MBNA/Restons CCJ/ CO

[phatram]

I have had papers from Restons and the court and nowhere does it say I need to do WS for the hearing next week. Should I have been informed of this?

[phatram]

My defence is on page 11 post no 202.

The order in post no 305 wasn't complied with. See post no 320.

Edited November 25, 2010 by phatram

[gh2008]

The order in post no 305 wasn't complied with.

 

Are you saying that they did NOT comply with that Order from the Court 2 years ago?

 

If not, and that Order still has relevance to the current case, what have you done about it?

[phatram]

Are you saying that they did NOT comply with that Order from the Court 2 years ago?

 

If not, and that Order still has relevance to the current case, what have you done about it?

 

I notified the court and as far as I remember (I'm still going through everything) they did bu**er all !!

[phatram]

Letter to Restons,

 

Dear Sir or Madam.

 

Re Claim number xxxxxxxx

 

I write regarding your package of information dated 08/09/2008, received by me on 09/09/2008.

 

As you will know the judge ordered that ” The Claimant shall by 4pm on 16-Sep-2008 serve upon the Defendant and/or termination notices, notice of assignment and a full statement of account showing how the sum claimed is calculated”.

 

I feel you have not complied with this order because you have failed to produce the following documents :-

 

1) terms and conditions relating to when the account was opened.

2) Termination notice.

3) A full statement of account showing how the sum was calculated.

4) A legible true copy of the Credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit

Act1974.

 

I have notified the courts of this failure and have advised them that should I not have the rest of the Documents seven days from your receipt of this letter then I will be informing the courts further.

 

If you cannot supply the above mentioned papers, then a full explanation as to why, is necessary for me to decide what further action I will take.

 

 

Yours faithfully

This was sent.

[phatram]

19/09/2008 from court,

From court today,

Upon reading an email by the defendant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.

The order dated 22 August 2008 is set aside

(xxxxxxxxx) as incorrectly drawn.

2.

The claimant in cases XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX shall by 4:00pm on 29 September 2008 file at Court and serve upon

the Defendant copies of the credit agreement, default and/or termination notices, full statement of account showing how

the sum claimed is calculated.

Dated 10 September 2008

The court office at DERBY county court

.Combined

[gh2008]

Where did 1 & 4 come from - they weren't in the Order were they??

and 2 was optional

 

So, 3 i.e. full statement of account was and still is outstanding, however if the Court were sent a copy of the letter then I can see where the confusion lays.

 

Re your earlier question about WS for the hearing - they are normally mentioned in the hearing notification.

 

This is a bit of a mess isn't it .....

 

Where is the application for SJ against you - you need a WS answering the points raised. You would also need to include the Claimant's failure to comply with the previous Order.

[gh2008]

Ah, right - So, actually your letter to the Court was referencing the old Order which was set-aside

 

So, have you chased compliance with THIS Order??

 

These Orders were made by the Court to HELP YOU!!! they are almost your 'Get out of jail free' cards and you've kept them hidden for 2 years!!

 

Although it is *incredibly* late it *may* be worth you making an application of your own to have their case Struck Out due to their non-compliance.

With a covering letter, you *may* be able to get it heard on teh same day as the hearing for their application.

[phatram]

 

 

Application for SJ

[phatram]

A mess it is. I've not done a WS, didn't read it properly and now its too late to do one.

[phatram]

Is there anything I can do to rectify my error?

[gh2008]

Well, from what they have said there they have complied with the Order from Sept '08 as they have included everything in their application.

 

I really haven't got time to go through the whole 35 pages, but unless you have a very good argument such as prescribed terms missing from the info produced or that you have copies of the original agreements and/or Default Notices that differ from their evidence then I would have to say that imho they have a very strong argument for getting SJ

 

obviously jmho, but with only a few days to go, you seem to not really have a handle on this claim.

 

It is not too late to negotiate a settlement ......

[phatram]

I do not deny having these accounts or owing them money, I do contest the amount they say I owe. The default notices sent are wrong , dates and include charges so amounts are incorrect. They harrassed me even after Fos were investigating and the alleged debt grew from £8000 to £12000 even after I put these accounts into dispute. They still haven't proved to me how they arrive at these figures. They refunded ppi but didn't give me any interest back even tho' I'd been paying up to 34% on these payments. Think thats all . MBNA are scumbags,I just want to fight back a bit.

[gh2008]

Ok,

 

DNs including charges PPI etc are not invalid - Rankine dealt with that quite clearly

 

If the dates and/or amounts and/or wording on the original DN are different to the ones submitted as evidence then that is a *big* problem for them and you need to do something about it.

 

The amounts claimed need to be accurate, they have stated/implied that the amounts showing on your last monthly statement + the statement they have sent you = amount claimed .... if that is not the case then you need to shout about it .... QUICKLY!!!

 

The problem as I see it is that your defence as it currently stands does not put these arguments across.

 

IF the agreements are valid and IF the DNs are valid then you need to admit to the amount you think is owing and argue the rest. i.e. balance at termination - PPI& compound contractual interest. So you need to deny they have a right to add any charges and any interest after termination.

 

IF the agreements are valid however the DNs are not then again you need to admit to the amount of arrears owing at the time of termination less the PPI

 

IF the agreements are not valid then you argue the lot.

 

YOU NEED TO SORT A WS ASAP!!!

[phatram]

I believe its too late as its now less than 7 days to the hearing ?

[gh2008]

 

The amounts claimed need to be accurate, they have stated/implied that the amounts showing on your last monthly statement + the statement they have sent you = amount claimed .... if that is not the case then you need to shout about it .... QUICKLY!!!

YOU NEED TO SORT A WS ASAP!!!

 

it's up to you ......

[phatram]

Ok,

 

DNs including charges PPI etc are not invalid - Rankine dealt with that quite clearly

 

If the dates and/or amounts and/or wording on the original DN are different to the ones submitted as evidence then that is a *big* problem for them and you need to do something about it.

 

The amounts claimed need to be accurate, they have stated/implied that the amounts showing on your last monthly statement + the statement they have sent you = amount claimed .... if that is not the case then you need to shout about it .... QUICKLY!!!

 

The problem as I see it is that your defence as it currently stands does not put these arguments across.

 

IF the agreements are valid and IF the DNs are valid then you need to admit to the amount you think is owing and argue the rest. i.e. balance at termination - PPI& compound contractual interest. So you need to deny they have a right to add any charges and any interest after termination.

 

IF the agreements are valid however the DNs are not then again you need to admit to the amount of arrears owing at the time of termination less the PPI

 

IF the agreements are not valid then you argue the lot.

 

YOU NEED TO SORT A WS ASAP!!!

 

Are the DN's valid when they don't give a full 14 days to rectify the situation and/or the figure quoted on them contains late fees?

[phatram]

Letter from court.

Due to unavailability of DJ Hearing adjourned until 6/01/2011

[the_shadow]

Are the DN's valid when they don't give a full 14 days to rectify the situation and/or the figure quoted on them contains late fees?

 

Brandon vs Amex deals with default notices that dont give the 14 days notice and unless you have been prejudiced by it its not a winnable point. An application for appeal is being heard 6th December.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Letter from court.

Due to unavailability of DJ Hearing adjourned until 6/01/2011

 

Who says Xmas doesnt come early... Get the WS done asap as GH has stated.

 

S.

[gh2008]

One would hope, having had 3 days to get it together, that the WS is ready to post .....

[phatram]

Should I change my defence now? I'm not contesting having the accounts but I do contest the amount they say I owe or should I just do my own claims against them for the ppi interest and my time/costs fighting these evil gits?

WS is started but not finished.

[phatram]

And to honest not got much of a clue about what I should be putting in the WS.

[phatram]

Up to now.

1. I make this Witness Statement from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true.

2. I made a request to MBNA EBL in November 2006 asking them to supply me with copies of

the credit agreements for my two credit card accounts. The reason for this was to enable me to check they were within their rights to increase the interest rates by so much on said accounts.

The agreements supplied were illegible so I put the accounts into dispute in December 2006.

3. MBNA EBL continued to add interest and late charges to both accounts which I believe is wrong when accounts are in dispute.

4. I then started to receive threatening letters and many many telephone calls from MBNA EBL, which I found to be intimidating, disruptive and harassing.

[phatram]

 

In their WS it states " the application notice refers to an agreement by the claimant to refund £***.** and £***.** to the respective accounts.These refunds are not in respect of ppi premiums but in respect of a complaint by the defendant with the FOS".

 

Thats not what Restons letter says !