http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/best_practices/-/page/681/ http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/addendumjan2011.pdf EDIT MBNA are a board member of the UKCA !!!

complain VERY LOUDLY MBNA have recently been given a very severe knuckle rapping for exactly this. It is also against their Code of Practice (which I will try and dig out)

It's an interesting one actually. Being very pedantic the T&C's on the side could be deemed a separate document, they are outside of the main agreement and are in fact headed up as a separate item. The are you sign does not refer to those terms, nor do you agree to them The agreement is improperly executed though as it is not laid out correctly Would I want to take either of those issues to trial - No way!! but if there are other issues as to how MBNA have dealt with you in hardship etc etc you MAY add those items to building up a case for an unfair relationship The penalty for an unfair relationship, could be as simple as an order for them to remove certain charges and interest (if there is any) and for you to repay the remaining debt by affordable repayments. The Court's powers are extensive in this area and so far little has been tried AFAIK (I have not read the thread and do not know any other details of the account or claim if there is one - I am only commenting on the agreement - as requested)

I think you need to get the Site Team's comment on this as I'm unsure as to the best response. My main concern is that with so much of the story missing from your thread that I am missing something ........... As I see it Claim issued for 2 loans CCA & CPR request sent - no response Application for Strike Out made - unknown Order from Court Another application made - again unknown Order from Court New POC from Claimant??? New Defence by you (as above) Claimant makes app for SJ & Defence SO In Claimant's WS they admit that 1 loan was DNd, terminated and claim issued in error OP's WS a bit late going in for SJ app In recent correspondence has asked for the OP to agree to them discontinuing that part of teh claim (was this correspondence Without Prejudice?) Hearing on Friday My thoughts are - if the correspondence and offer of dicon is WP then it cannot be brought up. Their WS admits that the 2nd loan was incorrectly defaulted and they do not have a cause of action therefore they cannot get SJ as that is what the defence argues, together with S77 issues as they have still not sent a legible copy

exactly - I would say it was cause for a complaint against the bank TBH ....

I'd love to see the DJ's reaction if they demanded your defence being struck out because of a late AQ ...... C - N/A D - you have made an application for the Claimant's case to either be struck out or for the Claimant to submit a fully particularised POC The Directions may be slightly different and there is something to put in the other info Have a search around there is a sticky by PT headed N149 / N150 AQ or something like that If you can't find it yell and I'll dig it out It won;t be quite useable, but tweak as appropriate for your case

'WP' only covers documents that are genuinely trying to seek/offering a settlement. The idea is that the document can then not be used against them to show that they are willing to accept less etc. WPSATC basically means that the doc can be produced when it comes to deciding costs and can show whether one party has tried to act reasonably or not - if you lose and were offered a reasonable deal before, you could get seriously stung when it comes to costs. You do not have to head replies with WP as the WP covers the whole 'conversation' if it is indeed wrt negotiating an offer putting WP on a letter that is not a genuine offer to settle means nothing... it can still be used - there is caselaw to back that up somewhere just my understanding following lots of research on the subject

So, where are the applications you made when were the hearings and where are the orders they produced?

This is really difficult with so much of the story missing ....

well, as long as their discontinued part is not formally discontinued they cannot possibly win a strike out ... you are quite within your rights to not accept the discontinuance and see it to trial Was your app heard then?? I cannot see where the results of that app are posted ??

Ok, 1/2 the claim is a no brainer as they have admitted that they DN and terminated in error - that 1/2 is gone bar the paperwork The other one is the bit your are fighting over You are saying that you didn't receive a valid DN and that they are still in breach of your S77-S79 request They are saying that their systems are 100% reliable so you MUST have got a valid DN although they have no evidence as to what that DN would have looked like or contained They then go on to say that it was this same 100% reliable system that defaulted and terminated your other account in error so they wish to discontinue that part Well, it's obviously your choice as to what you do - but I know what I would do and I think I know what many others would do in your situation BUT you do need to be 100% up on your arguments (as above) what they mean and why you are arguing them.

Errr isn't this YOUR application to strike out THEIR claim .......??? or have I got this wrong EDIT: it would seem that this is the Claimant's app for SJ against the OP

Cobbetts have no right to be demanding anything They could be slightly worried that they HAVE to lose at least half of the hearing as they have already admitted that they messed up oooops This is a game of who blinks first ......

I wholeheartedly agree I cannot emphasise the importance of this enough, get it done NOW so that if required it can go in straight away. good luck The reason you may have felt as though you lost, is that it was your application and therefore you have to prove it. These applications really wake the claimants up and will give you a very good idea of how the case is going to turn out. You either go in and lose big time - in which case that £75 just bought you a serious wake up call OR you go in and pretty much do what you have done, you get the DJ on your side to rip into the Claimant and tell then to get their house in order or drop it. The possibility of a SO resulting in a SO 1st time is remote but these apps put you in the driving seat and allow you to use everything at your disposal to steer the claim into being about facts rather than getting to trial and having a clever persuasive Counsel bamboozal the DJ with 'would be' 'could be' 'should be' jmho though

When they don't deal with clowns like Carter and his antics I think that speaks volumes ...... No harm though - it does *really* upset the other side if you do report them with a justifiable complaint ..

that''l do

Ok, deff send in letter enclosing your costs (which are VERY reasonable) asking for the application to then go ahead. If you can get that in tomorrow, as ideally you do not want to submit your AQ although if you have to it would be asking for the same thing

you need to re-iterate that your application was for the Court to either Strike Out the claim or to order the Claimant to re-plead their case properly (if that is what it was for - can't remember and short of time to check) Your application has not been heard yet I don't think - I think they are waiting for you to clrify what you want - strange as I thinkit was just a copy of Gazbo's - but hey DJ lottery

Get the letter in - most important Wait for the AQ if not here by Thursday go to Court and collect another copy AQ is easy to fill in so no worries there

I did think about this and if it was a DCA then yes, breaking every rule there is, but a builder ..... ( I do agree though - certainly no harm in going to your local TS )

I'll be back - I forgot that this is your app - the WS will only be 24hrs late and I would be surprised if the other side could find anything in it to complain of prejudice - you are only reiterating what has already been stated quite clearly

Are the Court name and case number on there??

I would not worry then - if the Building Inspector report says the work wasn't up to scratch then the contractor would have to make good (normally before being paid) You have a case to sue them for putting it right (or counterclaim should they be silly enough to try and claim) for the cost of repairing their work as long as you have given them to the opportunity to rectify it first

You could offer to allow them discontinue the claim in its entirety without you pursuing your costs. Be aware that your p27 would indicate that you have received a notice .... albeit not a valid one ..... You also need to check on UKMail's website for their service as you will find it is NOT the same as 1st class Royal Mail, especially when sent on 30th Dec what with the Bank holiday etc Main thrust will be as you hinted at above If they STILL haven't sent legible copies, then that also is in breach of the CCA S77 and the Court Order (cannot enforce - i.e. gain judgement whilst in breach) sorry quick notes - bit busy

did you ring the Court?