Once you pay you've acknowledged the debt. Just write to MBNA, tell them who can speak on your behalf, send it recorded delivery and track delivery. MBNA are extermely aggressive, and you might even find the bloke who tells people that as they're owned by Bank of America, British law doesn't apply to them. He's a scream!!

Yes it is. It's made by Pfizer and available on prescription.

spot on Danson - not the first time this has happened. That's why I never sign letters any more to CCP's.

The "charge" referred to in the Social Security Act at S.187 is a charging order or similar. Not bank charges. If you call a plumber out, when he charges you for his services you can't tell him you're not paying because it's your benefit money he'll be taking! Until such time bank charges are definitively deemed as unlawful, they can still charge. Claiming cc charges back is the same as claiming bank charges back. Charges are not illegal - they are allegedly "unlawful" Illegal refers to criminal activity, unlawful to civil activity.

Just for your info - this is pretty much the same as my "agreement" - it has been for Counsel's opinion the result of which is that I have now been awarded legal aid to fight MBNA as Counsel' opinion is that "NO, NO , it is NOT an agreement"!

If you go to thread tools & hit subscribe, it will subscribe you automatically - you don't need to post.

I am fighting a S85 with Egg - I didn't even get a mailer, just a letter saying "here is your new credit card, additional card holders & similar. This, to my knowledge, hasn't been tested in court - although I certainly know of a couple of people who have received an out of court settlement. The thing is, if they come up with the agreement, then they have purged the breach - the question is, what should they have charged you, if anything, in the interim? It's very amibiguous in the CCA - it's down to a judge - and that could mean anything!

Blue Squirrel, it SHOULD be game over - but now that more & more people are challenging this in court - it seems the judges are interpreting the CCA mostly in favour of the CCP's (THERE'S a surprise) - we have seen re-constructed agreements get through - current T & C's accepted, so it's not quite so simple. It's a shame the very Act that was brought in to protect the consumer has now turned to protecting the financial institutions to some degree. It really doesn't help that the FOS & OFT etc., so often rule in favour of the banks, because they don't understand the Act. I guess it depends how far your CCP wants to raise it's head above the parapet if they really don't have the original agreement.

Sorry to interrupt a great thread, but just for info, if you go to "thread tools" and hit the subscribe button, you will automatically be subscribed - saves a lot of posts saying "JUST SUBSCRIBING" adding to an already complex train of thought!

"It is quite worrying to think that OFT don't actually appear to know what they are talking about." No change there then!

If you can't read it then it's no good - do you see all the prescribed terms on it? And if they can't give you a copy of the executed agreement then they haven't got one! Dear me, that is remiss of them!

ahh - welcome to the wacky world of the court room! 99.999999% of the time, you will do everything correctly and within the correct timescales - the opposing party will not, but the case still gets to be heard! Never confuse justice with law

maz - I have been battling with CCA issues for over 18 months, and during that time I've gone on a very steep learning curve. IMHO - and obviously the decision is yours - any creditor will look upon payment as an acknowledgement of a debt - there is no such thing as "goodwill" in the credit industry. If it goes to court, you would likely be asked why you are continuing to pay a debt that you believe doesn't exist. All the time you are paying them, they have no reason to deal with your dispute - because it's making no difference to them, You're still paying them, they're still adding on interest & any charges - the only person losing out is you!

This is an interesting thread - and hello redsue long time no speak! I have been awarded legal aid for my solicitor to instruct Counsel against MBNA - unenforceable agreement. I'll keep you all updated. I have been battling with the CCA issues for over 18months. Just for your info...don't get TOO carried away on some of the technicalities of the CCA - most judges don't understand it, and will interpret sections in different ways - e.g., in certain cases a reconstructed agreement WILL be accepted by a judge - and current T & C's have been accepted in the courts. So assume nothing. If you want to take them to court - or they litigate against you, I would strongly urge you to contact a solicitor who specialises in consumer law. It's one of the most complicated areas of the law, and one of the least understood.

I think you will find that the agreement gives them the right to cancel your credit facility at any time giving the appropriate notice, but that the outstanding balance is still liable to the charges and interest as before. I'm very sorry to say that IMHO they are quite within their rights - as unfair as it may seem!

sorry - was out for the day and it got filled up with MBNA'ers! I've cleared some space now!

Tinkerbell, can you post up your "agreement"?

I certainly know of someone who has had their MBNA debt wiped, and other people who have had out of court settlements. I have 2 issues going on with unexecuted agreements, and for one of those I have just received legal aid funding to pursue through the courts, and counsel has now been instructed.

yes.

so leroy, if you moved house, and then some way down the line, you found the contract hadn't been drawn up correctly and therefore it wasn't your house, it was still the previous owners', and they said they wanted it and they kicked you out, you'd be ok with that would you? Oh and you wouldn't get any of your mortgage payments back either, even though you shouldn't have had to pay them in the first place because the contract was unlawful and you actually owed nobody anything. So when you found out the contract was incorrectly executed up and stopped making the mortgage payments, and a year down the line the mortgage company has added thousands and thousands on in interest & charges and arrears fees and now they're pursuing you and threatening you with all sorts, and you say BUT THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER EXECUTED SO I NEVER OWED YOU THAT MONEY, AND I NEVER OWNED THE HOUSE, but they say, tough s**t mate, give us the money even though we're not lawfully entitled to it.....you'd be ok with that too?

Thanks, it doesn't look like it's got all the prescribed terms on it, and also it's headed "Application Form" when in fact, even though an agreement can sometimes be combined with an application, it should be headed up "Agreement regulated....etc) - however this is a bit of a technicality. If you really can't read it well enough to check for the prescribed terms, I would certainly be asking them for a legible copy.

can you post the "agreement" up?

it's already been passed to Arrow/Global - still trying to get one of them to take responsibility - neither seem too keen. (I wonder why?) If there's not a positive response, then we're going for both of them. Mind you it was passed to Arrow/Global around November 2007 - not a dickie bird from them since first solicitor's letter to them pointing out agreement was not an agreement. Then it went to Moore's (MBNA solicitor's) who write unintelligible letters - in fact, in one of them, they write back to my solicitor "what you have been sent is clearly not an executed agreement"...and then another 2 pages of mumbo jumbo ending up with that they feel "their client" has no case to answer and they will pursue through the courts. So we write to them saying, it's not an executed agreement, they reply saying clearly it's not, but are going to pursue through the courts - (which they haven't) - so if anyone can make sense of their reasoning they are definitely cleverer than either me, or my lawyers, or the barrister!

absolutely Mr. Ton. There's an irony here somewhere isn't there? Talking about morals :D

Counsel only just been instructed so can't really tell you much more at present.