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

[toomanycalls]

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

But you then failed to make contractual payments, so more arrears would accrue

Agree but no new default notice has been refered to in the POC so it should only be the arrears due on the DN.

Perhaps advisable to write to them & ask for a true figure of the arrears on the account?

Maybe?

[Amethyst]

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

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

So you have 5 years ish 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?)

[toomanycalls]

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

The term was five years ?

Taken out in 2005 ?

No it was 7 years taken out in 2008.

[New_Age_Biker]

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

But you then failed to make contractual payments, so more arrears would accrue
Perhaps advisable to write to them & ask for a true figure of the arrears on the account?

[Amethyst]

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

The term was five years ?

Taken out in 2005 ?

[toomanycalls]

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.

[New_Age_Biker]

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

As I understand it, the creditor can only use the court system to recover the arrears, they must then rely on DCAs etc to try to get the balance
If they have issued proceedings then it may be wise to pay the arrears quickly.
There may then be no cause of action.

Am I correct PT?

[toomanycalls]

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

woodchester v Swain

They can recover the arrears

Which has been my point of view all along. So you think I stand a chance? Do you think its worth an application to stikeout?

[pt2537]

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

So what does that mean then when they have initiated proceedings, terminated or not? I'm missing something.

woodchester v Swain

They can recover the arrears

[toomanycalls]

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

if the notice was bad you cant have had the agreement terminated, irrespective of what the creditor says

So what does that mean then when they have initiated proceedings, terminated or not? I'm missing something.

[pt2537]

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

No other default notice until after termination, that one was wrong too but was not the one referred to on the POC



Pretty much. I'd of thought if nothing else they should of issed another default notice as the first one was "~settled"

i dont know if im missing something

but section 87(1) says, you cannot terminate without a default notice where the debtor has breached the agreement

The rescission / repudiation arguments gonna fly like a dodo in my opinion, and as i have said elsewhere, s170 would bar the common law remedies (see Arrow Global v Devlin Court of Appeal ) where only sanctions provided by the act are available.

In Devlin we sought to recover the monies paid under the doctrine of mistake but the appeal court said it was not available because the Act never prescribed it.

So in my view, personally, if the notice was bad you cant have had the agreement terminated, irrespective of what the creditor says

[toomanycalls]

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

(Dn's/repudiation/recission and so on are all a bit meaningless to me I'm afraid just humour me a tic so I have some idea what the case is about, I won't get involved just don't like not understanding thanks )

Is your defence (in simple terms) that the DN gave 14 days, but to pay sums not yet due, so you calculated and paid just the arrears but outside the 14 days... you then were unable to make the contractual payments so tried to negotiate lower payments which resulted in the termination (not sure if there was another default notice before termination or not?)

No other default notice until after termination, that one was wrong too but was not the one referred to on the POC

Your defence sounds as though they terminated off the back of the original DN because you hadn't paid the full amount they said was owing which included sums not yet due, when in fact they didn't terminate at that point but after a further three months of not making the contractual payment.

Pretty much. I'd of thought if nothing else they should of issed another default notice as the first one was "~settled"

[Amethyst]

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

(Dn's/repudiation/recission and so on are all a bit meaningless to me I'm afraid just humour me a tic so I have some idea what the case is about, I won't get involved just don't like not understanding thanks )

Is your defence (in simple terms) that the DN gave 14 days, but to pay sums not yet due, so you calculated and paid just the arrears but outside the 14 days... you then were unable to make the contractual payments so tried to negotiate lower payments which resulted in the termination (not sure if there was another default notice before termination or not?)

Your defence sounds as though they terminated off the back of the original DN because you hadn't paid the full amount they said was owing which included sums not yet due, when in fact they didn't terminate at that point but after a further three months of not making the contractual payment.

(and sorry I didnt come back earlier I got engrossed reading back through some of the lost cases)

[pt2537]

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

Ame



Informed is always the best option, look forward to anything you can dig up.

Costs are an issue, if its "a grand" against the possibility of writing off twenty then its probably worth a go. Risking ten against twenty I'll probably pull out... Ithink the case is string but I'm also away of the difficulties face by a LIP in getting the facts across.

the lowest costs order ive seen for a loss recently is £6,690 in a Fast track case and then those costs were on the low side for the work that had been done

[toomanycalls]

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

Ame

Estimates wise Brandon v Amex was £16k to first decision (it is under appeal now) I believe for comparative purposes, plus his own costs incurred of getting witnesses and experts to check documents and so on. I will go dig up some other county court costs threads for comparison.

It isn't meant as a put off, or being negative, it is meant as a helping you make an informed decision.

You can imagine you would make a different decision based on whether you were risking £750 or £10k as well as the debt. £10k you'd make damn sure your case is watertight, £750 you might wing it a bit.

Informed is always the best option, look forward to anything you can dig up.

Costs are an issue, if its "a grand" against the possibility of writing off twenty then its probably worth a go. Risking ten against twenty I'll probably pull out... I think the case is strong but I'm also aware of the difficulties faced by a LIP in getting the facts across.