Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

[Scrappy Coco]

Hi everyone.

This is my first proper post so be easy on me.

Have a loan with Alliance & Leicester (Santander) I took out PPI online when I took out the loan back in 2006.

Was made redundant in December 2008 and made a successful claim for 12 months. Found another job and all was well. Five months into the new job the company went in to liquidation. Hows my luck. Well it's has been complete crap for the last 3 1/2 years but things are getting better slowly.

Anyway back to the point of the post.

Upon losing my new job I contacted Santander and tried to make another claim.

Was advised that this wasn't possible as I hadn't been back in employment for at least 6 months. They didn't seem to care that the company didn't exist anymore.

So I wrote a letter of complaint to Santander only for them to dismiss me and advise that the terms & conditions of the PPI where available at the point of sale and that's their final word.

Made a complaint to FOS and to cut a long story short (shock horror) they ruled in MY favor as I had taken screen shots of the online application etc and I also had the original they sent in the post. Not on any page of the terms & conditions does it mention anything about PPI.

This isn't to say Santander didn't try and mock some up with the application they sent FOS. Ended up with egg on their face. Dirty, cheating ar*eholes.

Anyway got all my premiums refunded to the loan and agreed a payment plan the Santander which has been in place for the past 12 months.

They haven't touched my credit file for over 2yrs and now they have issued a default notice on me.

I have tried to reason with them, advising that it was their unlawful mis-selling of the PPI which has put me in this position but might as well be talking to myself. I even pointed out that when I purchased the PPI it was a LEGAL requirement to have it's own prescribed terms on the agreement and I would have perfectly within my rights to take legal action against them but decided not to. Pointless exercise

Right a few other points to mention.

Letter dated 7th June accepting payment arrangement for another 6 months.

Default notice dated 4th June received 20th June (Postman has written a witness statement to this effect)

Default notice states 14 days from the date of this notice - I believe that it must state a specified date?

(c) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and
the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of
the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

So in short I have been well and truely shafted through no fault of my own and the unlawful mis-selling of PPI

All help welcome

Thanks
Scrappy Coco

[kilasuit]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

14 days from the expected date of delivery which is 2 working days after posting

The envelope will show date of posting.

so in effect you should have received it on Sat 9th or mon 11th would be conclusively sat 23rd and mon 25th

does that make sense?

[alangee]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

SC

If you did not receive it until 20th then the DN is invalid on the time issue alone.

However marking your credit record as in default can be done at any time if you have missed - normally - three payments. As you are on a payment plan, then you would have missed at least three contracted payments, so they are at liberty to mark you credit record as in default.

Do not get a Default Notice and a default on your credit record mixed up. They are two different issues.

A DN is issued to enable the creditor to take the next step - enforcement of the debt.

A marker is placed on your credit record to denote how well you handle your debts. If you are behind in your payments then a default can be entered.

Thus you can have a DN without a default being added to your credit record, and likewise you can have a default marker placed without receiving a DN.

The misunderstanding on this is probably because the creditor informs you within the DN that they will place a marker on your credit record, however I believe they can still place that marker on your credit record even if you remedy the breach.

Alan

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

Default notice dated 4th June received 20th June (Postman has written a witness statement to this effect)

You cannot blame RM for the post not getting to you, you are afforded the right of 2 days within this period.

Any claim to the contrary would surely be with RM. I am friends with my postman and he lives 4 doors away, thus you must see the apprehension that a judge will face when listening to such claims from postmen!

Just my opinion, but the DN cannot be classed served after 14 days, it's after 2 usually! The lender, if they knew, would have remedied it also.

Sorry, just saying I don't think the DN is bad based on this reason 'alone'.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

If you did not receive it until 20th then the DN is invalid on the time issue alone.

No it isn't!

Royal Mail may have had a say, but the DN may be good based on the date element (would need to see it though to clarify the actual terms etc)!

I think though, the fact they've defaulted you is good - it should have been done ages ago and so to be frank I'd not worry about it at this stage.

With the FOS victory regards PPI, the s18 queries and the service of DN you'd have a good case if they tried to enforce. Why aren't you considering UE with this (or are you?)....

[kilasuit]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

although you do have the ability to argue to santander that due to you receiving it on the 20th that you had been unable to remedy the breach in time.

As i said you have that ability but whether they argee to it is totally upto them

[alangee]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

No it isn't!

Royal Mail may have had a say, but the DN may be good based on the date element

I agree we need to see the DN to be sure, but if the OP is correct in that the DN is dated 4th June, and he can prove - via the postie - that he did not get it until the 20th, then the 14 days given to remedy the breach have already expired.

So I do not agree that the date element may be good. On that point alone it is bad.

They cannot get away with 14 days from receipt either. What if it got lost in the post? The 14 days would only start the day after receipt. Which means it would never start.

That is why they need to state a date, because if it gets lost in the post they can prove it was sent and a date given to remedy.


Alan

[kilasuit]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

I agree we need to see the DN to be sure, but if the OP is correct in that the DN is dated 4th June, and he can prove - via the postie - that he did not get it until the 20th, then the 14 days given to remedy the breach have already expired.

So I do not agree that the date element may be good. On that point alone it is bad.

They cannot get away with 14 days from receipt either. What if it got lost in the post? The 14 days would only start the day after receipt. Which means it would never start.

That is why they need to state a date, because if it gets lost in the post they can prove it was sent and a date given to remedy.


Alan

This has been debated many many times before and ibeileve even in court. Paul would be able to tell you this and i'm sure Niddy can too.

Is it fair. No. But neither is the credit industry

[alangee]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

This has been debated many many times before and ibeileve even in court. Paul would be able to tell you this and i'm sure Niddy can too.

Is it fair. No. But neither is the credit industry

What points have been debated?

If you are not given 14 clear days to remedy the breach, then the DN is faulty - and the creditor cannot take the next step until they rectify that DN.

I believe that Brandon v Amex covered that point. However I stand to be corrected.

Alan

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

What points have been debated?

If you are not given 14 clear days to remedy the breach, then the DN is faulty - and the creditor cannot take the next step until they rectify that DN.

I believe that Brandon v Amex covered that point. However I stand to be corrected.

Alan

On a law of averages it'd not take 14 days to get posted thus the courts base this on 2 days for 1st class hence that's the norm. However, if you can prove that it took longer to arrive, even so much as writing a date on the envelope, then yes - you can argue the DN is bad.

What I am saying is that this letter or whatever from the postie may not add up to much, as I say I am mates with my local postie so if I *needed* such a favour, it's easy to come by. Plus, how would the postie have known it was posted on the 4th unless he opened it? Thus the customer *could* never show beyond reasonable doubt that the letter took that long.

Its obvious, think about it. How did the postie know it took that long, in order to write this statement? Obviously the person took receipt of the letter, opened it and then spoke to the postie the next day and asked for this statement - the point being, the postie never actually seen what was inside thus he could not (hand on heart) state that the contents were the same as he delivered the previous day. I've seen this loads of times in my old fraud days.....

Not being pessimistic, just saying be careful cos I just picked up on this so a court is also likely to.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

To answer the main OP point, because 14 clear days were not given in which to remedy the DN then yes, I would say it is bad BUT I don't think the postie reason is up to much - I could be totally wrong, if so great cos any help is a bonus!

That said, I do think the bank will argue the delivery date. So solid proof *may* be necessary. I'll ask Paul. to pop in and answer definitively as he'll know!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

So I do not agree that the date element may be good. On that point alone it is bad.

They cannot get away with 14 days from receipt either.

I agree totally with this - there should be a clear date by which to remedy by.

[alangee]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

Even without the postie, if the dates the OP gave us are correct, thenthe default is still faulty. 14 days from date of DN is at a minimum 2 days too short.

Alan

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

Even without the postie, if the dates the OP gave us are correct, thenthe default is still faulty. 14 days from date of DN is at a minimum 2 days too short.

Alan

you're not listening! The date of delivery is paramount and a judge will not just roll over and accept that it took that long so it is not as clear cut as that!

But yes, 14 days from the date is too short so it's going to fail on other parts..... never disagreed with that sentiment either

[alangee]

Re: Santander Unlawful Default Help Required

you're not listening! The date of delivery is paramount and a judge will not just roll over and accept that it took that long so it is not as clear cut as that!

But yes, 14 days from the date is too short so it's going to fail on other parts..... never disagreed with that sentiment either

I am listening, but you are not grasping what I am saying!

If we take the delivery to take two days - forget the postman - then 14 days from date of DN is at least two days short anyway because only 12 days are left.

DN is faulty on that point alone, until rectified by creditor.

Alan