Hi Mike Freds are doing this all the time

at present, they should pass your request on,

why they are going down this line who knows.,

but some amendments were made to OFT

guidance to companies re 77/78 requests'

my advice is send the request to MBNA

and ignore Freds for now.

Brig.

Fred have a read of OFT guidance on

s.77/78 duty to give information to debtors (Oct 2010)

things are not as clear cut as they were.

Just got a letter back from Freds Int ref my CCA request. They've said that I need to contact MBNA 9the debt originators) with the CCA and they've sent me back the postal ordert that I had made out to them. They have also mentioned that they have put my "account"on hold for twenty eight days in order to give me time to contact MBNA. Anybody got any ideas where to go next.

 

Regards

 

Mike

This is a classic Freds. tactic, as already said on here..... Even though they're obliged to forward the request themselves, best to send it to the OC directly (as has also been said) because it's important to get this lodged before Freds. decide to set Mr. Carter on you.

What do i do about the postal order send it MBNA?

Yes Mike there is a para in the guidance on this

that I''l post up prob tomorrow as I fewl a Saturday

night Pi*s up coming on:madgrin:

This is a classic Freds. tactic, as already said on here..... Even though they're obliged to forward the request themselves, best to send it to the OC directly (as has also been said) because it's important to get this lodged before Freds. decide to set Mr. Carter on you.

 

It is lodged, it's lodged with Freds and they've acknowledged the fact by stating they are not going to deal with it. Sit back and enjoy the sound of the clock ticking.

Thanks for all the info everyone but I'm getting a bit confused as there seems to be a lot of contradictions here. I've a mind to return the postal order to them that its their responibilty to pass on the request to the originatior. If anyone has any advice on this tactic I would be gratefull.

Mike

Send the request to MBNA , the rights

and wrongs of a minor procedural fault

is irrelevant, as there are some variations

now on what was considered correct previously.

Get your CCA to MBNA asap.

You could of course point out to them that

their ''agents,'' refused to deal with your request.

Brig.

It is lodged, it's lodged with Freds and they've acknowledged the fact by stating they are not going to deal with it. Sit back and enjoy the sound of the clock ticking.

With respect Fred, this is a classic example of needing to think outside the box. The clock may indeed be ticking but that clock is actually meaningless in terms of whether an Agreement can be re-enforced or not... and Mr. Carter won't care what the clock's doing anyway.

With respect Fred, this is a classic example of needing to think outside the box. The clock may indeed be ticking but that clock is actually meaningless in terms of whether an Agreement can be re-enforced or not... and Mr. Carter won't care what the clock's doing anyway.

 

I'm not arguing or criticising. If the information is needed then MBNA it must be. If on the other hand what is needed is time then Fred's refusal to deal with it is manna from heaven. Whatever suits.

Regards.

Fred

I'm not arguing or criticising. If the information is needed then MBNA it must be. If on the other hand what is needed is time then Fred's refusal to deal with it is manna from heaven. Whatever suits.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

I know you're not criticising Fred... Neither was I.... it's just that Freds. seem to like playing this particular game possibly because it gives ample room for Mr. Carter to come flying in and slap consumers with court papers while consumers take their eyes off the ball and sit around waiting for a timescale to kick in.

This lot need to be tackled head on. I've had recent experience of them myself and they are a real tenacious bunch....

We have a dispute over an MBNA credit card. We've sent the CCA request and they admit to not being able to supply acopy ofn the credit agreement (not that there ever was one). However they claim that they can still persue payments quoting certain case law namely McGuiffick vs RBS and Carey vs HSBC. Does any one know anything about these cases and how they might affect the rules on persueing payments where no aggreement exists.

Regards

Mike

plenty of info around

the basis is that these reclaim co's took the no agreement loophole a little to far

and the judges now mostly accept that if there is a clear financial link

and lets say a signed application form or a recontructed CCA

they are happy to hear the case

i would not now rely on any paperwork errors to wriggle out of paying your debts.

tell us more.

dx

6 threads merged

this has been going on since jan 2007

i would think that if anyone is going to get your wife in court

they would have done so by now.

please keep to THIS THREAD

on anymore issues relating to this debt

as it silly to keep getting people

to advise the same things again and again.

dx

We have a dispute over an MBNA credit card. We've sent the CCA request and they admit to not being able to supply acopy ofn the credit agreement (not that there ever was one). However they claim that they can still persue payments quoting certain case law namely McGuiffick vs RBS and Carey vs HSBC. Does any one know anything about these cases and how they might affect the rules on persueing payments where no aggreement exists.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Says it all.... The extracts from Carey that they're using are irrelevant but you'll have to do some reading to understand this properly. Both McGuffick & Carey were claimants who brought action against banks and not the other way around. Financial companies/DCAs love throwing these cases around because they catch consumers on the hop with this type of info. all the time.

DX is so right on the paperwork, reliance on

faulty agreements is now virtually useless.

The balance of probabilities is going to affect

more and more cases, if for example a creditor

produces a signed application for that contains

the the CCA 1974 warning re signing a regulated

credit agreement and as often happens the app

form is stamped approved, the judges are right

to assume that on the balance of probabilities a

contract exists between the debtor and the creditor,

absolute proof as in criminal cases is not required.

Brig.

I'm not sure where this is all leading. The facts are that we have not, in this instance at least, not made a credit card application to MBNA this why they can't find either the application or the agreement. They have admitted that they will not persue any court action so we might as well let it sit.

Regards

Mike

I would then tell them that you

now consider the matter close

all further correspondence from

them will be returned unopened

and continued attempts to contact

you will be considered harassment.

head the letter FINAL Response.

Send recorded addressed to the

COMPLIANCE MANAGER.

Brig.

DX is so right on the paperwork, reliance on

faulty agreements is now virtually useless.

The balance of probabilities is going to affect

more and more cases, if for example a creditor

produces a signed application for that contains

the the CCA 1974 warning re signing a regulated

credit agreement and as often happens the app

form is stamped approved, the judges are right

to assume that on the balance of probabilities a

contract exists between the debtor and the creditor,

absolute proof as in criminal cases is not required.

Brig.

Sorry to disagree with you again somewhat Brig..... but the example you give assumes someone is already in court. If the pre-court arguments contain all the relevant facts, consumers should not find themselves in court. One of my creditors has a signed application form.... it's been to 4 DCAs and our Mr. Carter..... yet Carter dropped it without issuing a summons, despite some very heavily veiled threats to do so.

CAG seems to be running scared these days and I really don't know why when the info. is all on here for people to use.

I am certainly not going to roll over and cave in just because there's an application for credit somewhere. An application is an application.... that is all.

I've just had a phone call from a crowd called Rockwell. My question is, how would they get my phone number when I've never revealed it to them or the lot they say they're acting for. I've now changed it but how safe is it?

Unless your telephone number is x director (and sometimes even if they are) - BT publishes a list.

You could have given your number to another creditor where your Credit files would be updated and the new number included.

BTW, I have moved your thread to the correct forum..

First of all, you do not have to speak to Rockwell on the telephone, if they ring again, refuse to go through any of their stupid data protection questions, interupt the child on the other end and say "in writing only" and hang up.

Then wait until they send something through the post.

Stigman

My phone is with Sky and I called them and they changed my number. Rockwell claim to have written to me on the 9th November, this could be a [problem] of some sort to find out who lives at what address. BTW when you fill out the electoral roll forms and you tick the box for them not to make your details public it would seem that certain info can still be found on sites like 192.com

BTW when you fill out the electoral roll forms and you tick the box for them not to make your details public it would seem that certain info can still be found on sites like 192.com

DCA's including Rockwell have a Consumer Credit Licence so regardless of what box you ticked, they have access to the complete unrestricted Electoral Register via the Credit Reference Agencies.

Rockwell claim to have written to me on the 9th November

Keep off the telephone, it's all lies and the person on the other end will say the moon is made of green cheese just to get a payment out of you.

Stigman

I have purchased a cheap PAYG phone and only give that number out if I have to provide a number.. eg.. the electoral roll - online shopping etc..