
jessie_girl6
Registered UsersChange your profile picture
-
Content Count
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Anna1s1 started following jessie_girl6
-
Hi Mould Thanks for your considered response/questions which I will need some time to pull answers together to. This will also be my attempt at my defence. However, in looking at some of the other paperwork, I note that the CCA is virtually correct except for the fact that it does not have a Credit Limit on the page I signed. The Credit Limit is on page 2, along with a reference number. Very strange. Would this fact alone be enough to show that the CCA is not compliant with section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (it was taken out in Aug 2005)? Thanks JG
-
MBNA was OC then it went to Varde/Experto and now with Aktiv You are correct in that they are relying upon statutory Notice of Default served by MBNA in their POC; no wonder they want to get it right for the Courts
-
That's also what I am wondering and whether anybody knows of any other such incidents? Surely, someone must have had a similar experience?
-
Wow - you guys are quick!! Yes, I have the original DN from 2009 The dates are the same on both the original and the new DN (Service date = 9th Oct; rectification date = 26th Oct) Differences = original was asking for full payment as the credit agreement allowed for it; new one is asking for a reduced amount (supposedly the arrears) as well as informing me of the account balance, which corresponds with the amount demanded in the original. Plus there are some obvious differences in layout, etc. JG
-
Hi all I have had a claim progress against me for an old CC debt and I have just received the reply to my defence from the Claimants solicitors. In this reply, they have included a DN that is different to the one they sent me back in 2009. This new one looks to be compliant, whereas the original DN had (1) demanded full repayment of debt and (2) did not allow me full time to repay. Also, the original creditor never actually sent me a Termination Notice but they did sell the debt to another DCA prior to the date on their DN and that DCA then contacted me (again prior to the date on t
-
MKDP & nationwide credit card debt Defective DN/TN?
jessie_girl6 replied to Stagparty's topic in Nationwide
Hi all It's been some time since I've been on the forum - as it has helped me so much with so many issues I was facing last year - but I now need to revisit. And it appears that thought/case law has changed since I was last here when invalid DN + termination letter on back of DN = invalid recission. I have yet to find the relevant case law, but it seems that this is no longer the case. So, what happens when I have taken this approach (with AMEX), accepted their termination, paid off the arrears demanded and then they come back 12 months later and issue a formal termination in line wit -
Just to add to this, my case has also been adjourned pending the outcome of this Appeal. What was interesting, was the solicitor for the other side presented me with a Skeleton Argument 5 mins before we were to see the Judge which included this case. Neither she nor the Judge knew that it was going to Appeal and if I hadn't seen this very thread 2 days ago, I would have lost my case as the Judge's first question to the solicitor was along the lines of 'isn't there some case law that makes this default notice issue a de minimis issue?'. So from the very off, my fate had been decided and
-
CCA Terminated; now AMEX demanding payment in full
jessie_girl6 replied to jessie_girl6's topic in Financial Legal Issues
Just to give you a quick update on this situation. We have had a couple of further letters from MdeR both of which continue to say that they are giving us one last chance to pay up or else it's court for us ! (Again!) However, the last letter (about 5 weeks ago) kindly included a new termination notice. Now, I don't quite know what they are playing at here, but I have no doubt they have thought of some new game where they can terminate an already terminated account. So, I need to communicate with the poor dears and spell out the facts: any thoughts on how I should go about this? I -
Unfortunately I might be on the receiving end of one of those SD's regardless as we are home owners (albeit with an unaffordable mortgage and no equity!) and just the sort that they will want to follow up on. Bankruptcy for me/us is just not an option! But as you say, I know that 1. DN was invalid (not allowing 14 clear days, full balance demanded, improper text) 2. Account sold before remedy date 3. No Deed nor Notice of Assignment from MBNA 4. My acceptance of their illegal termination both via letter and stopping payment 5. Questionable CCA - must follow up on that now tha
-
Hi all Well, it is hotting up for me on this front! I too was part of the MBNA sell-off last year when my credit agreement was 'sold' to ExpCred (according to MBNA comms log) in mid-October and before the remedy date on my DN had been reached. Since then, I've SAR'd MBNA, got a copy of my agreement (well I think it's my agreement!) from ExpCred and now have the joy of dealing with CMC (Credit Management Consultants) who do a fine job of leaving very long messages on my telephone! These messages are getting more frequent and threatening about what they will be doing, so I am expecting som
-
Many thanks to DiddyDick, Lexis and MeansToAnEnd. Makes sense to me that the DN is not covered by court protocols: just can't believe why the judge thought they would be In which case, I will fight on and await the next hearing date!
-
Can i just pose a question re Invalid Default Notices and deemed date of service. I note that there were some earlier and very useful posts on this subject by Vint (c. post 2507) but I would really appreciate some clarification on the new CPR 6 rules (specifically 6.26) in relation to the 1985 Practice Direction which supports Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. The reason I ask is that i have a couple of invalid default notices, some followed by termination, whereby the deemed date of service meant that I did not get enough time to rectify the breach. My most immediate co