Either may happen. But don't pay them anymore. Just sit tight and try to forget about this for the moment. Without documentation they are in breach and cannot enforce the debt. Well done. You can relax for a bit now. They may find the CCA or not. Even if they find it it may not be compliant with the CCA.

Would you be prepared to disclose details? And were you the claimant or defendant? Did you take them to court and get the judge to set aside or were you defending a repo? Because you seem to be saying that you can get a MSA but only on the direction of the judge. However, you don't know what is in it until you receive it, so you wouldn't know before you went into court. Were you successfull in getting an MSA as a disclosure before the hearing date? And can you confirm that it is Acenden that you were dealing with?

Firstly, the mortgage sale agreement will be bundled with 10000 others and it is not likely to be made available. If I am wrong, and someone has actually managed to get their MSA from this company, I am happy to be corrected. I can't get mine, and as far as I know I have no legal right to demand it and it won't be in a SAR. The company that was the originating company would not have transferred the title until such time as the debt was registered with the Land Registry, this may not have happened yet. My debt was registered in 2010, four years after it was sold by the originating company and in that four years this company, which presumably had been paid out in full for my debt, attempted to repossess in its name on two occasions. It is important to be clear that no-one to date has won a court action on the basis of who owns the debt, certainly not in a county court. Again, if anyone knows otherwise ....... Advising that this is a quick fix in a repossession hearing is dangerously misleading and could lead to tragedy. You will be facing Acenden's solicitors in court. They are not the owners and do not claim to be. Preferred will have sold the loan, but if they have not registered the sale yet then they are the ones who can still repossess. You have checked the Land Registry, if Preferreds name is still there, they still have equitable ownership of the loan and it is they who will be the claimant. If you got hold of a copy of the Mortgage Sale Agreement you could baffle a judge enough to get at least a postponement, but getting hold of it is the issue. Go and look at the very long thread from "applecart" on equitable and legal ownership of securitised debts, it is a minefield.

Preferred will be the originating company with whom you got the mortgage in the first place. This mortgage has been bundled with many others and sold on, within months of you signing up to the mortgage. ie it has been securitised. Acenden are mortgage administrators who work for both Preferred and on behalf of the true owners of your debt. Acenden don't own your mortgage. Acenden will be the ones taking action against you but will do so in the name of Preferred despite the fact that Preferred no longer own your mortgage. There is no point attempting to challenge the "who owns what" issue, it is too complicated. Lots of things flow from this. For one thing, you cannot go to the financial ombudsman and complain about the conduct of Acenden. Acenden act on behalf of the administrators - who don't really exist except as a name and some directors.

Yes, stand corrected, should be to the DCA chasing. 12+2 is 14 Brig!

OK, now you need to make a CCA request to MBNA enclosing a postal order - which you must not sign. Post it up here when you get it and i am sure you will get expert advice. They have 14 days to supply it. The DCA cannot enforce if they are in breach of your request. MBNA probably don't have a compliant doc, - which is why they sold the debt. If it is not enforceable then you can take a decision whether to pay or not.

Sorry post got out of sequence

Lily Monroe, have you got the credit agreement yet? Without it how do you know they have an enforceable debt?

I am not sure if the last post was directed to me. The FSO simply say that I have agreed to the terms and conditions, although they were a separate document to the one I thought I was signing. Over my signature it says that I have seen the booklet and the Loan Terms and conditions. It's presumably my mistake that I thought the Loan Terms and Conditions were the Mortgage Conditions. It is annoying but I don't think significant. If they can have Terms spread over several documents, then what they have done is sneaky bu not illegal. If the document accompanying the agreement has to be a single all embracing sheet of terms and conditions - which really it ought to be surely - then what they did is naughty and it gives me something I can argue with.

If the £50 compensation - without removing any of their ludicrous charges - is their final offer you are now free to take the case to the FSO. The FSO MAY agree that if you are given a late arrears payment because you were late with one payment, then they were wrong to put it on AGAIN the next month if you were on time with the next payment just because you didn't pay off the late arrears charge. You might get back most of your charges. The FSO seem to understand it is is unfair to put charges on failure to pay off charges. Do you have your statements? If so, you need to itemise all charges you think are unfair. Others on this forum may disagree but I don't think its worth saying each charge is too high. They are, of course, but the FSO does not seem capable of saying so. Your best argument is to say this charge should not have been placed on the account. I have been successful in reclaiming £2000 worth of charges, but it has taken a year to do so.

Have received a FSO ruling which says that the clause which allows them to impose a new set of charges when they feel like it is not in the credit agreement which we signed, nor in the "mortgage conditions" which were on the back of the mortgage charge - which of course, we also signed but in a separate Loan Terms and Conditions - which the company sent the FSO and which we have never seen and the FSO say were neither signed by us or dated. So they have two sets of loan conditions - mortgage conditions and loan conditions, which seems a bit sneaky. no idea what is actually in the Terms and conditions - guess I will just have to send a CCA request.

how is it going nicurro? you have not posted for a while? Are you checking on the Default fee account that any payment you have made on the arrears is in fact being credited to the right account?

Well done! you say you have been making payments over and above your contractual payment. Have you checked these payments have been properly credited and have been used to reduce the arrears? Look at your default fee account. It should have a column for payments due. Are your extra payments appearing here? Is the outstanding arrears debt being reduced by the appropriate amount?

Got my statement today and that my overpayments to pay arrears (which are all charges) are being credited to the capital and not to the arrears statement. Anyone else had this?

New statement from Acenden today and it seems that although we have been paying in an arrangement with £30 extra since 2009 the extra has been coming off the capital and not the arrears. When we do the corrections we are not in arrears at all. that means most of the charges are unlawful £2000 and an attempted repo. (over £400) We have an FSO claim running so its back to the adjudicator. I wish i could charge THEM for my time. At a rough guess it has been 500 hours since this time last year.

I complained to the FSO that Acenden had varied the tarif of charges four times and that there was no clause in the CCA nor in the conditions that said they could vary the tarif of charges. The FSO adjudicator responded today and quoted three clauses that were not in the CCA nor in the conditions on the back of the deed we signed (and is witnessed) Apparently there is a second "terms and conditions" which Acenden sent the FSO and is different, apparently, to the mortgage conditions we signed. I don't have a copy of this and I don't think we were ever sent one. Has anyone any thoughts about a loan with two different sets of terms and conditions? One of which is in a document we signed and had witnessed? Which applies? FSO had no real thoughts on this. He said the terms and conditions were "reasonable" and that was all that mattered........

Acenden are not your mortgage company, they are just debt collectors and are not even licensed to hold their clients money. So you can't complain to them. You need to complain to LMC Matlock if you have not already AND to whoever now has the loan. you haven't said which one it was that offered you £2000. Separate companies, separate claims, both will be handled by Acenden. If you don't get the agreement(s) you want then take it to the FSO. You can accept or reject the current offer as it will not affect your claim against the other.

kopchoir, who was your original loan with and who is it now with? Acenden would have been the administrator for both companies. (Capstone is the same as Acenden just a name change). You presumably went for the current owner who replied saying that you can only have a refund of charges that were imposed in their time. You now need to pursue the original owner. It is weird and looks very odd indeed because it's Acenden imposing the charges all along however, they do so in the name of the original loan owner and later the company who took it over. So you need to accept what you have been offered by the current company, assuming they have refunded everything you think they should. Now PPI is a different matter. They didn't sell you the loan, a broker did, so they will argue that PPI is not their problem. You need to claim to the original broker who organised your loan. If they are no longer in business, and they won't be, you need to forward your complaint to the financial services compensation board, providing that the broker is in default. You can check this on their website. It takes ages to get a refund. congratulations on getting £2000 back! Well done! and you said it was out of the blue? Amazing!!!!

I have some debts including a secured loan and my main mortgage which do not show on any of my credit files so don't get excited and believe that you may have no need to pay MBNA any more just because the debt doesn't show. Of course this is MBNA and you might want to ask for the original agreement just on the off-chance..... but don't stop paying them until you have more evidence than the credit file.

I have some debts including a secured loan and my main mortgage which do not show on any of my credit files so don't get excited and believe that you may have no need to pay MBNA any more just because the debt doesn't show. Of course this is MBNA and you might want to ask for the original agreement just on the off-chance..... but don't stop paying them until you have more evidence than the credit file.

You need also to check with the Land Registry to find out what, if anything, is secured against any properties that you own or have recently sold. You can do this on line and it costs £5 and you can find out TODAY if there are still any charges registered. If there is not, and there shouldn't be because you would not have been able to sell your house with an outstanding charge registered, and your solicitor at the time would have handled this for you during the conveyance, then you are in the clear and Acenden are just trying it on or being their usual muddleheads. Don't ever underestimate their incompetence. You say your solicitor checked and there was no charge registered. Was this before or after the sale of the property?

No they don't have an SPO, but I guess they might have thought they did and hadn't checked properly. They didn't have a leg to stand on if we had contested it in court.

dx100uk I can see where you are coming from, but I think you have missed the point. Clearly there is no dispute that money is owing to MBNA - it is whether or not it is lawfully owed to Arden. If Arden cannot or will not send a copy of the original agreement and also cannot or will not produce the letter of administration that links them to MBNA whether or not it is via another company, and if there is any doubt whatsoever who owns the debt now, then Arden should be told to naff off. Because without these documents no court will entertain an application from them on the debt. How can they go before a judge if they cannot prove they have any right to the money? Mind you, I am not saying they haven't, but their way of carrying on which is by endlessly ringing up and harassing and making threats, is very upsetting and unhelpful.

Just had an email from the FSO. They confirm MCOB does not apply but have given some interesting guidance. If an OFT guideline has been breached they will not necessarily rule against the company unless it is manifestly behaving unfairly. Even if the company is acting within the guidelines they may rule against on the grounds of unfairness. This is useful but quite tautological because if the company fails to abide by the guidelines on unfair practice, then its behaviour IS defined as "unfair". I think the tactics of all these companies is simply to drive us borrowers to insanity so we just hand over the keys gibbering. Anyway OFT rules apply so that point is now answered. Acenden lied when they said they don't have to abide by them. thanks for all the help. will post when I have any news.

Have downloaded the OFT second charge lending guidance and will quote from this in my appeal. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.