Thread: Fluffystuff's OH & MBNA

Hi there,

It appears to be enforceable as contains the prescribed terms.

Have a look at these links which may help you on the enforceabilty of the paperwork (courtesy of 42man & steven4064) -


Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful


Consumer Credit Agreements

the bit about credit limit - "we will chose this and advise" - is, as I understand it, ok, as while it doesnt tell you what it is, it does tell you how it will be determined and that is satisfactory. I think the interest rate can be shown annually, though they can get themselves in a knot over cash withdrawel interest. There will be a "commission" fee (2% in this case), which is basically just another charge. Egg have got themselves in a bit of a knot about this, as the APR should be the cost, but the apr is what they will charge you interest, and then the commission goes on top - and of course if you dont pay it back, they charge interest on the commission. But no, I wouldnt like to explain that one in Court.
What is more interesting to me is the lack of any signature on their part. If this was the outcome of a S77 request then they can get away with sending you "another document with the main terms"| (hence the argument that is often put by them that what they send doenst have to have the debtor's sig), so an application form at that stage may well be ok. But if they are going to take this as far as court, them my understanding is that "another document" is not satisfactory. They (the creditor) have to come up with the real thing - ie the original agreement (ie they have to show what the original agreement was) - and it seems to me that they face two problems here:

1. the creditor hasnt signed it. For there to be an agreement, I would have thought that there needed to be two sides and thus two sigs. Many lenders do this - though I have at least two examples where the lender couldnt be arsed to put a mark in their box.
2. more contentiously, there is the problem of s59 of the CCA. This says "59.—(1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.". Now what I take from this is that to present an application form as an executed agreement is just not on - or to use the phrase in the above it is VOID. There is an interesting discussion about this in another place - Moneysupermarket.com - Making a Claim. And as they say there, what does an application form prove except that I applied for a credit card. Of course not every lender behaves in this way (though many of them do/did). I think that what the CCA intended was that "prospective" debtor puts in application to be considered by lender. At this stage the lender offers up the T&Cs that will apply should the legal relationship be consummated. If the lender goes ahead with the loan then there should be an agreement signed by both that includes the terms and conditions as set out in the 1983 regulations. One of the few who have done this is Egg, though they arguably made a bit of a Horlicks of the document signed at the second stage. What MBNA have sent you is clearly an appliction, though it doesnt helpfully say this at the top of the page (though many do). It does though, to take one example, say "APPLICANTS must be UK residents and over 18"

Would anyone with more knowledge than I care to comment on this one. There does seem to be some debate over this. I have seen this view denied by pt2537 somewhere on this sitek, but it doesnt seem to be the view elsewhere.
It is clear that in reply to a s77 request they can send out another document with the relevant T&Cs, but if they proceed to court they should produce the real thing. An application form wont do as its (by definition, I would have thought) pre-contractual and thus void under s59. And if they have anything other than the application form, why wouldnt they send it?

Originally Posted by Fluffystuff

Thanks for the links SS.

It appears that the agreement is enforceable but I have the following queries.

1. It doesn't specify the credit limit as a figure, just states "We will choose your credit limit and tell you what it is." Is this sufficient?

Yes it is

2. The interest is just expressed as a rate per annum. Should a monthly rate also have been shown?

No requirement for a monthly rate

3. There are obviously other T&C's as it states - "Before signing this agreement you must read sections 13-14 in the T&C's provided."
So where would this info have been - it's not on the back of the agreement so if provided, it would have been under separate cover. Should this therefore have needed a signature?

Unfortunately, most Judge's will overlook this unless you manage to get a really thorough Judge

4. There is no provision for the creditor to sign. Is the applicant's signature sufficient?

Yes, a creditors signature is required, but having read a lot of cases here on CAG, most Judges look for a debtors signature, interest rate and a credit limit.


Appreciate comments please.

Thanks.

Hope this helps or not as the case may be. :cry:

have a look at letter E -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...templates.html

Originally Posted by Fluffystuff

Just wondering if MBNA generally get their DN's correct, in terms of sufficient time to rectify etc?

No they do not.

Post it up without details.

The current problem is that they have sent a raft of DN's out on the 7th Sept, rectify by the 24th Sept. At first look seems fine, until you look at the envelope. Sent using UK mail, s in top right hand corner. This is second class, 4 days, so DN is faulty. They cannot send another

Thanks for the PM.

Had a quick look. Seems that the prescribed terms are there. Something strange though, there seems to be a raft of printing and document codes at the bottom. Could be a reconstruction.

Have a look Here.

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/res...lication-forms

Thanks for looking in Vint.

Have gone all through the link you sent above but can't find any 'agreement' the same as ours. As you and others have said, it appears to be enforceable but there is definately something about it that's making me loathe to just give in, particularly as they have refused to lower the interest rate and we didn't receive any letter informing us of the increase, though of course they insist one was sent!

I notice that the document codes you refer to, are similar to those in another thread (Mum v MBNA) and this agreement was taken out at around the same time. OR - could be that we made our CCA requests at the same time ????

Aside from the points already raised in post #3, also notice that in section 3 (Key Information) they refer to details of other charges being set out in section 4 - there is no section 4 !?

Was hoping that somebody could come up with something tangible enough for us to place the account into dispute! (Clutching at straws probably?)

The reason I asked about DN's was that OH was thinking about simply not paying them in the hope they would fall foul at that stage - knowing his 'luck' though they'd probably get his notice right !!!

Any further opinions greatfully received - even if it's just to say we should put this one to bed!

Thanks.


P.S. Not discounting those opinions already given.

Originally Posted by Fluffystuff

Thanks for looking in Vint.

Have gone all through the link you sent above but can't find any 'agreement' the same as ours. As you and others have said, it appears to be enforceable but there is definately something about it that's making me loathe to just give in, particularly as they have refused to lower the interest rate and we didn't receive any letter informing us of the increase, though of course they insist one was sent!

I notice that the document codes you refer to, are similar to those in another thread (Mum v MBNA) and this agreement was taken out at around the same time. OR - could be that we made our CCA requests at the same time ????

Aside from the points already raised in post #3, also notice that in section 3 (Key Information) they refer to details of other charges being set out in section 4 - there is no section 4 !?

Unless they are prescribed terms, that does not matter.

Was hoping that somebody could come up with something tangible enough for us to place the account into dispute! (Clutching at straws probably?)

The document just looks wrong to me. I take it it was not opened online?

The reason I asked about DN's was that OH was thinking about simply not paying them in the hope they would fall foul at that stage - knowing his 'luck' though they'd probably get his notice right !!!

Any further opinions greatfully received - even if it's just to say we should put this one to bed!

Thanks.


P.S. Not discounting those opinions already given.

You could possibley contest it on it being a reconstruction, if you do not thhink that it is like the document signed.

Hi fluffystuff,

Yes, they are past masters at photoshop.

It still looks suspicious to me. When you see the forms that have been put together professionally, including MBNA's, the lines of text run accross the page, in line as it were. Yours are offset from where the sig box is in column 2, possibly by pasting the signature box in?

All of their other genuine forms, start off level across the top and finish with uneven column heights at the bottom. Yours finish remarkably flush along the bottom and the right hand column is lower at the top. Still think that the printing and document codes look wrong and there is no heading to the agreement or form and no MBNA logos.

Most of this agreement, is lifted from the current T&C's document, if you check the MBNA agreements link.

I would challenge it as a reconstruction.

Hold onto this, because if it does come to court, they will need to produce the origonal and if it iis different from this one, well!

Fluffystuff,

You refer earlier to MBNA Default Notices; they are noramlly defective as they use UKMail postal service to serve.

The DN's normally only give a date 14 days from the date of the Default Notice........thus making them invalid.

Do you still have yours ?
If so, post it up.

Originally Posted by Fluffystuff

Hi Supa,

Thanks for stopping by.

Apologies for any confusion but OH has not defaulted yet - see my comments in post #12.

Just really after more opinions particularly in respect of Vint's suspicions that the 'agreement' might be a reconstruction as I believe this might be the only reason to challenge.

I think that is the only reason to challenge at the moment.

Have a read through post #63 here.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ing-cca-4.html