Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

1234

[postggj]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

So On That Aspect A Creditor Can Bring A Claim On A Defective Default Notice, Withdraw The Claim When The Defective Default Notice Is Raised EVEN AFTER A DEFENCE HAS BEEN EXCHANGED,
And Then

Issue A Compliant Default Notice And Bring A Fresh Claim On The Back Of A Compliant Default Notice

So Nothing Has Changed??????

[banker_rhymes_with]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

1234

[postggj]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

question

Does this mean that Amex can now come back with a compliant DN and demand payment again?

answer

No, because they've already terminated the account.

so what about harrison v link which stated a creditor can reissue a compliant dn and have a SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE

WHICH IS THE HIGHER COURT AND WHICH JUDGEMENT TAKES PRECEDENCE

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

at work so unable to read the judgment but seems like a result

[MIKE770]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

Had a set aside request in court yesterday, got no where fast, but a 2 week suspension as I wanted figure quoted to be correct of alledged debt, when asked if set aside (cost to me could be great, told by judge), poss reasons I pointed out DN defective as a Bank Holiday etc which ineffect only gave me about 9-10 days, my comment was ignored, nearly every question/argumenmt was side tracked or walked over, even a solicitor who told me as I had originally admiited the debt all will be based on that, also DN question to him (outside of court) he said I would not know about that, full of apologies in court and outside as figures I had given them were 99% accurate they only dispute one payment, it seemed to me the Banks can apologise to me & the court and that is good enough, I pointed out to solicitor I was not happy with the response also CCJ original quoted as having been obtained is just another Banks do make Mistakes (judge quote) as they do not always get CCJ info from courts. I felt bamboozoled by the solicitor outside of court, even a usher noticed I was uncomfortable and said if any question after hearing just ask her, the solicitor told me after that I should of accepted the figure & 80.00 hearing cost the Bank offered and no doubt the next 10 minute hearing I will have to pay for.

[leclerc]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

Will they appeal or do they need to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme court?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

Hello Dad!

The Amex default notice (and for that matter the thousands of others like it) is invalid.

The big question to ask now is, how many people lost their homes on the back of aggressive charging orders and forced sales?

If those Judgments were on the basis of a default, and nothing else, then they were clearly badly decided.

This is a major victory for the Consumer, against all the odds, and against huge investment to try and deny this justice.

The key now is to make sure that fact is not lost in a worldwind of spin by the Debt Industry.

Cheers,
BRW

[sjh123]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

He has won

And a faulty DN is not de mininis.

A DN has to be compliant with statute.

[dad]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

It looks like to me he lost, cannot see where he has won?

This means that he has won:

In the circumstances, I would allow the appeal.

Key points:

1. A DN sent by post must allow at least two days for delivery before the 14 days start.

2. Failure to comply with the statute is not de minimis, regardless of whether or not the consumer is prejudiced.

3. The Amex default notice (and for that matter the thousands of others like it) is invalid.

HTH

Dad

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

It looks like to me he lost, cannot see where he has won?

[postggj]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

This Is Great Case Law We Can All Quote Now To Our Advantage For A Change

[jumper999]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

lol great news, good job i did not tell anyone the opposite wow what a relief Mr Brandon must be feeling

[postggj]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

HE HAS WON

I think it mainly states that the judge cannot override statute.

[fluffystuff]

Re: Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

Me too although the court was reluctant.

QCK

I agree, here's the summary. ~


Quote -
iv) Pulling the threads together, the cumulative impact of the procedural history leads me to conclude that it would not be fair to permit summary judgment to stand on the basis of contractual termination. This is so whatever the position might have been as to summary judgment had the ss.76 and 98 and reg. 5(1) issues arisen in a more orderly fashion. At all events, against a background of expanding proceedings lacking a proper framework at the appeal stage, I am left with a sense of unease which I cannot dispel.
In the circumstances, I would allow the appeal.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
Brief mention should be made of two remaining matters:
i) I express no view as to whether it is realistically arguable that the £25 monthly charge was a penalty. Although any disclosure would be a matter for the Judge dealing with any further hearings (if such there are), for my part I can see no merit whatever in the submission that some 6 years' of disclosure (or anything like that) would be called for. A sense of realism coupled with considerations of proportionality should serve to preclude any such argument. In any event and in agreement with DJ Gisby (at [23] of his judgment), I cannot accept that this issue could be worth more than £1,000.00 at most. Even if that sum was deducted from the Amex claim it is plain that a substantial sum would be due from Mr. Brandon to Amex, provided only that Amex complies with the relevant statutory and procedural requirements.
ii) With respect, I reject Mr. Pugh's complaint as to the dismissal of the counterclaim. It is devoid of merit for the reasons expressed by DJ Gisby at [29] of his judgment (set out above) and which I gratefully adopt. On the facts before this Court and regardless of the outcome of the appeal, Mr. Brandon is a bad credit risk; for this conclusion, he has only himself to blame.
SIR RICHARD BUXTON:
I agree.
LORD JUSTICE PILL:
I also agree.

End quote.