AA99 v MBNA (Account 1)

[AA99]

Received this yesterday

 

[davey77]

Standard computer letter really.

 

I can't remember now (and have to pop out in a min) but if you are paying other creditors because they have supplied agreements yet have not paid MBNA because they have failed to supply you with an agreement then that's pretty clear and their 'concern' can be met with the same reply i would say.

 

They are just trying to get you to call them, usual tactic.

 

I'd personally wait for them to pass it to a DCA then CCA them. That could be at the end of this month.. could be at the end of the year.

 

p.s. is that a iD number at the top of the page (and code at the bottom) you should perhaps delete?

[AA99]

Hi Davey, and thank you again for your sound advice

 

Yes, I am paying other creditors because I have negotiated with them a reduced payment plan with interest and charges frozen, plain and simple and effective! How do MBNA know that

 

I am not paying MBNA for all the reasons, phone harassment, non-compliance with any statute laws with any of the official bodies, etc, etc.

 

I have already CCA'd them, this was their reply:

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo349/AA99/MBNA/MBNALetterdated23DecforCCA.jpg

[davey77]

Hey, they know because they have checked your credit file which is updated to show recent/late/nil payments to other creditors etc

 

I know you wanted to forget about MBNA and concentrate on making progress with the others but if they are starting to be a pain then time for the TS complaint. Hopefully you will get a good TS man on the case who will battle on your behalf.

 

Or at least the CAB, as your representative, anything MBNA send could then be forwarded to them to deal with taking some of the load off.

[AA99]

Yes, appreciate that Davey, am on the verge, will use the ICO reference in the meantime

[lexis200]

Hi AA99

 

I had a very similar letter for OH in the beginning of December saying it was being passed over by the middle/end of the month.

 

I think they may have forgotten to do this though, as we've not heard anything from anyone - including MBNA.

 

Yet another scare tactic from them I think!

 

I'd definitely do as suggested - a quick letter informing them that the other banks have been human about your situation and have accepted your offers, hence they are getting paid.

 

You'll probably find your next letter is the 'you're two payments in arrears and we're required to tell you this' one. I'm not sure why they send these, but I've had two now:D

[Viscount Stair]

You'll probably find your next letter is the 'you're two payments in arrears and we're required to tell you this' one. I'm not sure why they send these, but I've had two now:D

They are indeed required to send these. It's MBNA complying with the new Arrears Notice provisions introduced by the 2006 Act.

 

As for why they send them, I suspect that they may be more willing to comply with laws that allow them to chase for money than with other laws that they like less ... but, on the other hand, I may just have a very suspicious mind.

[lexis200]

Yes, it's odd that they are only complying with this law but for anything else will swear blind they're governed by US law:rolleyes:

 

My actual confusion rises from the fact that they sent this when OH was at least 4 months in arrears, and then again at about 7/8 months! Not exactly the two months they are required to do. Plus, why send it twice?

 

I think possibly it's a delaying tactic from them, as they repeatedly state that at 7 months of arrears they must default. Possibly by sending these 'two month in arrears' letters, they are trying to lengthen the process so they have longer to harass us?

[citizenB]

Hi Davey, and thank you again for your sound advice

 

Yes, I am paying other creditors because I have negotiated with them a reduced payment plan with interest and charges frozen, plain and simple and effective! How do MBNA know that

 

I am not paying MBNA for all the reasons, phone harassment, non-compliance with any statute laws with any of the official bodies, etc, etc.

 

 

They do seem to be put out that you are paying other creditors dont they.. Yes, I have received 3 of these and one email urging me to contact them as I only had until the end of the month then the author couldnt help me any more. That was in August of last year, nothing since.

 

If you are actually after a repayment plan with MBNA,then write and tell them exactly that above. Your other creditors were prepared to give you breathing space by freezing interest, accepting a reduced payment and lay off the harassment for a period of one year when you would renegotiate the repayment plan. If they would care to do the same, then perhaps you would be interested in hearing from them IN WRITING.

 

They are indeed required to send these. It's MBNA complying with the new Arrears Notice provisions introduced by the 2006 Act.

 

As for why they send them, I suspect that they may be more willing to comply with laws that allow them to chase for money than with other laws that they like less ... but, on the other hand, I may just have a very suspicious mind.

 

Yes, it's odd that they are only complying with this law but for anything else will swear blind they're governed by US law:rolleyes:

 

My actual confusion rises from the fact that they sent this when OH was at least 4 months in arrears, and then again at about 7/8 months! Not exactly the two months they are required to do. Plus, why send it twice?

 

I think possibly it's a delaying tactic from them, as they repeatedly state that at 7 months of arrears they must default. Possibly by sending these 'two month in arrears' letters, they are trying to lengthen the process so they have longer to harass us?

 

It is called "selective". Kids and the elderly have selective hearing. France and Germany are selective when it comes to EU directives, MBNA, HBOS, Cap1 and many others are selective with the laws they will comply with.

[davey77]

OFCOM LETTER - Sent 18 Dec 2008:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like some clarification on OFCOM’s new rules introduced March 2006 regarding nuisance calls. Also OFCOM’s general stance regarding these types of call and clarification between the difference in Automated Calling Systems and calls made directly by a person or organisation and how those are viewed or dealt with by OFCOM..

 

I understand from reading OFCOM’s website that you classify several silent calls received by a consumer within a 72 hour period as harassment? There are provisions for classifying silent calls, the quantity and intent, but my query is that, surely if a computer system that calls several times a day is classed as harassment (and in doing so unduly upsets the receiver of those calls) then what is OFCOM’s policy in regards to calls that are not silent?

 

I have myself, and have helped several people in the past, deal with (or try to deal with) nuisance calls from Creditors and Debt Collection Agencies. Personally i received 8-13 calls a day, 7 days a week from 8.30am to 9.45pm. My letters requesting that they cease and desist under the Administration of Justice Act and that i would only communicate in writing and that i considered constant calls, many silent and many demanding unreasonable payment, were ignored and fell of deaf ears and thereafter the calls actually increased further. Until that is, i was forced to change my telephone number.

 

I understand there are many variables involved and a creditor may try to contact someone without success in the first instance. Perhaps they work full time or have been unavailable. But where communication has been formally requested to be in writing only after giving ample proof of an inability to pay (including benefit letters, carers allowance etc) and a formal request to stop calling 13 times a day, yet the calls continue, what would OFCOM’s position be regarding that scenario?

 

I read on the website that the Police should be informed if the calls are threatening. I have to say that, from talking to other people that have been in similar situations, that informing the Police is a pointless exercise. Creditors and DCA’s are generally not stupid enough to be outwardly threatening but surely several phone calls a day saying the same thing when a consumer has requested otherwise is a form of threatening behaviour and harassment?

 

If a computer calls 10 times a day it’s harassment, and OFCOM will investigate but if it’s a person representing an organisation who is deliberately trying to intimidate and wear down sometimes vulnerable private individuals in their own homes, then what does OFCOM call that? Not harassment but slightly annoying or nothing to do with them? Isn’t that still a misuse of the telecommunications network whether it be from a machine or a human being?

 

Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand OFCOMS position.

I would be very grateful if you could clarify matters.

 

Yours sincerely, Davey77

 

We shall see. Tis the holidays so i guess a reply might take a while, if i get one at all!

 

Im afraid to say that OFCOM are staffed by morons too:

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/OfcomReply.jpg

[Viscount Stair]

What a pathetic response!

[davey77]

What a pathetic response!

 

Exactly! "...nuisance calls you have been receiving".?! What calls? I told them i had changed my number to stop the calls, therefore showing they didn't actually read the letter, just skimmed through it and got a junior member of staff to write a quick reply. I'm really quite mad about it and will probably write to the top for a proper answer.

 

Even there statement that they "do not become involved in individual complaints" is wrong. Otherwise how can they police/fine companies for silent calls if individuals haven't complained?!

[Viscount Stair]

I don't expect that the junior member of staff even wrote the quick reply - they probably just mail merged the standard reply.

 

Also, don't assume that writing to the hiheijin will bypass this. Ofcom may well adopt the DWO filter (Deal With Officially - ie by an official).

[lexis200]

At least they got the fact it was a complaint right. After that it's all a bit downhill.

[AA99]

OK, so I got this today:

 

Edited January 15, 2009 by AA99
will try again with attachment!

[AA99]

Today OH was very surprised, although I wasn't to receive a postcard

 

[AA99]

It doesn't even say who it is from!!!!!!!!!!

[lexis200]

Erm, have they actually issued you with a DN? If not, where are they getting this date of the 22nd from?

[davey77]

I've had very similar from them in the past. It's the last ditch efforts to get you to cough up.

 

Call, Call, Call. And when you do call all those 'options' on the table will be conveniently forgotten and they will demand more than the letter implies.

I say 'implies' as there are no offers or statements of fact in that letter, nothing binding to them.

 

"See if we can set... call and we might be able.... discuss the possibility of.."

 

The words COLLECTION AGENCY and DEFAULT in bold and capitals to emphasise how important and scary that should be for you.. hmmm The next one might have RED CAPITALS of course, phycologically upping the ante but in point of fact just as meaningless.

 

SIX YEARS seems even longer when it's in bold of course and not forgetting the word SOLD in bold and capitals which again should make you worry dreadfully compared to when it is not in bold print.

 

And not forgetting the usual MBNA time limit of a day, date and month. I've had one sent in say March saying i have 3 weeks or else, then later looking through my paperwork from them notice the exact same letter (dated november) saying i had (another) 3 weeks etc and this was my last opportunity.

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/MBNALetter.jpg

[Viscount Stair]

You got one of those too, then.

 

Clear breach of the DCGs! Oops, sorry: I forgot that they don't apply to MBNA.

 

Seriously, keep the evidence for your PfHA claim. I have not had any response to my suggestion on another thread that the level of damages should be in the region of £1,000-£3,000 but that's the amount potentially at stake.

[AA99]

Erm, have they actually issued you with a DN? If not, where are they getting this date of the 22nd from?

 

NO, NOR AN SAR! To cut a long story short, I've had letters headed:-

 

Sep 08 IMPORTANT DEFAULT NOTIFICATION - IT'S NOT too late blah blah

Nov 08 TAKE NOTE - IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THIS LETTER BY

THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER THEN YOU WILL LEAVE US NO CHOICE

BUT TO CONSIDER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

NOV 08 YOU MUST CALL NOW

Dec 08 WARNING

Dec 08 DON'T WASTE THIS OPPORTUNITY

 

I feel ready to go my local MP and the press !!!!!!!!!!!! DAVEY/STEVEN, WHERE ARE YOU

[AA99]

VS, if I end up taking this Bank (phew, bit my tongue there) it will be for far more than that. I'm taking 3 accounts with them! At the moment, they are ruining me and my families lives and I shall go back to the doctor again next week. Maybe you should have a look at my recent posts in my third thread as well:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/160558-aa99-mbna-account-1-a.html

[davey77]

Have you checked your Credit File lately (and contacted TS or CAB.)

[AA99]

Haven't checked within the last 2 months but last time I looked, nearly all my creditors have defaulted me!

This Account 1 is already with the ICO, since 22 December......

[Viscount Stair]

If you get more, you will have my applause.

 

The problem is that the level of PfHA damages seems to be surprisingly untested (outside the employment field). Did you see the article I posted and commented on in the Harassment by MBNA thread?

 

Even allowing for the fact that the barristers who wrote the article would be unlikely to get out of bed for even £3,000 worth of damages, I agree with what they say about likely level of damages being modest.