Help

[pinknico]

Just passing by to send my best wishes PF, please take care of yourself. xx

[pompeyfaith]

Thank You Pinknico

 

very much appriciated im in a sling now as i had to go back to the hospital today as my lower right arm swelled up today and was painful this was due to internal bruising where they punctured my artery to insert the catheter.

 

But im ok thanks

[WelshMam2009]

im in a sling now as i had to go back to the hospital today as my lower right arm swelled up today and was painful this was due to internal bruising where they punctured my artery to insert the catheter.

 

Ouch!!!

 

Good to have you back PF...but just make sure you take it easy now!!

[pompeyfaith]

Well you only need one hand to use a keyboard and mouse so im doing fine lol

 

PF

[underdog13]

sorry to hear about your latest problem, PF. As Welshman said, 'Ouch' - take care of yourself and get well soon:)

[pompeyfaith]

Ok an update on my case,

 

1 have today received a witness statement from a Ms Powell in response to my defence i sent in before i went to hospital.

 

I point which has crossed my mind is, I have up until now received all witness statements from and signed by Optima legal but this one has come from mbna could optima legal be getting nervy as per the DN.

 

Anyway i will post it up and gauge your thoughts before i send mine in, in response to it.

 

It was by the way as per usual 2 days late.

 

Regards

 

PF

[pompeyfaith]

Oh one more point it says in the court order dated 3rd March 09 that its up to me if i want a rep from mbna at the next court hearing, How do i request this should i just send a letter to optima legal requesting that they be present or do i send the request to court for them to request via an order?

 

Regards

 

PF

[pompeyfaith]

Ok as promised here is the latest witness statement from a Ms Powell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy

 

PF

[pt2537]

ah thats different

 

two for the price of one

 

bet they try adding the costs to their schedule of costs too

 

watch out for that as they should only charge you for one statement

[pompeyfaith]

Firstly they say they make this statement in response to my witness statement on the 12th March 09.

 

Well that was not a witness statement but a defense lol

 

They also say the account number was clearly printed on the poc well ive checked again and nope its not.

 

In 1.5 they waffle on and make no statement as to why i did not receive the docs until the 30th December 08 some 4.5 mths late

 

In 1.6 its a poor explanation why it took 4.5 mths to send docs lol

[pompeyfaith]

oh and the best bit they state proceeding where not issued until the 11th july 08 well as the default was nonce proceeding should not have been issued at all

 

Plus they have not explained why they produced in court a dud DN with changed dates and clauses

Edited April 2, 2009 by pompeyfaith

[caro]

Go get 'em tiger!

 

Glad you're on the mend, but take heed of the warning. Don't be afraid to ask for adjournment if you don't feel up to court. Your health must come first.

[the_shadow]

I'm sorry but dont 1.9 and 1.10 go against each another...

 

1.9

"Mbna are a sophisticated financial institution that is fully aware of the CCA"

 

1.10

"nothing more than a clerical error on the part of the claimants computer system"

 

:D:D:D:D

[caro]

A computer system is only as good as the people who set it up. That could be very useful information for a LOT of MBNA peeps.

[the_shadow]

A computer system is only as good as the people who set it up. That could be very useful information for a LOT of MBNA peeps.

 

I would actually dispute that... A computer system is only as good as the TESTING carried out on it prior to going live.

 

If they knew the CCA so well their test scripts should have been set for a complete lifecycle of an account including defaulting accounts.

 

Apologies for being a geeky pedant:D

[caro]

I'll let you have that one pmw.

 

(New system coming in at work next week and guess who's been testing!)

[pompeyfaith]

Indeed Fred i am now going for the kill on this as i said my witness statement will be one week late in court but under the circumstancies i have good reason for it being late i.e. hospital

 

I have started my witness statement last night and hope to have it finished this weekend and get it to court on monday along with a copy of my hospital discharge notes.

 

I do not want to rush this witness statement id much rather take the weekend to get it right as hopefully that will be the kill.

 

Oh did you notice in there statement how they tried to explain why it took 4.5 months to supply the info i requested at the start of this case, that info arrived some 6 weeks after they applied for a SJ and 1 week before the SJ

 

At the last Trial that got adjorned because of the above and there failure to insure i had all the relevant info in the case and there failure in denying me my right to file a defence humans rights act you think ?

 

Fred interesting comments you have made thank you for that.

 

Soon as ive finished the statement ill post it up to see if anyone can improve on it.

 

I do believe the ball is in my court now and i can win this if i get the next statement correct and factual.

 

Regards

 

PF

Edited April 3, 2009 by pompeyfaith

[citizenB]

I'm sorry but dont 1.9 and 1.10 go against each another...

 

1.9

"Mbna are a sophisticated financial institution that is fully aware of the CCA"

 

1.10

"nothing more than a clerical error on the part of the claimants computer system"

 

:D:D:D:D

 

Beaten to it again, I thought this was a contradiction. Methinks they are using a quote made by the Judge in the Rankine case

[pompeyfaith]

Yes CitizenB they are indeed and making a right rash go at it to, their latest offering of a WS is a joke.

 

PF

[blind-as-a-bat]

Yes CitizenB they are indeed and making a right rash go at it to, their latest offering of a WS is a joke.

 

PF

 

Thats almost as good as cohens produceing a totaly differant DN (including differant logo and a made up post code), together with a copy of an archived agreement that bore no resemblement to the actual copy they included in the witness statement:p in my recent case, lets just hope your judge has the same reaction as mine did;-)

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya Blind as a bat

 

MY original DN was dated 14th April 08 stated clause 3 as the breach and gave a remedy date of 28th april 08

 

The amended DN which i did not see until it turned up in the court bundle was also dated 14th April 08 but gave a remedy date of 1st may 2008 and stated clause 8 as the breach.

 

Also the text on both where the same but laid out different as the ameanded one was on two pages.

 

The ameaded DN was also not on MBNA headed paper

 

 

 

PF

Edited April 4, 2009 by pompeyfaith

[blind-as-a-bat]

Hmmm if that was a true copy of the default notice it would breach the companies act anyway, as it must bear the companies registered address and registration number according to a letter from companies house someone posted in another thread;) so may be something else to add to the list

 

Question is are they stateing its representation of the DN or a Copy, cant remember how it was worded

[blind-as-a-bat]

Found it 'attached to thes statement DP3 a COPY of the DN'

 

not a representation then, Oh dear:D

 

Oh and on a side note, they should learn how to type inside boxes if they want to construct something that is half way convinceing

[WelshMam2009]

Hmmm if that was a true copy of the default notice it would breach the companies act anyway, as it must bear the companies registered address and registration number according to a letter from companies house someone posted in another thread;) so may be something else to add to the list

 

Question is are they stateing its representation of the DN or a Copy, cant remember how it was worded

 

It also breaches the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as it fails to set out the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner as laid out in schedule 2 of the regulations, regulation 2(2) paragraph 2.

 

Nonetheless, they could argue that this is what I would term a 'white or file' copy and the address etc are normally included on the headed paper as a matter of course.

 

Where PF has got them bang to rights is on the anomalies in the DN (bet they were hoping you hadn't kept yours PF!!) date/clause changes which seems extremely suspicious to me!!

 

Also PF, they haven't allowed you the 14 clear days...is that included in your defence for the dodgy DN??

 

[WelshMam2009]

Ok, call me cynical but is their revised date just a coincidence.....

 

14/4/2008 Monday - Date of Default Notice

Assume they Posted same Day via 1st Class Post

 

15/4/2008 Tuesday – 1st Working Day after Postage

16/4/2008 Weds - 2nd Working Day after Postage – This is Date of Service

 

17/4/2008 Thurs– 1st Clear Day

18/4/2008 Fri –2nd Clear Day

19/4/2008 Saturday – 3rd Clear Day

20/4/2008 Sunday – 4th Clear Day

21/4/2008 Monday – 5th Clear Day

22/4/2008 Tuesday – 6th Clear Day

23/4/2008 Wednesday – 7th Clear Day

24/4/2008 Thursday – 8th Clear Day

25/4/2008 Friday – 9th Clear Day

26/4/2008 Saturday – 10th Clear Day

27/4/2008 Sunday – 11th Clear Day

 

28/4/2008 Monday – 12th Clear Day -

29/4/2008 Tuesday – 13th Clear Day

30/4/2008 Wednesday – 14th Clear Day

1/5/2008 Thursday – STATUTORY DEADLINE -