Thanks andy I got the sar request back..no ppi data sent either.. THis agreement is multiple i.e ppi box signature within main agreement.. If they are usung s78(3)(a) ...no money owing.....on ppi ..no data required Therefore its like saying the whole agreement has no money outstanding..

I used s78 request. No ppi data were sent with the s78 response... They using s78(3)(a) i.e. no money owed on the ppi.. therefore no obligation to sent.. ppi data ..

any feedback appreciated

I received the payment from mbna last year..sine then Link are using s78(3)(a) saying they dont have to provide ppi documents under s78 request. 78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement. (1)The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F1£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a)the state of the account, and (b)the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and ©the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3)Subsection (1) does not apply to— (a)an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or (b)a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with. they sent a copy of microfiche illegible agreement with sets of T&C...but no ppi documents .. They are stating they are under no obligation to send the PPI documents ..as no money owing on ppi side....using s78(3).. Is this correct ...are they still in breach of section of s78?

When they lifted the stay they applied for summary judgement.. The court proceedings were issued august 2012... The judge at the hearing to set it aside was asking why it has taken so long..

The stay been lifted and they got judgement in northampton court. I appealed and got it set aside. full hearing small claims track next month.

Hi andy They lifted the stay and got general directions order withoutt notice..i appealed and got it transferred to my local court.. Hearing to set it aside was granted by the judge in local court... court case due next month.

Update : advice please The claim has been stayed.. Nov 2012 got response to my defence they admitted they sent me non compliant s78 response. They enclosed according to them a compliant response. Dec 2012 got a tomlin order with VCO . I rejected it. Dec 2013 they got a General directions order via CBCC. I managed to transfer it to my local court and the Judge strike it out; the Judge could not comprehend why the defendant myself was not informed and why it has taken so long. Hearing set for next month. Documents exchange ordered original shall be brought to the hearing . What documents shall i send them..

any advice?

Link financial satarted court proceedings in august 2012. (Credit card with MBNA) The account was in dispute (S78 request not fulfilled, balance inaccurate) and Link even refusing a good will of monthly payment plan. They just went for court proceedings without any notice or reply to my letters. CPR 31.14 sent to link ..no reply up to now ... I filed my defence, a court stay was ordered as link did not respond. In the meantime MBNA admitted PPI mis-selling and sent me a refund. LInk sent me their reply to my defence to court few weeks ago. Link sent me a Tomlin Order with charging order on my house. Accepting the Payment plan i offerer them months ago.( which i am refusing) Link also added their fees to the account. (while they admitted non compliance with s78) In their response : 1. They conceded that their reply to my initial S78 request was not compliant. 2. Regarding S78 ..any documents refered into agreement..link are saying there is no duty to send them as PPI is settled. "A statutory response is not required by the Act to include matters no longer in force and for which no funds are owed". i know MBNA as per SAR Request and Link has no PPI documents or policy . 3. They are saying also that they are permitted to start court proceeding even when the account was in dispute. 4. My defence was also based on Section 18 muliple agreement. Link are claiming it is a Unitary agreement as per s18(b) They are quoting Heath vs Southern pacific mortgages. They are saying:"The agreement is one integrated package could not be split without affecting the character of transaction." 5. PPI mis selling and unfair relationship. Link are saying :"PPI was a contractual matter not a relationship matter" 6.CPP mis selling (which i am claiming) Link are saying :"CPP was a contractual matter not a relationship matter" 7.CPP : Link are wrongly claiming in their reply that there are no debits to the account for CPP Any advice appreciated

I did SAR request to MBNA no PPI documents were sent. When i did request pursuant S78 to link the sent the agreement but no PPI documents. They conceded it was not compliant. Now they are saying there was no need for PPI documents as its been mis sold and settled and therefore they fulfilled their obligation under S78 by just sending the credit agreement without any document refered into it i.e PPI. This their response to my defence for the court

Link financial will not send PPI documents with s78 request as it has been settled. They are saying "A statutory response is not required by the Act to include matters no longer in force and for which no funds are owed". Is this valid any help appreciated

any ideas please

hi all, i defaulted the credit card account with MBNA august 2011 due to financial difficulties, mbna has increased the interest rate form 15.9% to 35%, at some point my minimum payment was less than the finance charges then double my minimum payment so i stopped paying them informing them of my situation. The account was sold to LINK FINANCIAL. i received a county court claim from LINK FINACIAL PARTICULAR OF CLAIM: The claimant claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payableunder an agreement referenced xxxxx and opened effective from 19/xx/2005. The agreement is regulated by the CCA 1974, was signed by the defendant and from which the credit was extended to the deendant. The deendent failed to make payment as required and by 19/02/2012 a default was recorded. As at 27/04/2012 the defendant owed MBNA europe bank ltdthe sum of 6xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant effective from 27/04/2012 and made regular upon the claimant serving a notice of assignment upon the defendant shortly thereafter. And the claimant claims : - 6xxx.xx . I nterest pursuant to section 69 county court act (1984) at a rate of 8% per annum from 27/04/2012 to 07/08/2012 of 130.56 and thereafter at a dily rate of 1.36 to date of judgement or sooner payment. date 07/08/2012. CCA request to LINK : Agreement they sent is illegible signed by me. stamp dated a day earlier than the Particular Of Claim ABOVE. A signature in middle by Someone from MBNA. A PPI bOX in the agreement ticked : I wish to purchase the payment protection cover I understand i am puchasing the product ticked above and the terms related to the the product can be found at paragraph 1-16 of the agreement. No paragraph 1-16 exist in the agreement T&C. I believe it does fall on MULTIPLE AGREEMENT? Constant phone calls from LINKS followed. I wrote to them a letter putting the account in Dispute stressing that the amount in the claim is inaccurate due to unlawful charges and PPI and while i am claiming them back from MBNA and with the advice of CCCS i offer you a monthly payment of £45.00 as per my I&E. The response i got back by letter dated 24 july from LINK was: LINK FINANCIAL was not present at the inception of the loan and therefore did not provide any PPI on the account. nothing about my monthly payment offer. Next thing is the County Court Claim on 7/8/2012. I acknowleged the claim and am defending the whole claim and sent A cpr31.14 to link financial. MY ppi claim with MBNA has been upheld. MIS-SOLD PPI due to self employment. I believe that LINK has been unreasonable and they are breaching every OFT Regulations pre-action protocol included. Please any input and help will be be appreciated to formulate a defence.

I am at the same exatly situation with MBNA what was the final outcome? Did you get your charges back?