls]

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

lol, well I couldnt have got that much more wrong lol.

No problem, it must be extremely difficult to keep up with everything here, my head hurts just with this on.

So you have 5 years left to go on it... so arrears will be payments missed between April 2010 and Jan 2011 (when claim was issued?) plus additional interest accrued, and the payments Feb 2011 to end of term not yet due so if they 'un terminate' the account you can pay the arrears (april 10 to Jan 11) have a clear credit file (for this one) and go back to making the contractual payments I presume ?

(or is that far too simplistic a view?)

But Woodchester V Swayne states only the arrears lawfully due at the DN should be paid when the creditor delivers a faulty DN and then enforces on the back of it.

In theory, IF they could issue a new DN and I paid it yes the agreement would endure and they would have to rectify my credit file (for this one). I think that they have issued proceedings prevents another DN being issued.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Even if they give you a genuine figure for the arrears, which you then pay, how can the agreement continue as Ame suggests. They have already trashed your credit file, prevented you from refinancing, etc
Is there a compensation claim you can make?

I'm sure there is some case law somewhere that a claim for damages of £1000 is possible for the trashed file without much need for proof (it was beginning to wayne anyway). TBH I'd be more than pleased to "get away with" the principle sum left to pay.

[New_Age_Biker]

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

Even if they give you a genuine figure for the arrears, which you then pay, how can the agreement continue as Ame suggests. They have already trashed your credit file, prevented you from refinancing, etc
Is there a compensation claim you can make?