MBNA now Experto Credite issue a statutory demand / **SD SET ASIDE**

[MandM]

OK Ron,

 

It might be worth you doing a bit of reading yourself now. Can you put a timeline together for those that will be coming on your thread - gives a single point of reference to start from i.e.>>>>>

 

1st January - DN issued (3 days short) - Post 23.

 

15th January - Letter from Varde claiming ownership of the debt - Post 31

 

Etc, etc.

You may want to do this in a seperate document and then cut and paste it into your thread so you can save it, update it and repost again periodically. Also keeps things clear in your mind as you're bound to have a few questions fired at you.

 

M

[Ron 2015]

Thanks M

 

I will do a time line and post it up soon.

 

Ron

[Ron 2015]

Quick update.

 

The court that Fairfax solictors has put on the sd does not deal with bankrupcy or insolvency.

 

I am going to ring the nearest court that does and ask what to do.

 

Ron

[MandM]

Quick update.

 

The court that Fairfax solictors has put on the sd does not deal with bankrupcy or insolvency.

 

I am going to ring the nearest court that does and ask what to do.

 

Ron

 

Well this gets more interesting by the minute!!! Makes you wonder how much of this is bluff and how much is truth.

 

M

[Ron 2015]

I have rung the right law court and thay have told me to take my set aside papers to them. Also even though Fairfax have quoted the wrong Law Court the SD is still valid! When you look at the HMCS site the page on the relevant court should say Bankrupcy , if it doesnt then you have to find the nearest court that does.

[MandM]

So you still need to do the sworn affid. I assume?

[Ron 2015]

Yes , I still need to do the affid , just in case this is not a bluff. If I did go Bankrupt all my creditors would only get a few hundred pounds each, if that after all the costs!

 

So I would actually be financially better off to get rid of it all and go bankrupt. My O/H does not want me to do this so here I am.

 

I still cant work out if its better to make the affid in general terms or very specific or both. I am tempted to do both.

 

Ron

Edited March 19, 2010 by Ron 2015
typo

[MandM]

Yes , I still need to do the affid , just in case this is not a bluff. If I did go Bankrupt all my creditors would only get a few hundred pounds each, if that after all the costs!

 

So I would actually be financially better off to get rid of it all and go bankrupt. My O/H does not want me to do this so here I am.

 

I still cant work out if its better to make the affid in general terms or very specific or both. I am tempted to do both.

 

Ron

 

As said before, let others get their mind around what's going on here and i'm sure you'll get some very valid suggestions to help you make your own mind up. Try not to worry Ron (easier for me to say, I know. But bear with it for a bit )

 

M

[pumpytums]

Hi Ron,

read some of the following links very helpful. And keep track of those costs.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230908-help-statutory-demand-costs-6.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/233954-statutory-demand-hbos-capital.html

 

You will win Ron, don't worry and you will get costs. Maybe this will teach them a lesson not to try the same rubbish again. Have you got all the SAR info for both accounts?

 

Pumpytums

[vint1954]

Hi Ron, thanks for the PM.

 

I am not up to date with SD's but I assume, and you must check this, that you must put in a defence against the SD, not just saying I don't owe the money.

 

Your agreement.

 

Your agreement is held by many to be a cut and paste and quite obviously looks so. These look as though they were never on the reverse of the document and the printing codes do not match.

 

The other fault with the T&C's is that they refer in section 8 to interest rates as a monthly percentage rate when it must be an anual rate of interest. The only APR's listed relate to Cash Advances. In addition the below comment posted previously, proves that the T&C's are bogus.

 

2. By the customer signature strip it mentions condition 11 on the T&Cs which says data protection. If you look at condition 11 on the T&Cs is says about promotional discounts! Is this enough to prove the T&Cs are not the ones I was given ?

 

Have a look here:

 

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/609-mbna-agreementsapplication-forms

 

Your Default Notice.

 

The DN is defective, as has previously been pointed out. They send these ukmail, second class and you must always quote deleivery as second class. So much better if you have the envelope.

 

9the October was a Friday, so date for service, second class, would be 15th October. Earliest date to rectify would be 29th October, so DN fails on this point. Also if they have demanded the ballance in full rather than arrears, then this also scuppers them.

 

They also refer to term 8f of your agreement in your DN, this term relates to APR's, further proving the terms are bogus.

 

As soon as they demanded the ballance in full, they unlawfully rescinded the agreement. I understand that you have accepted this. The agreement no longer endured.

 

They have also rescinded the agreement before the date of rectification, by selling it. Another no no.

 

There is plenty there to sink them, but I think you need professional advice and help, quoting the points above.

[Ron 2015]

Thanks Vint

 

All valid points.

 

Anyone know of any good solicitors in London ( south east ) that are familiar with credit.

 

If the site rules dont allow it ,them pm me the details.

[MandM]

This bit that Pumpytums dug out is pretty useful too>>

 

 

To successfully get a statutory demand set aside one or more of the following must be satisfied:-

• The amount stated on the statutory demand is disputed.
  
• The person issuing the statutory demand also owes money. This is called a counterclaim.
  
• The person issuing the statutory demand is holding security that equals or exceeds the amount owing.
  
• The demand was issued in error.
  
• The amount owing is less than £750
  
• Execution has been stayed on a judgement debt.
  
• The debtor is complying with an instalment order. This would mean the debt is not actually owed as it is being paid back.
  
• The creditor failed to comply with the rules and prejudiced the debtor in the process.
  

 

Hi vint

 

M

[Ron 2015]

Thanks M&M Pumpy and Vint

 

Well I not only dispute the amount , I dispute the whole debt. I do not owe Experto anything. I think its Varde that have taken assignment.

 

This is the problem.

 

If I go specific and show the D/N , LOA ect , It should clearly show that Experto are not the creditors.

 

If I go general terms then it might slip by the Judge.

 

Think I need a solicitor............

Edited March 19, 2010 by Ron 2015
typo

[hatesdebt]

If they took this to litigation/court, I think they may be in trouble as well.

Mbna say they sold the debt to experto, experto say it's owned by varde.

I don't think varde have a uk credit licence, so cant chase,so they use experto. But, experto don't own the debt so can't litigate.

 

Surely if this went to court, it could be struck out on the basis, of who actually owns the debt and has the right to litigate....

[vint1954]

Hi M&M,

 

Well point one is obvious and relevant. Point 2 also as if the UR letter was issued, there will be a counterclaim. Also the last point, the creditor failed to comply with the rules.

 

I thought that they had to get a CCJ first, before SD, unless you admit the debt.

[Ron 2015]

Hi Ron,

read some of the following links very helpful. And keep track of those costs.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230908-help-statutory-demand-costs-6.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/233954-statutory-demand-hbos-capital.html

 

You will win Ron, don't worry and you will get costs. Maybe this will teach them a lesson not to try the same rubbish again. Have you got all the SAR info for both accounts?

 

Pumpytums

 

I have SAR's for both up to Oct 2009. I requested both again recently but have not come yet. They sent me someone else's CCA , which I refered to the ICO , got the confirmation today.

 

I wanted recent SAR's to see what they say about assignment and default ect , to back up what I already have.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Ron 2015
typo

[vint1954]

Thanks M&M Pumpy and Vint

 

Well I not only dispute the amount , I dispute the whole debt. I do not owe Experto anything. I think its Varde that have taken assignment.

 

You actually don't owe them anything, if the agreement was unlawfully rescinded and you accepted it, to MBNA. The agreement no longer endured

 

This is the problem.

 

If I go specific and show the D/N , LOA ect , It should clearly show that Experto are not the creditors.

 

If I go general terms then it might slip by the Judge.

 

Think I need a solicitor............

Vint

[hatesdebt]

Hi M&M,

 

Well point one is obvious and relevant. Point 2 also as if the UR letter was issued, there will be a counterclaim. Also the last point, the creditor failed to comply with the rules.

 

I thought that they had to get a CCJ first, before SD, unless you admit the debt.

 

I think you can SD without a ccj

[Ron 2015]

Hatesdebt is correct. You can SD without a ccj. So its wide open to abuse.

Consumer Credit licences have been taken away in the past from DCA's abusing the process.

[hatesdebt]

Any comments on post #93 ron?

[Ron 2015]

If they took this to litigation/court, I think they may be in trouble as well.

Mbna say they sold the debt to experto, experto say it's owned by varde.

I don't think varde have a uk credit licence, so cant chase,so they use experto. But, experto don't own the debt so can't litigate.

 

Surely if this went to court, it could be struck out on the basis, of who actually owns the debt and has the right to litigate....

 

Hi Hatesdebt ( like you user id )

 

MBNA did not inform me of anything , they just sent a dodgy DN.

Experto sent me a letter saying that Varde has had the debt assigned to it.

If Varde have no CCL then they can't chase it ( so I am told).

I can't see why Varde can't litigate , whats to stop them?

[hatesdebt]

I think it's because they are classed as offshore, coupled with the fact of no uk licence, that's why they use experto. But as experto only have an equitable right, I don't think they can litigate.

 

I'm sure someone got taken to court by experto and it got thrown out on this basis, as they could not prove thier right to litigate....

 

PS.

Mbna should have sent you a notice of assignment, re experto

[Ron 2015]

I think it's because they are classed as offshore, coupled with the fact of no uk licence, that's why they use experto. But as experto only have an equitable right, I don't think they can litigate.

 

I'm sure someone got taken to court by experto and it got thrown out on this basis, as they could not prove thier right to litigate....

 

PS.

Mbna should have sent you a notice of assignment, re experto

 

Well that could be really useful , I like the logic.

 

I will look for the thread , If you remember where you saw it let me know.

 

Thanks ron

[hatesdebt]

Sorry Ron,

 

Can't remember where I saw this, I don't think it was on this site - but there is something similar here. Hang on......

[hatesdebt]

Here you go.......

 

....http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/238117-mbna-experto-credite-accounts.html