MBNA/Restons claimform - old A+L Card **WON+COSTS**

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya Fairbyblue im in now and will get that defence right now, sorry I was unable to do it earlier but as I said I was out at southsea paying my respects to the war veterans at the 65th D-DAY Anniversary.

 

IN THE PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT Claim No:

 

 

 

BETWEEN MBNA EUROPE BANK LTD Claimant

And

Defendant

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE OF BY ORDER OF DJ ELIZABETH MANUAL

 

 

1. I, , am the defendant in this case and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by MBNA Europe Bank Ltd.

 

2. I make this defence against the Claimants claim against me. Except where otherwise mentioned in this Defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. I make this Defence from information and facts within my own knowledge and which I believe to be true

 

4. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

5. The claimants' particulars of claim disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

b) A copy of the purported agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

c) No account number is contained within the particulars to enable me to identify the account on which this claim is brought.

 

6. The Defendant understands that with particulars of claim issued though Northampton county court bulk centre documents do not need to be attached, but they should still be forwarded to the defendant at the claimant’s earliest opportunity as this did not happen I put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

7. In all the circumstances the Defendant denies being indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.

 

 

The build up to this action

 

 

8. In the build up to this action, I had raised a formal dispute with Optima Legal Services Ltd the Solicitors acting for MBNA Europe Bank Ltd. On the 16th July 2008 the defendant sent a request under the Consumer Credit Act and Civil Procedure Rules part 18 for a true copy of the executed Credit Agreement, and a statement of account detailing the principal, and all charges and fees made in respect of the debt, the claimant received the request on the 17th July 2008 by special delivery I have no receipt for this delivery but the claimant has stated in their witness statements that it was received on this date.

 

9. I did not receive a response to this request until 30th July 2008, when I received a letter headed "Without Prejudice" that they were waiting for their clients to advise how soon the information could be provided.

 

The requested information was not received until 30th December 2008, which was 6 weeks after Optima Legal had applied for Summary Judgement and only 2 weeks before the Summary Judgement hearing on the 15th January 2009.

 

10. The Summary Judgement on the 15th January 2009 was adjourned until the 21st April 2009. This was due to the defendant's unfamiliarity with court procedures and not having supplied the claimant with a copy of the Witness Statement prior to the hearing, although the court had been provided with a copy. A copy of the defendant's Witness statement was handed to DJ Wilson at the court on the 15th January 2009. Bearing in mind I am a Litigant in Person, I would ask the court to accept my apologies for this error of court procedures

 

11. To date the claimant has failed to provide a true copy of the credit agreement. All that has been provided to the defendant is a copy of a pre-contractual application form that was taken from a Portsmouth FC match day brochure. This you can clearly see as it shows a scissor symbol at the top left hand corner. Furthermore, I fail to understand the reference to the Rankine case in their Witness statement where it states that the Defendant was supplied with 3 copies of the agreement. If this had been so, there would have been no requirement for the form to be cut.

The pre-contractual Application does not contain the prescribed terms. It does however refer to fees of £25.00 and an APR of 15.9%. No other terms and conditions were included. Attached to this Defence is a copy of the Pre- Contractual Application Form marked exhibit “LFC 1”

 

12. The terms and conditions the claimants have produced in court are the terms and conditions from 2007 where the office of fair trading reduced the fees to £12 and the APR on these terms and conditions is 24.9% so they cannot be the terms and conditions the Defendant is alleged to of signed to. Attached to this Defence is a copy of the Terms and Conditions from 2007 marked “LFC 2”

 

13. Furthermore the 2007 terms and conditions cannot be the agreement as the claimant stated in their witness statement, as they do not contain the signatures of the defendant or the claimant.

 

14. The Defendant also wishes to point out that payment protection insurance was paid every month often as much as £60 when payment protection insurance was not requested this is born out on the Pre-Contractual Application form where you will see the box was not signed to accept this. Furthermore the reason I did not request this was due to a previous medical condition namely a stroke I had in 1990.

 

15. The proof this was paid is on the copies of statements in the court bundle submitted to court

 

16.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s61 is explicit in that a regulated agreement is not executed unless the following is carried out

 

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed

terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the

prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the

creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than

implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for

signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

 

 

The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court

 

17. Firstly, I make reference to an excerpt of case law from the case of Wilson v Robertson’s (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch),

 

In Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the House of Lords explained that the 1974 Act was, like the Moneylenders Act 1927 before it, designed to tackle a significant social problem. The activities of some moneylenders have given the money lending business a bad reputation. Something had to be done to protect the borrower, who frequently, indeed normally, would be in a weak bargaining position. Protection of borrowers is the social policy behind the legislation. Part of that policy is to be achieved by setting stringent rules, which have to be complied with by the lender if his money lending agreement is to be enforceable. The strictness of the discipline imposed on lenders is illustrated by the following passage in the speech of Lord Nicholls:

 

18. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his right under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

 

19. The unattractive feature of this approach is that it will sometimes involve punishing the blameless pour encourager les autres. On its face, considered in the context of one particular case, a sanction having this effect is difficult to justify. The Moneylenders Act 1927 adopted a similarly severe approach. . . .

 

20. Despite criticism in the Crowther report I have no difficulty in accepting that in suitable instances it is open to Parliament, when Parliament considers the public interest so requires, deciding that failure to comply with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of certain types of agreements. This course is open to Parliament even though this will sometimes yield a seemingly unreasonable result in a particular case. Considered overall, this course may well be a proportionate response in practice to a perceived social problem. Parliament may consider the response should be a uniform solution across the board. A tailor-made response, fitting the facts of each case as decided in an application to the court, may not be appropriate. This may be considered an insufficient incentive and insufficient deterrent. And it may fail to protect consumers adequately. . . ."

 

21. The message clearly from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch), is that the Consumer Credit Act is clearly enacted to protect consumers such as myself and therefore the claimants failures to supply the information and their behavior in this matter should be noted accordingly giving consideration to the case law and the facts as set out within this defence.

 

22. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and whether it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met.

 

23. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

 

24. I would again respectfully submit that the debt is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 until such time as the claimant provides a true executed copy and/or the original agreement.

 

25. To that end I put the claimant to strict proof.

 

The Default Notice

 

 

26. On 16th April 2008 I received a letter from MBNA Europe Bank LTD. The letter was headed Default Notice served under section 87(1) Consumer Credit act 1974. The letter cannot be a valid default notice as it fails to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) in particular schedule (2) points 1-11 which set out the statutory form that a Default Notice must follow for it to comply with S87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. (A copy of the Original default notice is attached to this defence marked Exhibit “LFC 3”

 

The defendant will produce in court at trail on the 12th may 2009 the original Default Notice.

 

27. The Default Notice the Defendant produced in court on the 3rd March 2009 is a copy that differs from the original Default notice which is dated the 14th April 2008 and gives a date to rectify the breach of the 28th April 2008 they have clearly got the document wrong by not allowing time for service as I received it on the 16th April 2008 so that only allows 12 days and not the 14 days from service to defendant it states under the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1974.

 

87. Need for default notice

.

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,

 

(a) To terminate the agreement, or

 

(b) To demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© To recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) To treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) To enforce any security.

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the creditor from treating the right to draw upon any credit as restricted or deferred, and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.

 

(3) The doing of an act by which a floating charge becomes fixed is not enforcement of a security.

 

(4) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.

 

88. Contents and effect of default notice.

 

 

(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

 

(a) The nature of the alleged breach;

 

(b) If the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;

 

© If the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid.

 

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those 14 days have elapsed.

 

(3) The default notice must not treat as a breach failure to comply with a provision of the agreement which becomes operative only on breach of some other provision, but if the breach of that other provision is not duly remedied or compensation demanded under subsection (1) is not duly paid, or (where no requirement is made under subsection (1)) if the 14 days mentioned in subsection (2) have elapsed, the creditor or owner may treat the failure as a breach and section 87(1) shall not apply to it.

 

(4) The default notice must contain information in the prescribed terms about the consequences of failure to comply with it and any other prescribed matters relating to the agreement

.

(5) A default notice making a requirement under subsection (1) may include a provision for the taking of action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) at any time after the restriction imposed by subsection (2) will cease, together with a statement that the provision will be ineffective if the breach is duly remedied or the compensation duly paid.

 

The Copy produced in court has had the date altered to the 1st of May 2008 in order to persuade the court it was compliant. Attached to this Defence is a copy of the copy Default Notice marked exhibit “LFC 4”

 

28. The Original Default notice dated 14th April refers to clause 3 as having been breached, whereas the 2nd amended copy produced in court refers to clause 8. The defendant is therefore unsure which clause he is supposed to have breached. It is therefore both confusing and misleading. At worst there may be an offence committed.

 

29. The wording layout on the original Default Notice is different to that on the copy produced in court and put in the court bundle by Optima Legal Services Ltd.

 

30. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

31. As there is not a compliant Default notice in force it also raises the question whether a default should have been placed on the defendant’s credit reference file which is the case furthermore there is a question of damages caused to the defendant because of this.

 

32. I fail to see how they can make mistakes on a legal document and if they where genuinely unsure about their data it should have been stated this is not something they can make a best guess at as it has serious consequences. Furthermore if they did not keep an accurate copy of the default notice and had to make a guess they would have contravened the DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 in not keeping important documents relating to the account holder for the required amount of time.

33. I request to the court that an order be made that MBNA Europe Bank PLC have all references to defaults on the defendants reference file be removed.

 

34.This is clearly a contempt of court which is a very serious breach and as such I ask the court to strike out this case with costs awarded to the defendant.

 

35. The Defendant would like to point out that MBNA Europe Bank Ltd and Optima Legal Services Ltd have caused the Defendant Considerable stress and anxiety over the last 15 months due to their constant barrage of telephone calls and letters and then to try and railroad this claim though the courts abusing the courts processes and the consumer credit act 1974 and 1986 is totally unacceptable.

 

36. In light of the facts I have stated above I respectfully request that this case be struck out

 

37. The Defendant would like to draw the judge’s attention to CPR 44.14 and in light of the above facts deny the claimant their claim for costs.

 

38. In light of the above facts the claimant respectfully asks the judge to consider a damages award to the defendant.

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

 

Signed …………………………………..

 

 

 

Dated ……………………………………

Right there you go just copy and paste into your word program and edit to suit your needs.

 

Regards

 

PF

Edited June 6, 2009 by pompeyfaith

[fairbyblue]

Thanks, I'll have a tweak. For a defence is it a statemnt or just points with relevant case law higlighted to argue?

cheers

[pompeyfaith]

The above is my defence i sent in for hearing on the 15/06/2009

[pompeyfaith]

These are my DN which my defence refers to

 

 

 

Note the issue date is same on both

 

Regards

 

PF

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello FB!

 

Just fell over this Thread, and have read it from the start.

 

Most points have been covered I think, and you have been getting some good help.

 

I think it's pretty clear MBNA Terminated the Agreement shortly after the end of the 1st Default Notice. Indeed....maybe even before (see below)!

 

I also think they have been doing some deleting in their logs between 20/06/2008 and 19/09/2008...note all of those FRAUD notes. My guess is that FRAUD is one of the few options to over-ride that they have, i.e. that allows them to go in and edit the Log.

 

I think they have been covering something up. Perhaps they realised the Agreement had been Terminated on the back of the 1st defective Default Notice (or even before it), and have been trying to fix that via the 2nd one, but needed to get rid of some awkward bits in the Logs!

 

Anyway, I think the key that proves Termination is the fact that the Arrears do not change between the 1st Default Notice and the 2nd, indeed, as Atwozee pointed out at Post #434.

 

I think you can prove Termination if you can get hold of your Statements, and show the steady progression upwards of the Balance as MBNA charged you Fees and Interest.

 

I think the Statements will show a steady and logical increase that stopped at Arrears £1,601.39 that would tie in with a date around the 1st Default Notice (+/- a few days either side of it).

 

Being a Regulated Agreement, they would stop charging Interest when it was Terminated. Once Terminated, the Arrears stay Fixed and the Balance stays fixed. No more Interest can be added because there is then no live Regulated Agreement that allows it to be added.

 

They will assume that they can then enjoy the benefits of s87, and can ask you to pay future sums early, i.e. the Arrears already due plus the rest of the Balance.

 

At some stage they spotted the Default Notice issue, and realised they needed to issue a better one. Big problem, the Agreement had, by then, been ended, there were awkward entries in their Logs, and they had charged it off on 31/05/2008.

 

There's too much for them to fiddle there, as the figures and charge off will be set in stone on their system, so they can't fiddle that.

 

I think they elected to delete anything they could that you might be able to see, such as the Logs, and then they popped out a 2nd Default Notice to try and fix things. Indeed, do we even know when that 2nd Default Notice was issued? Did they send you a copy, sorry if I missed that if they did.

 

So, I think get a Spreadsheet, and plot the Statements and Interest etc, and then you can show approx the Date when it all came to a halt. That'll be Termination.

 

Knowing MBNA, I bet they came prematurely and went ahead with Charge Off even before the 1st Default Notice. I would not be at all surprised if the figures stopped going up in May! In that case, you may be able to show that Termination occurred before the 1st Default Notice, let alone the 2nd one.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[fairbyblue]

Thanks BRW.The interest does stop when you say at the end of May 08. So it looks like its terminated !!! There are payyments to the account between the notices yet the £1601.39 remains the same.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello FB!

 

If you look at the three Pages from their System, it looks like they have edited the 2nd Page, because the Dates go out of sequence.

 

i.e. all three Pages taken in sequence show a gradual increase in dates from 13/12/2007 to 25/09/2008. I think there may be a page missing between PAGE ONE and PAGE TWO, but it's probably not important.

 

But the bottom of Page 2, just after the SPECIAL FRAUD entries, the dates suddenly jump from 20/06/2008 to 20/09/2008, then end at 27/10/2008, before going back to 02/07/2008 at the top of the Third Page.

 

Maybe I'd better spell this out a little better, so here goes:

 

PAGE ONE

 

13/12/2007

13/12/2007

15/12/2007

09/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

21/01/2008

 

There's probably at least one Page missing here.

 

PAGE TWO

 

12/05/2008

12/05/2008

12/05/2008

23/05/2008

23/05/2008

31/05/2008

31/05/2008

18/06/2008 1st DN Sent (they could not delete this, obviously)!

20/06/2008 SPECIAL FRAUD VAR - edited from here!

20/06/2008 This part seems to have been edited!

20/06/2008 This part seems to have been edited!

20/06/2008 This part seems to have been edited!

20/09/2008 This part seems to have been edited! Date Changed?

20/09/2008 This part seems to have been edited! Date Changed?

27/10/2008 2nd DN Sent (edited along with Date Changed)!

 

PAGE THREE

 

02/07/2008 Note how dates are back in sequence from here.

02/07/2008

02/07/2008

02/07/2008

02/07/2008

02/07/2008

09/07/2008

10/07/2008 Short Settlement Offer sent

04/08/2008 If any Settlement Offers are greater than Arrears

02/09/2008 then this must surely confirm Termination

18/09/2008 IOW they are wanting you to pay something not yet due!

22/09/2008

22/09/2008

25/09/2008

25/09/2008

 

**The 2nd Default Notice should appear on PAGE FOUR (not seen), not at the bottom of PAGE TWO! **

 

It looks like someone has rushed back in, used what appears to be a SPECIAL FAUD over-ride option, have deleted a few comments, and have inserted what looks to be the highly dubious claim that they sent a 2nd Default Notice.

 

However, on PAGE THREE, they have left in Short Settlement Offers. I think they could be considered as confirmation of earlier Termination/Charge Off, if the amount they want you to pay is greater than the Arrears. The amount in excess of the Arrears is clearly sums not yet due, so they are asking you to pay an amount that, if the Agreement were live, you would not yet owe.

 

The Short Settlement options are not usually offered until an Agreement has been Terminated, that's because by then they are trying to wrap up what is, by then, a lump sum Debt, not a live and active Agreement made up of Arrears due, and sums not yet due.

 

The Short Settlement Offers pre-date the 2nd Default Notice, so I think that is further confirmation the Agreement was at an end well before the 2nd Default Notice was sent.

 

In Summary

 

It looks like you have clear evidence that they Charged Off the alleged Debt on 31/05/2008. MBNA have a habit of rushing ahead and getting things in the wrong order, so it is not surprising to see a Charge Off appearing ahead of the 1st Default Notice being issued.

 

Charge Off means they have entered the amount in their books as a loss against Tax. So, the figure should be in their Annual Accounts before end of May 2008, and before they even sent you a Default Notice. The Agreement was at an end in May 2008.

 

Then they sent the 1st Default Notice, which as we all know, and they helpfully accept, was defective!

 

Then they make Short Settlement Offers, confirming the Agreement has ended, because they are wanting you to pay a reduced amount on a larger balance, and that larger balance is made up of Arrears (sums due), and also sums not yet due if the Agreement was still live. The fact that they are wanting early payment of sums not yet due, confirms that by 10/07/2008 they regarded the Agreement as being at an end.

 

Then they spot at least one of their mistakes, and try to correct that by editing their Logs, deleting some entries, and inserting a new comment that suggests a 2nd Default Notice was sent on 27/10/2008. Even that overlooks the Charge Off on 31/05/2008, and the Short Settlement Offers that started from 10/07/2008.

 

To me, this looks more and more like FRAUD and I would contact the Financial Crime Branch of HM Treasury to bring this matter to their attention. They are the KGB/Gestapo of the Tax world, and have serious teeth. They will spoil MBNAs whole day if MBNA have a charge off entry in their Accounts dated 31/05/2008 and then they find the above edited entries in their logs thereafter.

 

Maybe contact the Police as well, and certainly bring all of this to the attention of the Judge.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 7, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Minor clarification.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello FB!

 

It looks like the MBNA Operator that has some explaining to do, has the ID CAEE9G!

 

Perhaps ask MBNA to please identify who that is, and then invite them to Court to explain the out of sequence 2nd Default Notice entry in their Logs, and why the entries for 20/06/2008 onwards were edited.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 7, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
TRIPE-O

[pompeyfaith]

Great work BRW as im in a similar situation i best check my logs although in my case the fraud is clear as day as they have not sent a 2nd DN but changed the first

[fairbyblue]

brilliant work brw. Thanks

[AA99]

Applause! Applause! Applause! Applause!

 

Lucky to have him fairbyblue

[Gazza112]

subbing with interest

[pompeyfaith]

its ok gaz no interest payable lol

[Gazza112]

lol.

[fairbyblue]

Right I'm doing the defence I just need a little advice.

 

Having already submitted 2 quite long witness statements (one actually went to 102 paragraphs) previously for SJ hearing, is the defence like an abridged version of statement with just main points on. So we can argue in court.

 

1. Faulty Dn then relevant case law

2. Evidence to show theat account terminated and point Judge in direction of documents to support

3. The faulty 2nd DN and relvant case law

[diddydicky]

DD, so would a letter from a solicitor that actually states in the letter THIS IS A FORMAL DEMAND for the £full balance, mean that the account has been terminated. I dont want to hijack FBs thread but think this is a relevant question. Thanks

 

well i'm no lawyer but as i understand it- if the solicitor is acting for the creditor then the creditor is bound by the words and deeds of his solicitor

acting on his behalf

 

further as far as i understand :-

 

ANY demand for the full amount owing by the owner of the debt is an admission that the agreement is terminated since this demand can ONLY ever be made upon terminating the contract

 

if the creditor alleges that the contract is not terminated and yet issues a demand for payment in full then as i see it, this in itself becomes a termination notice and if not pre-ceded by the relevant DN then the proverbial donkey is filleted!

 

( i stand to be corrected by someone with more organised brain cells!)

[diddydicky]

reading through BRW 's thread regarding the DN's

 

i would say that the second DN cannot be an attempt to issue a second correct DN since it was also dated 14 april

 

this is clearly either:-

 

an attempt to re create a document of which they had lost their copy (and in which case it should have made clear in their bundle whay and how this came about)

 

or

 

a deliberate attempt to alter a previously issued defective document

 

whether it would amount to fraud would be very difficult (and unwise) to suggest since it would be necessary to prove "Intent"

 

at the end of the day and in these circumstances when it could simply be blamed on a typo or a air headed clerk i would avoid any suggestion of fraud and let the judge read into it what he will

[citizenB]

well i'm no lawyer but as i understand it- if the solicitor is acting for the creditor then the creditor is bound by the words and deeds of his solicitor

acting on his behalf

 

further as far as i understand :-

 

ANY demand for the full amount owing by the owner of the debt is an admission that the agreement is terminated since this demand can ONLY ever be made upon terminating the contract

 

if the creditor alleges that the contract is not terminated and yet issues a demand for payment in full then as i see it, this in itself becomes a termination notice and if not pre-ceded by the relevant DN then the proverbial donkey is filleted!

 

( i stand to be corrected by someone with more organised brain cells!)

 

Thanks DD

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello DD!

 

reading through BRW 's thread regarding the DN's

 

i would say that the second DN cannot be an attempt to issue a second correct DN since it was also dated 14 april

 

I'm not sure where you got that from, the 2nd DN above is dated 27/10/2008. See this Post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170484-fairbyblue-mbna-restons-court-10.html#post2210402

 

Ah...maybe you were looking at Pomperfaith's Default Notices? i.e. this Post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170484-fairbyblue-mbna-restons-court-10.html#post2212496

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pompeyfaith]

Sorry to confuse matters here

 

PF

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello PF!

 

Sorry to confuse matters here

 

PF

 

No problem, just threw me for a minute as I thought I'd missed something there! I can see now what has happened, as DD has read your two and thought they were Fairyblue's.

 

All sorted now, and we can move on!

 

Hope all is well now, sorry again to hear about your Dad.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pompeyfaith]

BRW,

 

Yes things are now looking up for me, my hearing is this monday which will be a juicy case with what i have against them now so if i can get them off my back all well and ends well.

 

Regards

 

PF

[AA99]

subbing with interest pf

[pompeyfaith]

AA sorry to confuse again this is fairbyblues thread

 

PF

[diddydicky]

Hello PF!

 

 

 

No problem, just threw me for a minute as I thought I'd missed something there! I can see now what has happened, as DD has read your two and thought they were Fairyblue's.

 

All sorted now, and we can move on!

 

Hope all is well now, sorry again to hear about your Dad.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

 

ahhh i made an appointment with specsavers

 

clearly i SHOULD have made an appointment with braincellsavers!!

 

sorry for the confusion

 

(just testing to see if you were awake!)

 

they don't call me TF for nothing you know!!