Brandon v Amex - date of appeal hearing + detail?

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[Ihaterbs]

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

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

[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

[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

[GuidoT]

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

I am curious regarding the legal costs of the matter, does anyone know how this panned out.

I am just curious.

[banker_rhymes_with]

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

1234

[Guest]

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

Hi

"Thirdly, if, as a matter of construction, the Default Notice has not or may not have allowed the minimum statutory period for Mr. Brandon to remedy the breach, then it is (at least) realistically arguable that the defect cannot be overlooked as de minimis. To my mind, this conclusion applies both to the failure to allow a minimum 14 day period and to the absence of prejudice flowing from the defect in the Default Notice. Insofar as DJ Gisby and HHJ Denyer thought otherwise, I am, with respect, unable to agree"

Well well

Looks like the game is afoot again for all those challengeing agreements under insufficiant time to remedy.

Peter

[Guest]

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

Well, there would be a number of issues to consider in that case:


Not all of them, by any means, but the banks and DCAs can't now hide behind weasel words such as "no prejudice was caused", or the errors in the pooch screw of a Notice were just de minimnis.

Cheers,
BRW

HI
I think care has to be taken over what actually happened and was said here.

"Thirdly, if, as a matter of construction, the Default Notice has not or may not have allowed the minimum statutory period for Mr. Brandon to remedy the breach, then it is (at least) realistically arguable that the defect cannot be overlooked as de minimis. To my mind, this conclusion applies both to the failure to allow a minimum 14 day period and to the absence of prejudice flowing from the defect in the Default Notice. Insofar as DJ Gisby and HHJ Denyer thought otherwise, I am, with respect, unable to agree"
The judge did not say that prejudice was not a factor in deciding if the 14 day period had to be adhered to.
He said that the absense of prejudice caused by the failure could be argued. In other words the court would have to decide if it was, or was not a de minimus breach.
This in fact re enforces the conclusion that prejudice can be a factor.
What it says is that, in this case the prejudice caused is arguable and therefore should not have been the subject of a summary judgement.
What this means is that courts will have to think about each case as regards the prejudice caused in future, it does not mean that creditors cannot use the argument to support enforcement after a DN with insufficient time to remedy is served.
Peter

[Gorang]

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

Yes I think you are right peter

Care will need to be taken i think

Also after reading the judgement I couldn't help getting the feeling that if Amex had brought up s76 (I think it was 76) and s98 in the first hearing even if they had just referenced it then this could of been a different story all together

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??????

Keith
This is where the CPR comes in, if they go remedy the action the try to claim again then the defendant can MAKE them seek permission from the judge for the case to be allowed,

and the defendant can agrue that they should of MADE SURE that the processes were done right the 1st time BEFORE they claimed the 1st time,

and as they didn't then they abused the process and wasted courts time so therefor they should not be allowed to waste any more courts time