Ok thank you

Is it worth checking the various agencies reference files?

MBNA themselves have written to me. I received the letter today. The original default was nov 2010. The case was settled out of court in 2012 march/april. Thanks for the thread Merge. What should I do now.

In 2012, after a year of delays and their solicitors going on hoilday and just genrally messsing around. We came to an out of court agreement where we would not pursue monies from either party. Because in effect they would pursue the ammount i asked for the account to be closed and the debt wiped off of my Credit score. They refused to do that as part of the agreement. I thought i was covered it would fall of my credit file and record after six years(2012 +6 years = 2018) I just recieved a letter dated the 10/4/2019 saying the account has been settled in full £0.00 and that they will inform the credit references. And that the default will stay on my credit reference for a further 6 years .. My Questions are: A) shouldn't the account have been removed after 6 years (ie last march/april) B) are they legally entitled to do this. c) if not, whom should I contact and what redress do i have.

Legal bods out there. I am pondering set aside on last weeks order, as the basis for the order was based on: allowing a wp conversation to be used as evidence which i had not consented to being used. The judge claimed that the claimant could use the wp conversation without my permission. Saying that i did agree to the new time frame. That i wasted time by not telling the court of the wp convo and the new time frame for document service. Ignored the issue of the defaults that the claimant racked up. Is the WP cockup alone enough reason for set aside to be granted or will the amended timeframe be against me.

What was in the letter, a settlement offer? or something else ?

this was headed by the claimant "wp" an email exchange occurred, with the claimant creating an estoppel on its offer, defendant deleined offer. [ Can X use that in an application hearing? The claimant offered discontinuance that would satisfy the above that its privileged ..

update : claiamnt got set aside .. Judge allowed the wp conversation as evidence and said they(claimant) are allowed to release it .. Have costs to pay too as he though i had acted unreasonable and should of have told the court about the time table change and wp conversation. I am quite concerned that the wp privilege can be dropped by the issuing party at any time to prove a point. Then why have wp, its pointless. I hope the forum heavy weights can help.

As you have submitted a defense in before the deadline, it will now transfer to your local court where the claimant will have 28 days to consider if they want to continue with the case and if they do, an Allocation questionnaire will be sent to both parties.

The charge off adjustment, will have caused mbna to move your amount into a different account which will probably a legal one. Only way to find out fully is a SAR to mbna . How much was on the dn for the arreas? I would F&F on the areas from the dn.

Both the cliamant and myself are doing applications on monday. claiamnt= set aside and new trial dates. defendant (me)= to vary the order, to add an another default to the order and for the award amount to be sorted out as the judge, as the nudge has seen the n227 form. the n227 was accompanied with 4 pages of explanation of awards amounts (4 seperate issues in counter claim) along with wasted costs ..

Thanks CB, Because the claimant served me with document via email on the 2/12/11 .. Sorry an explaintion. The claiamnt's n244 for set aside was emailed to me on the 2/12/11. 8 days after the 25/11/11 (even if you included 2 business days after teh the 27 and 2nd respectuflly). Basically a giant "WHOOPS" by the claiamnt..

A quickie Q.. say if a court order was : Dated:21/11/11 Stamp seal: 25/11/11 The order was delievered first class ( i got mine on the 26/11/11)And parties had 7 days to appeal when is the 8th day .. 2/12/11 or 3/12/11 ?

right here is my WS. It is in full ... Any alterations is gratefully useful.

Brief peroid of what happend They originally defaulted on full disclosure in july after a n244 by me. Short of it they didn't provide ppi docs and full account statements. I provided a fully pleaded defense and counterclaim based on what was given. I only provided the defence and counter claim but none of the exhibits at that stage(as i thought these where meant to be given at a later stage). The claiamnt asked for these at very short notice. I realised the amount that i had was alot (around 28). They went for a court order for full disclosure in august. I asked for strike out due to their defgault. Mine was ignored and they got full disclosure . I sent the exhibit bundle on September 1st. That is the brief outline that needs to be sumerised for you to understand their claim for set aside Their Set aside is based on two things. 1. They are saying i agreed to new time frame of bundle hand over . 2. They are saying they I did not provide a medical exhibit within the bundle sent over to them . That is their reasoning for set aside. What happend from my view point is this . 1. Yes i did proposed a new document hand over schedule, they didn't like it and proposed a counter proposal. Why did i do this because they actually started to give some of the ppi documents. And it showed their where two ppi involed and once that had been previously involved in unfair practices with the claimant. Because they weren't providing full document discloure I basically said no to their counter proposal for document exchange. This was stupidly done under Without Prejudice but with no settlement offer(which is admissible in court) 2. They requested a current medical report in october 12 nearly 6 weeks after the deadline for me to submit these documents and upon receipt offer to discontinue the case. This was under Without Prejudice again but obviously an offer to discontinue is a settlement and isn't admissible in court. Whats made the thing worse is that two judges have gone done the same thing and hence the confusion on previous posts.