Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MBNA debt bought by Link - don't know what to do - can anyone help please?


Massamum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5318 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have an MBNA credit card that was terminated a short while ago. I received a letter from Link Financial saying they've bought the debt. After reading on here how quick Link are to get charging orders I wondered if someone would be able to advise me on the best course of action here. It was an online application (c. 2007) so I'm guessing its enforceable. The question is, what is the best way forward regarding Link's letter? Should I write to them offering £1 token payments (thats what I was paying MBNA). Would be grateful for any suggestions/ideas as I'm dead scared that if I ignore them it'll make things much worse.

 

I've added a link to my original post below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/189152-drowning-debt-please-help.html

 

Thanks folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have an MBNA credit card that was terminated a short while ago. I received a letter from Link Financial saying they've bought the debt. After reading on here how quick Link are to get charging orders I wondered if someone would be able to advise me on the best course of action here. It was an online application (c. 2007) so I'm guessing its enforceable. The question is, what is the best way forward regarding Link's letter? Should I write to them offering £1 token payments (thats what I was paying MBNA). Would be grateful for any suggestions/ideas as I'm dead scared that if I ignore them it'll make things much worse.

 

I've added a link to my original post below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/189152-drowning-debt-please-help.html

 

Thanks folks.

 

Ok first thing is stay calm, you'll get help on here and you are not alone, most of us are still in debt! You say the CCA was from 2007 so I'm afraid its taken as granted in the court system that the agreement is enforceable, at the very least you dont have the get out of s127(3) like pre-2006 agreements.

 

Right first things first, I believe your unemployed so that means you can only make token payments... thats a given.

 

You say your worried about charging orders and link getting one really quickly... 1) They can only get a charging order if they have a CCJ in place and 2) You default on paying that CCJ.

 

A judge will only ask you to pay what you can afford!!!! I've put it in bold as its important to remember cos the DCA's like to think they can make you pay what they want.

 

Dont deal with them on the phone, ask them to write with all details, Dont pay by Direct Debit, Standing orders or cash into their accounts and once again as its the most important thing... only pay what you can afford!

 

edit: Just read about the equity in the house.. that means they may get a little more interested in attempting to get you to secure the debt, offering you a secured loan to repay or possibly ask you to increase your mortgage or some other loan secured to the equity in your property... just ignore any of these, its against the OFT debt guidelines to ask you to increase lending to pay existing debts.

 

PmW

Edited by pmw1971
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PmW, thanks for your reassurance and advice.

 

I will write to Link offering them £1 token payments as that’s all I can afford.

 

Definitely won’t be taking up any offers of loans - I’m no longer credit-worthy :D

 

Feel so powerless in this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a thought, should I be sending Link a letter asking for some sort of proof of ownership of the debt? After all MBNA haven't actually notified me that they've sold the debt on.

 

If so, does anyone know if there's a template letter on here to do that? I can't remember how to get to the templates!!!

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a thought, should I be sending Link a letter asking for some sort of proof of ownership of the debt? After all MBNA haven't actually notified me that they've sold the debt on.

 

If so, does anyone know if there's a template letter on here to do that? I can't remember how to get to the templates!!!

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

Ooo no notice from MBNA that they are selling :mad:, will hunt around for the letter for you just in case nobody else posts it.

 

PmW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Massamum, have Link sent you a Default Notice ? If so, can you post it up on photobucket (with your ID i.e. name, address, account number removed), leave in the date of the Default Notice.

 

Secondly I believe the repealing of s127(3) of the Act applies for agreements entered into AFTER 6th April 2007. I need to confirm this.

 

Did link send you a notice of Assignment ? It would need to have been sent by recorded delivery to be valid NOT ordinary post (unless of course you acknowledge receiving it).

 

Note: Regarding any offers of payment you make to a creditor, make sure you head the letter Without prejudice save as to costs

You could put that heading anywhere above the main body of the letter. This means that if the Creditor accepts your offer openly then the offer is legally binding. If the Creditor refuses your offer, you are not bound by your offer (you can withdraw it), but you can show your offer letter o the District Judge on the issue of costs. This is a deterrent to a creditor when you are trying to settle outside of Court.

 

You are not there yet. Lets see if you can find the Default Notice first (I assume Link have sent one)

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shakespeare62, thank you so much for your reply, I really do appreciate your help, especially given the late hour.

 

No I haven’t received a DN from Link (yet). Only a letter so far which I think is a Notice of Assignment? The letter is dated 23 March and in that letter Link say the debt was assigned to them on 20 March 2009. The letter was sent by ordinary post and I haven’t acknowledged receipt at all yet, either by phone or letter.

 

I received a DN from MBNA dated 6 March (posted below), it mentions that I have to make payment by 23/03/2009 or (further down) that on or after that date if not received that my account will be closed – that’s three days after the debt was assigned to Link – is that significant at all? (I have only actually just realized the dates)

 

Sorry to be thick but what does repealing of s127(3) mean?

 

Any suggestions as to what I should do now? Should I write to them offering token payments? But if I do that then I’m acknowledging receipt – no idea what to do for the best.

 

(Was up half the night trying to scan NOA onto Photobucket but awful trouble losing my internet connection, will keep trying and hopefully will post it up later.)

 

MBNAdefaultnotice-2.jpg

 

 

Edited by Massamum
removed identifying ref
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear oh dear... what have MBNA done!

 

DN is faulty on dates, they sent it on the 6th march which was a friday.. they have to allow two days for service (1st class post) and thats working days so sat/sun are out... so from 10th March 14 clear days would mean weds 25th March...

 

This has implications if they terminate which are all good for you, bad for MBNA :-)

 

But to assign a debt without giving you time to remedy it is even worse!!! They cant sell the debt without terminating first and if they havent given you the dates that even they state in there letter to rememdy and then terminate then they are in bigger trouble.

 

Not sure if this comes down to whether they sold the debt or are asking link to collect on their behalf (as agents).. The noa should give us a clue (if its important or not?)

 

PmW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PmW, thanks for that. Sounds like good news (if only I knew what it meant lol).

 

What are the implications for MBNA if it has been incorrectly done? What do I have to do?

 

 

Still having a nightmare trying to upload the NOA but will keep trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear oh dear... what have MBNA done!

 

DN is faulty on dates, they sent it on the 6th march which was a friday.. they have to allow two days for service (1st class post) and thats working days so sat/sun are out... so from 10th March 14 clear days would mean weds 25th March...

 

This has implications if they terminate which are all good for you, bad for MBNA :-)

 

But to assign a debt without giving you time to remedy it is even worse!!! They cant sell the debt without terminating first and if they havent given you the dates that even they state in there letter to rememdy and then terminate then they are in bigger trouble.

 

Not sure if this comes down to whether they sold the debt or are asking link to collect on their behalf (as agents).. The noa should give us a clue (if its important or not?)

 

PmW

 

subbing...

This is very interesting.....Sorry to butt in on this thread but have received the same letter with same dates.

Rec'd letter from Link dated 26th March stating assigned on '20th MARCH' this surely can't be right can it? What are the implications of this for MBNA and Link?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joemay, how interesting that you have the same letter. I have absolutely no legal knowledge but definitely something is not right here. I too would love to know what it means for MBNA/Link and more importantly, for us. Also what to do next.

 

Have at long last managed to scan the Link letter Shakespeare62 and PmW, hope it helps

 

 

 

CCI02042009_00001.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joemay, how interesting that you have the same letter. I have absolutely no legal knowledge but definitely something is not right here. I too would love to know what it means for MBNA/Link and more importantly, for us. Also what to do next.

 

Have at long last managed to scan the Link letter Shakespeare62 and PmW, hope it helps

 

 

 

CCI02042009_00001.jpg

 

SNAP!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Joemay, I have a new provider plus a new number. Its brilliant as none of my creditors can pester me. My heart still goes over when I hear the phone ring though.

 

I’d love to send a CCA request but sadly mine was an online application (Feb 2007) so from what I’ve read on here it’ll be enforceable. Good luck with yours though.

 

Sounds like they don’t know their Rs from their elbow!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok saw the PM...

 

The reason DN are so important is that its a requirement to end the credit agreement than a proper default notice is served prior to termination. If the default notice is invalid i.e. not enough time to rectify the fault then the termination becomes invalid, this reduces the right of the OC to just the money due at the time of the default notice, i.e. only the arrears become payable, they lose the right to the balance as they have terminated the agreement invalidly.

 

 

The letter implies that Link have purchased the debt from MBNA. As to the selling a debt prior to the default notice expiring that seems to me to be a serious breach, you'll need more experts opinion on this but in my mind they have seriously weakened their hand here by selling the account before the actual termination date of the agreement.

 

If I was you I'd ask for more expert help, either PM one of the moderators (site team) or click on the red triangle if no further help is given. I'm afraid im no expert only just beginning on the road myself.

 

PmW

Link to post
Share on other sites

PMW has made a valid point about the default notice, however it is really how a judge sees it, and we know they vary wildly.....being a late (2007)agreement and online means there isn't that much you could do in that respect...dispute/reclaim any excessive charges, and get any PPI back and make an offer of however much you can afford.....did they send you a termination notice ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi justing asking the question What are link the owner of the balance what is the balance are there any outstanding charges that you can claim back

 

if there are the balance will be wrong just a note.

 

hope it helps just slows them up a lot

 

viva cag

 

lilly

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PMW has made a valid point about the default notice, however it is really how a judge sees it, and we know they vary wildly.....being a late (2007)agreement and online means there isn't that much you could do in that respect...dispute/reclaim any excessive charges, and get any PPI back and make an offer of however much you can afford.....did they send you a termination notice ?

 

Hi 42man, thanks for the post,

 

which point? the remedy dates being wrong or the selling of the account prior to the end of their own quoted remedy dates?

 

PmW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...