Look at the Terms and Conditions of use. In section 5 it lays out the minimum payments except as mentioned in clauses 9.4, 10.5 and 10.6. These clauses are not mentioned anywhere in the documentation. Minimum payments are a prescribed term. I wonder what clauses 9.4, 10.5 and 10.6 said? Maybe they said you don't have to pay anything when the day has a "y" in it.

BBC News - Claims firm solicitors shut down by regulators A firm of solicitors which worked for a leading claims management company has been shut down by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA). The SRA has closed the Manchester office of Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS) which advised the claims firm Cartel Client Review.

How much money is involved? What is the interest rate? Are they licensed to lend money, if not I suspect it is unenforceable. Loan shark hotline set up - mirror.co.uk Loan sharks in Surrey to meet their match Joan Fionda: 'Joan the Loan' escapes jail | This is Money

ruinedbynatwest I am on your side, I have been into court with a credit card company. They are certainly sophisticated liars and I am surprised that they can get their employees to stretch the truth and lie about what documents may have been issued. I suspect they have become better liars since I met them in court. I also suspect it will be an uphill struggle from the Manchester judgment and see nothing good in it from our side. The argument I relied on was the difference between "contained" and "embodied" and from what I see in this judgment that argument may have been closed.

The problem is that they don't have to conclusively prove anything. The threshold for such civil cases is "on the balance of probabilities". They will, of course, argue that they are sophisticated businesses whilst their opponent is an individual relying on their memory of events some significant time in the past.

i am no expert (and i don't know much about auction websites) but i would argue there is no contract. No money changed hands so there was no "consideration" between the parties. For a valid contract there must be consideration. Consideration in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you relied on that verbal agreement you maybe able to claim promissory estoppel Estoppel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it's complicated

Don't do factoring if you can possibly avoid it. Factors suck everything they can out of your business with interest, assignment charges, reassignment charges etc. You'll find that after all the charges are taken out you will be paying 30% interest plus on the pitiful amounts they advance. No matter who the factor they are invariably the same. Stay well clear if you can. Make no mistake, they sell you hope and deliver excrement !

RE the validity of the VAT number. You can check if a VAT number is valid as there is a checksum Check VAT Number . Of course, this doesn't stop someone borrowing a valid number.

I haven't retracted anything. Go for it ! Let me know what the judge thinks.

As I indicated the total charge for credit on the £1500 is £257.87. This is to within £0.002 of the value arrived at using 2.5292% (the figure on the monthly statement). Working the interest back from the charge for credit provides 2.5291799%. However, they can only indicate interest to the nearest penny so they could not indicate £257.872 in the Terms and Conditions. £257.872 would give them bang on 2.5292%. Would you realistically have them indicate £257.872 in the calculation? If the £1500 example suffices to indicate what they would have you pay under the agreement then you are stuffed. I think it does when it is provided together with an APR properly toleranced in accordance with Schedule 7.

pelham, you've got it. My arguments are exactly the kind of arguments mbna will use in court. Best to know head of time. i am afraid we'll have to agree to differ. Schedule 7 provides them with latitude. If you think you can argue your point in court and convince a judge then good luck.

Pelham. The terms and conditions are covered by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (1983 No 1553) so any reference to APR represents a "disclosure" under these Regulations. (Note - it is schedule 6 of this document which deals with prescribed terms) Schedule 7 states +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "SCHEDULE 7 PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF THE APR Regulation 1(2) Assumptions about running-account credit In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, the following assumptions shall have effect for the purpose of calculating the APR in place of the assumptions in Part 4 of the Total Charge for Credit Regulations that might otherwise apply-- (1) in any case where there will be a credit limit but that limit is not known at the date of making the agreement the amount of the credit to be provided shall be taken to be £1,500 or, in a case where the credit limit will be less than £1,500, an amount equal to that limit; (2) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided for a period of one year beginning with the relevant date; (3) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided in full on the relevant date; (4) where the rate of interest will change at a time provided in the agreement within a period of three years beginning with the date of the making of the agreement, the rate shall be taken to be the highest rate at any time obtaining under the agreement in that period; (5) where the agreement provides credit to finance the purchase of goods, services, land or other things and also provides one or more of-- (a) cash loans; (b) credit to refinance existing indebtedness of the debtor's, whether to the creditor or another person; and © credit for any other purpose, and either or both different rates of interest and different charges are payable in relation to the credit provided for all or some of these purposes, it shall be assumed that the rate of interest and charges payable in relation to the whole of the credit are those applicable to the provision of credit for the purchase of goods, services, land or other things; (6) it shall be assumed that the credit is repaid-- (a) in twelve equal instalments, and (b) at monthly intervals, beginning one month afafter the relevant date. Permissible tolerances in disclosure of the APR 1A For the purposes of these Regulations, it shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement to show the APR if there is included in the document-- (1) a rate which exceed the APR by not more than one; or (2) a rate which falls short of the APR by not more than 0.1; ..." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A credit card is running account credit MBNA by showing a properly calculated repayment schedule, ie the £1500 loan repaid in 12 equal installments of £257.87 they have fulfilled all the obligations of schedule 7. You will see that the calculation is done by MBNA exactly as it is laid down in Schedule 7 and they can do this "in place of the assumptions in Part 4 of the Total Charge for Credit Regulations that might otherwise apply". The rest of it is covered by the permissible tolerances in disclosure of the APR. So by providing the amount of interest repayable on a £1500 loan repaid in 12 monthly installments they have (indirectly) notified you of the exact interest rate (surprisingly to within 5 decimal places of the percentage monthly rate*). Though it is indirect it is fully acceptable under regulation 7. This is then backed up by notification of the interest rate in the form of the APR toleranced in accordance with Schedule 7. So you have been notified of the exact rate and the APR. If the equal installments had not been quoted correctly then the outcome maybe different. I dislike MBNA with a passion and I would love to be wrong, but, I wouldn't like anyone to go into court with a weak argument. * the value of £257.87 is to within £0.002 of the value arrived at using 2.5292% and the error would be on the 5th digit after the decimal point. To be pedantic the actual rate arrived at by use of £257.87 of interest would be 2.5291799%. The court would consider it exact as they have shown the calculation to the nearest penny, which is the smallest amount payable.

Taz "If they state that an indidviduals rate in t&c's is 34.9%, in black and white, then using the basic formula, the monthly percentage rate should be 2.5261 ?? yes ??" Actually, in my opinion they are entitled to charge upto 34.94999% "If a statement shows a monthly rate of 2.5292 on that same individuals statement, then they must be charging over the 34.9% as stated." -- --- Actually, no because 34.949999% is 34.9% when the allowed tolerances are considered "Wether they are legitimately hiding the fact of 2 decimal places or not, they are still deceiving that individual into thinking he is paying 34.9%" ---- I agree "I'm not trying to make an argument.I'm just trying to put it in laymans terms that they are still increasing the % under the cloak of not showing the further decinal places. Do you see my point." --- I agree that the argument has to be expressed clearly to a judge, who is unlikely to be a mathematician. If they state that an indidviduals rate in t&c's is 34.9%, in black and white, then using the basic formula, the monthly percentage rate should be 2.5261 ?? yes ?? ----- No, I don't think so Wether they are legitimately hiding the fact of 2 decimal places or not, they are still deceiving that individual into thinking he is paying 34.9% ---- I agree Its all certainly making it an interesting thread. ---- I agree Though the T&Cs do seem to be flawed as 34.9% is not used for the calculation of interest. Though the figures in the worked example they have provided are correct. ----- I really don't know how a judge will take to the argument. I would say that an expert's report would be necessary to convince him of the calculations. Then it would be down to whether the judge accepts or even understands the tolerance issues.

Pelham, You may find this useful. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/oft144.pdf I maybe confused, however, I believe it's best to argue the matter out on an open forum, as, at the end of the day it will be argued in court and its best to have addressed everything that the opposing counsel may throw into the mix on what is a confusing issue. I will concede that on the scanned current terms and conditions at 2a where it says "your total charge for credit under the agreement would be £257.87 which is calculated using the Annual Percentage Rate shown in paragraph 1c..." is incorrect as they do not actually use 24.9% to calculate that figure. If 24.9% was used it would be £257.54. However, the interest of £257.87 is correct when compared with the monthly interest (2.5292%) rate contained on the statement. I think it's down to allowable tolerance contained in the Regs. I will say that the other side are going to rely on their ability to present rounded figures under the regulations. You definitely have a point. Whether it's enough to convince a judge.....?

I would say that since they charge interest monthly they are entitled to a rate of 34.94% annually and yet declare it as 34.9%. The regulations I posted state that they only have to quote 1 decimal place, and the regulations state that they are entitled to round it down if it is fractionally below 0.5%. That's my opinion and I think Pelham will disagree.

Pelham etc. You may have a point about the tolerances and MBNA may have slipped up by rounding the monthly rate up to 2.5293% rather than 2.5292%. As regards the equation. It can be worked out like this in excel, lets take the example of 2.5261% and 2.52931% monthly. =EXP(12*LN(1+0.025261)) this gives 1.349004 (ie 34.9004% APR) =EXP(12*LN(1+0.25293)) this gives 1.349509381 (ie 34.9509381% APR) The monthly rate can be worked back from the APR, lets assume an APR of 34.94999% as follows =EXP(LN(1+0.3494999)/12) this gives 1.0252924 ( ie 2.52924% monthly ) 34.94999% is pertinent as it is the max value that can legally be declared as 34.9% (though it cannot be called 34.90%). MBNA may have caught themselves out in their own rounding errors.

I don't want to discourage you but I think you are headed down a blind alley. MBNA is allowed a tolerance by virtue of The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit, Agreements and Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 3177 "6A. The annual percentage rate of charge referred to in regulation 6 above shall be rounded to one decimal place as follows- (a) where the figure at the second decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at the first decimal place shall be increased by one and the decimal place (or places) following the first decimal place shall be disregarded; and (b) where the figure at the second decimal place is less than 5, that decimal place and any decimal places following it shall be disregarded.";" I think it is covered elsewhere but I can't find my notes.

"short settlement" = "part settlement", if you accept it will show as a balance outstanding on the register and will be harassed for the balance. I wouldn't accept a settlement offer that didn't include the words "full and final".

Iannun, How are you getting along with Bibby's claim against you?

Regulation 9 reads as follows "9 Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost etc Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof. " Of course, a policy of destroying documents would, arguably, not be covered by "due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof." I would be asking them what happened to the signed agreement. If their actions were premeditated destruction regulation 9 doesn't cover them?

I was in a similar situation 20 years ago with company struck off due to none filing. I believe the funds end up with Duchy of Lancaster unless your business is in Cornwall. Mine occurred due to our accountants error. i remember it took a long time to resolve. I hope things are quicker now but i suspect not. Companies House normally notify directors of their intentions. If this hasn't happened I suspect that your not on the Company Register. Depending upon whether the former director's properly resigned it could be a mess. You'll have to bring the accounts and minutes up to date. I guess there will be a couple of £500 or £1000 fines in the system for the late filing. Companies House really are tinkers.

How to deal with telephone harassment YouTube - The Greatest Prank Call Ever

This might be useful http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/bdl14_ew_Dealing%20with%20a%20statutory%20demand.pdf Not all personal guarantees are enforceable. A personal guarantee is a contract and has to have a "consideration" element Consideration under English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sounds like the personal guarantee came late in the relationship when you already owed them the money. This maybe "past consideration". The following os from Wikipedia. "A promise cannot be based upon consideration that was provided before the promise was made. For example, if X promises to reward Y for an act that Y had already performed, the performance of that act, while good consideration for the promise to be rewarded for it, is past consideration and therefore not good consideration. In Eastwood v Kenyon, the guardian of a young girl raised a loan to educate the girl and to improve her marriage prospects. After her marriage, her husband promised to pay off the loan. It was held that the guardian could not enforce the promise as taking out the loan to raise and educate the girl was past consideration, because it was completed before the husband promised to repay it." See a solicitor pronto.

Actually, looking at the claim again, there is NO CLAIM NUMBER.