funding corporation

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

While it is undoubtedly not good practice to ignore your letter, the Default Notice appears solid to me. They have allowed the statutory time plus a bit. The onyl arguable possible point on it is they say payment must be made no later than March 1st, but go on to say if you don't you must return the goods no later than March 1st. I would question whether the deadline date for payment and date for return of the goods can be one and the same, but it is nit picking.

There is plenty more, as you know, we can fight this on. I assume you had the Letter of Termination.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

The Notice of Termination would hold water from a technical point of view, although they've got the date of the Default Notice incorrect. The figures and other legalities surrounding this are far more important though, and there I think is where we take the fight.

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

Bill - thank you, and Maggot apologies. I looked at the way in which the DN was presented, but if the figures are wrong, then I too suspect it makes it defective. I need to double check that as the really critical bit where most mess up is the time limit.

[Bill-K]

Re: funding corporation

just ignore if i were in your position

This is also Curlyben's usual suggestion, and TBH, I'm sure it's OK. But for peeps who aren't used to this game of charades, it can be a difficult thing to do with any confidence or experience. My own personal preference is to respond with a 'Who are you/Prove it' letter, and send it by email if possible. It usually gets an automated acknowledgement, so it costs nowt. If not, send by 2nd class and get a Proof of Posting certificate.

...the Default Notice appears solid to me.

But the figures on the DN are incorrect, Labman. Isn't that a crucial element of it ?

EDIT: Crossed posts - I see we concur on the figures, Labman. But I appreciate that your forté is with the other points, eg., timing, etc.

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

this will help

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...kcyGYTomTwI22w

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

If that dn was sent on the 13th 2nd class assume to receive it 17th 29 days in feb ?

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

the default notice does not comply

give me a few days to bring up some case law

i believe wilson has case law on this

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

wonder why the figure is different on the arrears on dn tn

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

It doesn't comply on figures alone. Am I not correct in thinking a DN had to be sent 1st class, so is deemed received 2 working days later. It's actually irrelevant as the figures are wrong.

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

i am with you labman on this but i am hitting the books to confirm

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

Thanks for checking!

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

Could the total amount payable on the default notice include charges if so the figure will be different from the one on the agreements.
still dont understand why default notice says arrears £273.73 termination notice £547.46

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

The difference might another months contractual payment of £247.73 being added BUT HOW CAN THEY ADD IT IF THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DEFAULTED AND TERMINATED

WHAT DAY OF THE MONTH WERE THE PAYMENTS DUE

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

The regs are silent on 1st class or second class. They just state 14 days from date of service. In terms of everything EXCEPT figures, I think the DN is sound, but again the regs seem silent on figures. It stands to reason that one must be able to challenge these surely, but where is it written down?