hmmm ok. I assume that you, for whatever reason, do not want to go to trial and fight them on legal issues? If that is the case I would start making the payments to them ASAP I would also apply to court for an S129 Time Order offering £20 pcm (or whatever you can afford) with i&e details and a WS explaining what has happened - post it up here first. Your app would stop any other action IF the Court grnated your Order there would be no CCJ and as long as you maintained payments that would be it. IMHO £20 is reasonable if you can afford, just a little more it would be better - the debt would need to be paid off in a 'reasonable time' You could back up this payment as being far more than the minimum required had the account still been running jmho though Good luck

The reason you would normally use the account number is help to identify you - so without that, yes give them enough info to be able to uniquely identify the 'data subject'

Oh yes ALWAYS!! there are still cases won using a simple S77-79 request if the creditor cannot comply - also useful if it turns up anything different from any other paperwork you may have as the term 'true copy' then takes on a new meaning ....

Having just seen your PM with the skeleton arguments this is a bit of a mess. Ok the agreement, does it anywhere refer to T&Cs overleaf - if not then 'overleaf' is in fact a separate document and therefore not 'embodied' within the agreement. Is there any 'bleed through' that tallies front to back? (this is, of course presuming that the prescribed terms are contained within the T&Cs allegedly on the reverse) The arguments they are using are not the ones used in the POC tut tut. They are using both a vague DN argument AND a the account is still live argument. They don't even argue one as the main and the other in the alternative - they are argued together!!!! You need to *really* pull apart their POC and skele in your own WS & Skeleton To be honest I don't think you have anything to lose from posting everything you have up on here for others to help. Post them up as attachments (even typed in as a txt doc) as that way they are not Googleable or visible to our guests IMHO your argument needs to cove both variants of theirs i.e. the DN served and terminated account & the still live one. They can't have it both ways, they are arguing the account was terminated properly with a compliant DN BUT they are also then claiming contractual interest ....... They are also claiming that it is all due and payable as it is all overlimit as they have reduced teh limit to 0 again only applies to a running account and again they are not entitled to sums not yet due a horrible mess ..... their skeleton is just ridiculous grrrrr :llama: still don't know why we need dancing llamas

You're not sending it to DLC you are sending it to the ORIGINAL CREDITOR i.e. MBNA so you want the account number from MBNA If you seriously have no records at all of the MBNA account number then they should be able to identify the account themselves from the name and address

Just re-read your thread Your defence/WS/argument MUST centre around their agreement being unenforceable S61,S65 not complied with, and no signed document with prescribed terms, and therefore S127(3) prohibits the Court from making an order. End of case. The one argument that beats any argument that the Claimant may produce apart from that read back over the thread yourself as there are other points raised from the start that are very much valid

What exactly has happened - bring me up to speed if you could dd - 57 pages is rather a lot to trawl though

Politely thank them for the letter and point out that you are still waiting for them to reply to your own letter and their client to comply with your SAR request.

Sorry - 2 separate jobs 1 - SAR off to MBNA @ their Head Office 2 - make a note to yourself about the bleed through - DO NOT rely on me or anyone else remembering it. When you get the Order and IF you then get a proper POC then you will, hopefully, be making a Part18 request to them asking whether what they have sent you is a genuine copy of both sides of your original paperwork or they have made a reconstruction to give that impression. By then there will be other points that require clarification as well, such as to the status of the account i.e. currently running or terminated (and depending on the answer there may be other points that need to be raised), who the creditor currently is etc etc - all fun and games. This part of the business of buying & selling accounts/debts/receivables operates right on the edge

edit the SAR so it's applicable to your case then yes, send it off ASAP I don't know how you organise this so either Stick a post-it on the agreement with a note about the bleed through write on a copy of it use one-note or whatever on your PC Once/if you get a POC that links the claim to that account then you will make a formal request for clarification of the construction of that document. Get the SAR off and then chill out for the weekend

It is 100% improperly executed the front makes no reference to the random conditions shown on the other page The key are those conditions on the other page - that could convert a simple non-enforceable application form into an enforceable (with a Court Order) agreement. BUT - that's not the issue at the moment - 1 step at a time

Can you check the 'bleed through' on the right had page, if it is laid back to back with the left hand page the bleed though should line up - I don't think it does .....

nope, let's see a proper POC from them first - then tear it to shreds (if they actually send a new POC in Gazbo's they ignored the Order and the claim was struck out - simple as that)

Don't want to hijack this thread - but start another thread - pm me the details as I would be interested to have a look at the agreement. Was the offer 0% APR as that £25 should be included and therefore is NOT 0% APR (and therefore unfair - legal unfair as opposed to thought unfair)

don't put in the deny the debt bit as it just annoys people - just leave it out completely - actually leave out the 2nd para completely put in a time limit, but not the withdrawing bit otherwise looks ok Good luck

Your application still stands as, at the moment, there is nothing linking their POC with the paperwork they have sent. If you can scan in what you have received and post it up (remove any identifying details) then we can advise accordingly They have not submitted enough paperwork yet to even have a chance of securing a win though so keep positive - actually keep VERY positive as as soon as you weaken they will pounce. At the moment you just want them to lay out clearly and concisely their case - and that is all. It would be a VERY good thing to get a SAR off to MBNA ASAP - very rarely does a SAR not turn up a whole raft of useful info - and in this 'game' info is very definitely power.

I *think* you only need 1 as it is an application without notice - but I may be wrong. Take 2 or 3 in case you need them. The staff are usually pretty helpful If they ask for £75 instead of £40 make sure they realise it is an application without a hearing

That is the quote supporting my view. Remember filing a default with the CRA is NOT the same as issuing an S87 Default Notice under the CCA There is case law supporting the fact that without an enforceable agreement or a valid DN the creditor can still maintain the default marker with the CRAs as long as the info is accurate.

Could you please quote the source for your first statement - Ta That's not my understanding - my understanding is that they have to send you a 'notice of default' i.e. a notice that they intend to enter a default on your file. This *may* also happen to be an S87 default notice but not necessarily - but, as I said that is my understanding and therefore open to be proved wrong. Oh, re the contract - they are trying the Common Law route, they lent the money - the debt still exists - now pay it back. Law of equity I think or something like that

seeing as what has already been ccd to the Court, I would seriously think about sending that offer in as well (once it is properly sorted with the standard non-admission phrase as well) I know you are not supposed to ... but as a LiP, you are bound to make these little 'mistakes'

an S87 Default Notice is NOT the same as a default on the CRA file which indicates a complete breakdown of the relationship and the debtor defaulting on the agreement. I think it's covered by the CPUTR check those out and search teh OFT website for guidance notes and other papers

check my post #108 Report them to the OFT though as they shouldn't be threatening legal action as they cannot win. They can hassle you, sell it on to a DCA (who can then issue their own claim against you) but they cannot issue another claim themselves. You will probably find that they will still maintain the default with the CRAs as well - you *may* be able to get that removed - check out lots of info in the CRA forum

was the agreement still 'live' at the time? if yes then are the charges applied contained within the agreed terms & conditions of the account? If the account was terminated and therefore the agreement not longer endures then it is less clear imho. They can add them, but as to whether they are lawfully owing is another matter.

You take the form to the Court, hand over the fee £40 for no hearing £75 with (try for no hearing - they may get back to you saying it must be with hearing but they shouldn't do) You then wait for a random amount of time (depending on how busy/efficient your local Court is) they you will receive something back. let us know and we will advise IF you are talking about how long to put in the order put a date about 14 days from the submission date - the Court will choose their own date anyway

That should all come out in the fully particularised claim (which I would be surprised if they comply with as per Gazbo's) Sometimes I think we try and over complicate things and then lose sight of the real argument we are trying to put across - I know I'm just as guilty at times