Now being taken to Court by CL Finance for MBNA.

[someone_else]

Well the Link case is still ongoing, I'll update that thread in a bit but this morning we recieved a court claim from Howard Cohen Solicitors acting on behalf of CL Finance who say they have bought one of my mums credit cards from MBNA.

 

This is another fun case, my mum took out two credit cards (well she didn't take out two, she got talked into taking one at her local branch and they decided to send two cards) with Abbey in 2005 I think.

 

Somewhere along the line MBNA got involved and changed the account numbers - so she now gets Statements from Abbey with one account number on and threatening letters alternativly from Abbey then MBNA with the other account number on.

 

MBNA sometime in March sent a letter offering to settle the accounts, we sent back a letter via recorded delivery asking for written confirmation of the settlement and their account details to make payment (as the settlement looked to have merged both accounts) also complained about the actions of their staff over the phone who don't appear to have heard of the DPA.

 

Abbey then took this as a complaint and asked for time to 'investigate' MBNA then issued a default notice for each account, using the account numbers that don't appear on the statements demanding payment by 24th April 2009.

 

Now the fun starts, they delayed their reponse to our 'complaint' again finally sending a delayed response dated 22nd April 2009, but not posted until a week later, which pretty much ignored our letter - they stated letters are automatic and that's why they demand we call them, they included the statements we requested (though they look like excel printouts they generously didn't charge us £5 for each page) but made no mention of the settlement and told us that they had sold the accounts and not to contact them ever again.

 

We then receive a letter from Lewis Debt Recovery saying they are acting on behalf of CL Finanace who apparently bought one of the accounts on the 23rd April 2009 (though the notice of assignment text is nearly unreadable being tiny and in a gray box)

 

We sent a letter off to Lewis asking for some proof and in response we recieved the court letter this morning.

 

PoC from Court

 

Stating There was a Regulated Agreement between Defendant and MBNA under the threatening letter reference and assigned to the Claimant on the 23rd April of which notice has been sent.

 

The Defendant failed to make payment and a default notice was served.

 

They then claim £X.

 

Default Notice

 

Notice of Assignment

 

A couple of questions:

 

1. The Default Notice gave until 24/04/09 to make payment, yet CLF bought it on the 23/04, and statements from Abbey show they sold it on the 22/04, surely this isn't allowed and makes the assignment invalid? (even illegal?)

 

2. The Notice of Assignment do these need to be readable? (the scan is clearer than the original, my mum cannot read text that small) I also still don't know who they should come from - this is from a 4th party Lewis on behalf of CLF who bought an account from MBNA that was taken out with Abbey. Is there a deed or something official that needs producing?

 

3. Default Notice's - who do these need to come from - the statements come from Abbey with one account number on, the default notice came from MBNA with the other account number on. Do default notices need to match the company on the agreement (that we don't have anyway).

 

I know the next steps are to acknowledge service to get the 28 days for a defence and to send off a CPR 31.14 Request to the claimant - is there a reason why special rather than recorded delivery is advised for the CPR31.14 form?

 

Also is a FOS complaint going to have any bearing on this, as I'm in the process of drafting a complaint in reponse to Abbeys non-response to the settlement offer, but the FOS aren't particularly speedy. (Though from a previous complaint they are really angry with the banks)

 

Thanks.

[diamondgirl]

Hi Someone_else

 

Well I now know what a N and NoA are supposed to look like as I'm supposed to have received these from the monkeys that took me to court, naughty they are.

1. I too would have thought that its not right re dates.

2. Yes they should be legible.

3. I always thought DN came from the OC but if they never issued one I suppose CL should issue it but I'm really not sure.

 

Most people send for CP SD because it is guaranteed next day before 1pm.

RD can in fact take up to 5 days.

 

Your last point I really have no idea about but I'm sure someone will be around soon with the knowledge.

 

I had problems logging onto the forum today it took me 2 hrs so others might have the same.

DG

[someone_else]

Ok I'm now typing up the CPR31 letter from here

 

As I understand it you can only request documents that are declared in the PoC.

 

So if they have said they are claiming a sum of X due, does that mean you can request statements showing how this sum was calculated, we have a copy of the statements form Abbey but the final balance is different. (They seem to have added £5 since the account was sold?)

 

They also state it was a 'regulated credit agreement' I assume that means written and we can request that.

 

They also state that a notice of assignment was given to us and a default notice was served - does this mean we can ask for proof they actually posted them.

 

Also does 'given' have a different legal meaning than 'served' as it seems weird that they say they gave us the NoA but served the Default Notice?

 

Also does CPR31 allow us to ask for the Deed of Assignment, or is that for a later date.

 

Thanks.

[42man]

Yes in the CPR, add in the agreement, default notice, the assignment....Cohen's rarely respond (if at all) to the CPR....you are effectively asking for the assignment in the CPR !! (this can include providing documents for the deed and the notice.....)

 

Did you see this thread (it should give you some inspiration !!) - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/178882-court-claim-received-cl.html

[someone_else]

Yes I've been reading the many Cohen threads, it seems the best course with them is to submit the CPR31 request that they seem to ignore and then order the court to get them to supply the documents or throw it out.

 

I realized this morning it's bank holiday on Monday, so I just asked for the aggreement, default notice and NoA and gave the letter to my mum to post by special delivery so it should arrive tomorrow (rather than Tuesday). We'll ask for the other stuff once it gets to the AQ stage.

 

We also acknowledged service online today, giving the 28days for a defence (15th June for the Defence).

 

We also posted a letter to Abbey/MBNA asking for the charges back on both cards as from the statements they were charging £25 fees in the past and the other card has PPI on it that was never requested. (If Lloyds are anything to go by they'll reject it straight out, it'll go to the FOS for 18mths, then as a 'goodwill gesture' will offer the money back but ask for 3months to pay it back).

 

A complaint was also sent to the FOS regarding the actions of Abbey on the two cards, that should keep Restons off our back with the other card (Restons sent us a nice letter saying they don't know what is going on, dont have any paperwork and we are to contact Abbey, even though Abbey have told us not to contact them and that they have sold both accounts, yet Restons still managed to threaten legal action ).

[nicklea]

Hi Someone else,

 

This will be relatively simple to defend - as long as you understand the defence!! It's you that is sitting in front of the judge.

 

CL never do the assignment properly so they're buggered on that anyway. Although it is interesting to note that the DN is valid (as long as the figures are accurate).

 

If you opened the account with Abbey then it looks like it was assigned to MBNA and oops you haven't had a notice of assignment about that so they're buggered on that one as well.

 

Have a read of various defences here, maybe post up your own ideas and we'll get one sorted out for you in plenty of time

[I've got no money]

Well the Link case is still ongoing, I'll update that thread in a bit but this morning we recieved a court claim from Howard Cohen Solicitors acting on behalf of CL Finance who say they have bought one of my mums credit cards from MBNA.

 

This is another fun case, my mum took out two credit cards (well she didn't take out two, she got talked into taking one at her local branch and they decided to send two cards) with Abbey in 2005 I think.

 

Somewhere along the line MBNA got involved and changed the account numbers - so she now gets Statements from Abbey with one account number on and threatening letters alternativly from Abbey then MBNA with the other account number on.

 

MBNA sometime in March sent a letter offering to settle the accounts, we sent back a letter via recorded delivery asking for written confirmation of the settlement and their account details to make payment (as the settlement looked to have merged both accounts) also complained about the actions of their staff over the phone who don't appear to have heard of the DPA.

 

Abbey then took this as a complaint and asked for time to 'investigate' MBNA then issued a default notice for each account, using the account numbers that don't appear on the statements demanding payment by 24th April 2009.

 

Now the fun starts, they delayed their reponse to our 'complaint' again finally sending a delayed response dated 22nd April 2009, but not posted until a week later, which pretty much ignored our letter - they stated letters are automatic and that's why they demand we call them, they included the statements we requested (though they look like excel printouts they generously didn't charge us £5 for each page) but made no mention of the settlement and told us that they had sold the accounts and not to contact them ever again.

 

We then receive a letter from Lewis Debt Recovery saying they are acting on behalf of CL Finanace who apparently bought one of the accounts on the 23rd April 2009 (though the notice of assignment text is nearly unreadable being tiny and in a gray box)

 

We sent a letter off to Lewis asking for some proof and in response we recieved the court letter this morning.

 

PoC from Court

 

Stating There was a Regulated Agreement between Defendant and MBNA under the threatening letter reference and assigned to the Claimant on the 23rd April of which notice has been sent.

 

The Defendant failed to make payment and a default notice was served.

 

They then claim £X.

 

Default Notice

 

Notice of Assignment

 

A couple of questions:

 

1. The Default Notice gave until 24/04/09 to make payment, yet CLF bought it on the 23/04, and statements from Abbey show they sold it on the 22/04, surely this isn't allowed and makes the assignment invalid? (even illegal?)

 

No - Assignment is not enforcement - so the fact that a DN has or has not been served does not impact on the assignment

 

2. The Notice of Assignment do these need to be readable? (the scan is clearer than the original, my mum cannot read text that small) I also still don't know who they should come from - this is from a 4th party Lewis on behalf of CLF who bought an account from MBNA that was taken out with Abbey. Is there a deed or something official that needs producing?

 

NoA - there is no prescribed format - as a bare minimum all they have to do is tell you that the agreement has been assigned HOWEVER - a notice coming from a 3rd party may be invalid. There is no requirement that the amount claimed or the date of assignment be included on the Notice HOWEVER if they are then they must be accurate - does the sum claimed include account charges - if it does then the DN may be invalid - depends if the charges are post July 2006 in which case the charges are likely to be legal

 

3. Default Notice's - who do these need to come from - the statements come from Abbey with one account number on, the default notice came from MBNA with the other account number on. Do default notices need to match the company on the agreement (that we don't have anyway).

 

Default Notices need to come from the Creditor...

 

I know the next steps are to acknowledge service to get the 28 days for a defence and to send off a CPR 31.14 Request to the claimant - is there a reason why special rather than recorded delivery is advised for the CPR31.14 form?

 

Special Delivery guarantees it'll arrive - however faxes to the Solicitors are in my view as good

 

Also is a FOS complaint going to have any bearing on this, as I'm in the process of drafting a complaint in reponse to Abbeys non-response to the settlement offer, but the FOS aren't particularly speedy. (Though from a previous complaint they are really angry with the banks)

 

Thanks.

 

I've made some comments in bold italics

[someone_else]

A couple of questions:

 

1. The Default Notice gave until 24/04/09 to make payment, yet CLF bought it on the 23/04, and statements from Abbey show they sold it on the 22/04, surely this isn't allowed and makes the assignment invalid? (even illegal?)

 

No - Assignment is not enforcement - so the fact that a DN has or has not been served does not impact on the assignment

 

2. The Notice of Assignment do these need to be readable? (the scan is clearer than the original, my mum cannot read text that small) I also still don't know who they should come from - this is from a 4th party Lewis on behalf of CLF who bought an account from MBNA that was taken out with Abbey. Is there a deed or something official that needs producing?

 

NoA - there is no prescribed format - as a bare minimum all they have to do is tell you that the agreement has been assigned HOWEVER - a notice coming from a 3rd party may be invalid. There is no requirement that the amount claimed or the date of assignment be included on the Notice HOWEVER if they are then they must be accurate - does the sum claimed include account charges - if it does then the DN may be invalid - depends if the charges are post July 2006 in which case the charges are likely to be legal

 

3. Default Notice's - who do these need to come from - the statements come from Abbey with one account number on, the default notice came from MBNA with the other account number on. Do default notices need to match the company on the agreement (that we don't have anyway).

 

Default Notices need to come from the Creditor...

 

I know the next steps are to acknowledge service to get the 28 days for a defence and to send off a CPR 31.14 Request to the claimant - is there a reason why special rather than recorded delivery is advised for the CPR31.14 form?

 

Special Delivery guarantees it'll arrive - however faxes to the Solicitors are in my view as good

I've made some comments in bold italics

 

1. Surely for an account to be sold to a third party it needs to be terminated, according to the default notice the account would have been terminated on the 24th, but in fact they terminated it on the 22nd and CL bought it on the 23rd. (Otherwise whats stopping the credit companies from defaulting then selling your accounts when you are one day late?)

 

2. The Amount claimed on the NoA is £5 greater than the statement sent by Abbey which showed the account being sold. There are various charges on the account going back to 2005 that were for £25, during 2006 they went down to £12 - As far as I'm aware the OFT have said £12 are likely to be legal, £25 ones are likely to be unfair, making the Default Notice invalid?

 

3. I don't know who the actual creditor is, if a copy of the original agreement is ever produced it should say either Abbey or MBNA. (or possibly both).

 

4. We sent it by Special Del, to ensure they receive it before the bank holiday.

[someone_else]

I've made some comments in bold italics

 

Hi Someone else,

 

This will be relatively simple to defend - as long as you understand the defence!! It's you that is sitting in front of the judge.

 

CL never do the assignment properly so they're buggered on that anyway. Although it is interesting to note that the DN is valid (as long as the figures are accurate).

 

If you opened the account with Abbey then it looks like it was assigned to MBNA and oops you haven't had a notice of assignment about that so they're buggered on that one as well.

 

Have a read of various defences here, maybe post up your own ideas and we'll get one sorted out for you in plenty of time

 

What figure needs to be declared on the Default Notice? (I'll make the numbers up but same difference).

 

So Say Credit Limit is £2,000

Current Balance according to last statement from Abbey: £2,500

Min. Payment due on last statement: £475

Default Notice states they want: £400.

 

Are the Arrears that need to go on the Default Notice; the amount needed to get you back under your limit (£500 in above example), the min payment demanded (£475) or a random amount they have made up, or an amount they have somehow calculated without telling you?

 

It's interesting to note that the statement states we need to pay the over limit amount, yet the min. payment won't put it under the limit, also if we'd paid the amount demanded on the default notice they'd have still charged us twice (over limit and late payment as the default demanded doesn't meet the min. payment or limit).

 

Regarding who the account was opened with (either Abbey on their own or Abbey with MBNA) I don't know at the moment as we are waiting for a copy of the agreement, though I think it was just with Abbey originaly as what old paperwork we have is just from Abbey and a DCA it was passed to back in 2006 called it a Abbey Credit Card, rather than MBNA.

 

I take it if the original aggreement only mentions Abbey then they'll need to produce a notice of assignment showing it's been transfered from Abbey to MBNA?

[nicklea]

1. Surely for an account to be sold to a third party it needs to be terminated

 

As IGNM said, no it doesn't. Actually, if an account is terminated there is nothing to be sold.

 

2. The Amount claimed on the NoA is £5 greater than the statement sent by Abbey which showed the account being sold.

 

So even if the noa was sufficiently served it is inaccurate (either that or the actual assignment is inaccurate) and so invalid

 

There are various charges on the account going back to 2005 that were for £25, during 2006 they went down to £12 - As far as I'm aware the OFT have said £12 are likely to be legal, £25 ones are likely to be unfair, making the Default Notice invalid?

 

The OFT have NOT said that £12 is fair, just that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment. They specifically said that their report does not constrain private actions and that a court should certainly not find a fee fair just because it is £12

 

What figure needs to be declared on the Default Notice? (I'll make the numbers up but same difference).

 

As you don't have the agreement and the t&cs at the moment you can't tell. The DN refered to paragraph 8 of the agreement and you would really need to see exactly what that says.

 

But, as you say, it does seem strange that they are asking for less than the latest minimum payment. Maybe this figure was the minimum payment due in the previous month - do you have previous statements to check if this is the case?

[I've got no money]

1. Surely for an account to be sold to a third party it needs to be terminated, according to the default notice the account would have been terminated on the 24th, but in fact they terminated it on the 22nd and CL bought it on the 23rd. (Otherwise whats stopping the credit companies from defaulting then selling your accounts when you are one day late?)

 

No - they can, and do, sell live accounts - assignment has got nothing to do with default - however if they sell a live account it should be to a company that can continue to provide the same facilities

 

2. The Amount claimed on the NoA is £5 greater than the statement sent by Abbey which showed the account being sold. There are various charges on the account going back to 2005 that were for £25, during 2006 they went down to £12 - As far as I'm aware the OFT have said £12 are likely to be legal, £25 ones are likely to be unfair, making the Default Notice invalid?

 

The NoA is almost certainly invalid - where they have stated a sum it has to be accurate

 

Yes - on the DN I agree however Rankine says that the inclusion of account charges imposed through unfair contract terms does not invalidate the DN HOWEVER I would argue that not only is Rankine wrong in principle but that where a DN is served after April 2006 the Creditor knew that the DN contained charges imposed pursuant to an unfair contract term and therefore the creditor was acting in bad faith - the OFT report was issued in April 2006, July 2006 MBNA changed its' t & c - DON'T FORGET that overlimit and late charges weren't reduced to £12 - they were reduced to £0

The OFT did not say that £12 charges were likely to be legal - they said that if a charge was more than £12 they would take action

 

3. I don't know who the actual creditor is, if a copy of the original agreement is ever produced it should say either Abbey or MBNA. (or possibly both).

 

4. We sent it by Special Del, to ensure they receive it before the bank holiday.

 

I've made some more comments - help its' useful

[someone_else]

As you don't have the agreement and the t&cs at the moment you can't tell. The DN refered to paragraph 8 of the agreement and you would really need to see exactly what that says.

 

But, as you say, it does seem strange that they are asking for less than the latest minimum payment. Maybe this figure was the minimum payment due in the previous month - do you have previous statements to check if this is the case?

 

The Jan min. payment is less than the default amount, but the Feb one is more so it's not an old min. payment demand.

 

The previous statements that were provided on request by Abbey, are just a printout from excel showing a list of transactions, no mention of the min. payment amount. Is it CLF's responability to show how the arrears mentioned in the default notice were calculated?

[someone_else]

1. Surely for an account to be sold to a third party it needs to be terminated, according to the default notice the account would have been terminated on the 24th, but in fact they terminated it on the 22nd and CL bought it on the 23rd. (Otherwise whats stopping the credit companies from defaulting then selling your accounts when you are one day late?)

 

No - they can, and do, sell live accounts - assignment has got nothing to do with default - however if they sell a live account it should be to a company that can continue to provide the same facilities

 

I've made some more comments - help its' useful

 

CLF/Lewis never counted it as a live account, the only letter we received from them was the NoA demanding full payment. If we'd made the payment requested on the 22nd-24th then the account would have still have been sold to CLF and they'd still have demanded the full balance.

 

If the account is not Terminated then CLF should only be able to claim the arrears?

[nicklea]

Is it CLF's responability to show how the arrears mentioned in the default notice were calculated?

 

Yes, and if they're not accurate then the DN is invalid

[someone_else]

Having had a look through several threads it seems what's important is the date of termination - before 24th they are in trouble, after the 24th they are ok.

 

One other question what if you are sent a statement showing a nil balance on the account?

 

The printout we got shows that on the 20/04 a sum was credited to the account taking it to a zero balance (Abbey selling the account - 3 days before CLF say they bought it) what are the chances of us arguing that that statement shows no balance due and that due to that payment the terms of the default notice were met.

 

And with this transaction being on the 20th April there is nothing tying it to CLF, especially considering they are claiming a different balance?

[someone_else]

Actually I think the account would have been terminated before the 24th April as the statements are dated ~13th of the month, with the last statement being the March one, and their response to our complaint dated 22nd April we were told we would receive no further correspondence from Abbey, no statements = termination?

 

They also mention that defaults were registered on the 31/03, but the default letter wasn't issued until the 7th April?

 

Also on the 31st March there was a Charge-off Adjustment applied to the account (well two - one doubling the balance, the other removing the extra) - what is a Charge-off Adjustment?

[someone_else]

A couple of questions have come up whilst researching the Link case.

 

1. Do CL Finance Limited need to be listed on the CCA Public Register to purchase accounts (or if they claim the account isn't terminated they surely need to be licensed to continue the account?) as there is no mention of them when searching the OFT page here

 

2. Does the claim form actually need to be signed by an actual solicitor rather than just state the name of the solicitors rather than an actual person. Surely a statement of truth has to be signed/printed by an actual person. (I saw it mentioned in a case I scanned through, I'll see if I can find it again and see whether the arguement was dismissed or not).

[I've got no money]

CLF/Lewis never counted it as a live account, the only letter we received from them was the NoA demanding full payment. If we'd made the payment requested on the 22nd-24th then the account would have still have been sold to CLF and they'd still have demanded the full balance.

 

If the account is not Terminated then CLF should only be able to claim the arrears?

 

Don't forget that the assignee can terminate

[someone_else]

Hopefully they'll send some paper so we can see when or if it has been terminated.

 

There's a pdf on the oft website that states it's a criminal offence not to have a Consumer Credit License whilst carrying out activities that would require one - I've sent an email off to consumer direct and the oft to see if they need one, as I couldn't find them listed on the OFT site, but the automated reply from the OFT states their licensing system is suffering delays.

 

Link to the pdf is here if anyone wants to read it. (Interestingly it states that breaking OFT guidelines can get your license revoked - if enough of us complain we may be able to get rid of some of these DCA's)

[someone_else]

Well I've had replys from both the OFT and Consumer Direct.

 

Consumer Direct are a waste of time saying it's nothing to do with them and to contact the OFT (Yet the OFT send you to Consume Direct????)

 

The reply from the OFT isn't much better they are unable to advise and it's upto the courts and to get legal advice. (We seem to be stuck in a Catch-22 position, OFT/TS won't take action until a court case has been won, but you cannot argue they need a license if the OFT/TS won't back you up?)

 

They did include a copy of the pdf (linked in above post - that tells you to contact the OFT for further infomation?) though it isn't clear.

 

The first part of the pdf states debt collecting and issuing of credit requires a license.

 

However the detailed bits state you need a license to issue credit cards (you don't need one if you accept credit cards issued by other businesses)

 

You also don't need a debt collecting license if the debt is owed to you or assigned to you.

 

It seems you don't a license to run a credit card, just a license to issue one

 

I'll email OFT back to see if I can get a better answer.

 

EDIT: I did find out that the public register is updated in real-time.

Edited May 29, 2009 by someone_else

[someone_else]

Well just had a reply from the OFT I asked them whether CL Finance (well didn't tell them the name gave them a theoretical example) would need a license under the two examples:

 

a. MBNA issue a credit card then sell the account/assign to CL FInance who keep the account running/live, (considering they say they bought it before the default expired) and under their name, MBNA don't want anything more to do with the account.

 

b. MBNA sell it to CL Finance through assignment its terminated and demand money.

 

In Case a the OFT say it is likely CL Finance would need a license, option b is complicated.

 

Basicly if you take over regulated running-credit agreement you are likely to need a license.

 

CL Finance do not have a Consumer Credit License hence it is likely a crimnal offence for them to continue running an account.

 

Meaning the account must have been terminated on sale to CL Finance if the account was running until after the 24th and then terminated, CL Finanace have committed a criminal offence.

 

It should also further render the default notice invalid - if we made payment to remedy the breach CL Finance would have had to keep the account running, but are not licensed to do so?

[I've got no money]

Well just had a reply from the OFT I asked them whether CL Finance (well didn't tell them the name gave them a theoretical example) would need a license under the two examples:

 

a. MBNA issue a credit card then sell the account/assign to CL FInance who keep the account running/live, (considering they say they bought it before the default expired) and under their name, MBNA don't want anything more to do with the account.

 

b. MBNA sell it to CL Finance through assignment its terminated and demand money.

 

An assignment does not, of itself, terminate an agreement - there is an argument that says that for an assignment to be valid the assignee should be able to provide the same facilities not the assignor provided - that is a slightly different issue

 

 

In Case a the OFT say it is likely CL Finance would need a license, option b is complicated.

 

Basicly if you take over regulated running-credit agreement you are likely to need a license.

 

CL Finance do not have a Consumer Credit License hence it is likely a crimnal offence for them to continue running an account.

 

Meaning the account must have been terminated on sale to CL Finance if the account was running until after the 24th and then terminated, CL Finanace have committed a criminal offence.

 

I don't think that I agree with your conclusion that the "account must have been terminated on sale" - it is possible (perhaps probable) that CL Finance are acting unlawfully - you have to question therefore whether the assignment was lawful at all?

 

It should also further render the default notice invalid - if we made payment to remedy the breach CL Finance would have had to keep the account running, but are not licensed to do so?

 

If there was a lawful assignment I'm not sure if I would agree that the DN was invalid HOWEVER if there was no lawful assignment then the DN must be invalid

 

The other thought is that if CL Finance were acting without a licence does that make the agreement unenforceable without an OFT Validating Order

[someone_else]

Well either case should put them into trouble.

 

The account was either terminated before being assigned. (Within the 14 day DN period)

 

Or was passed to CL Finance, allowed to run and then terminated.

 

I don't think it would be in CL Finance's best interests to argue to a judge (if it gets that far) that they ran the account without a license as its a £50K fine and/or jail time to be unlicensed. (If you can get the OFT to investigate that is), from our Link case it may even be possible they don't know as Link don't seem to have read any of the documents they have submitted to the court, from all accounts it seems CL Finance are worse than Link.

 

We'll just have to see which way they argue it.

 

From the OFT guidelines if an unlicensed activity takes place they are in default and cannot ask for money.

 

At best it should confuse CL Finance

 

Also not had any response to our CPR request yet and it's been over a week now but that's for Wednesday.

[I've got no money]

 

From the OFT guidelines if an unlicensed activity takes place they are in default and cannot ask for money.

 

 

Yes - that's what I meant by asking whether it made the agreement unenforceable without a validating Order

 

I know that the position is clear that where an unlicensed person enters into an agreement that the agreement is only enforceable with an OFT validating order what I wasn't clear about was whether a transfer of a previously potentially enforceable agreement from a licensed person to an unlicensed person had the same effect - I assumed that it did but I wasn't sure

[diddydicky]

well my (unqualified) take on this is as follows@-

 

clearly if a live account is sold on then the person buying it MUST have a CCL as until the account is terminated you have the right to continue using it as per its terms and conditions

 

clearly you cannot do so if the company now owning the live account are not licensed/

 

secondly, having bought a live account- if the buying company does not have a valid CCL then they cannot issue a valid default notice!

 

the reason they cannot issue a valid default notice i because that notice must give you the opportunity to rectify the breach and to carry on as if the breach had not occurred

 

however if they do not have a valid CCl then they CANNOT offer you the opportunity to rectify the breach and carry on the account since they are not licensed to do so

 

simples init!