Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies I hadn't seen that uploads need to be in PDF.   I have received the attached letter from STA which I assume is a standard letter as I've never spoken to them on the phone. I'm not sure what they mean by 're-commence recovery action'? Do I just continue to ignore them?   I have been in contact with the Uni who insist I need to pay the fees as I left the course after the first three weeks. They have not provided any evidence/documents that I signed an agreement to pay the fees or that I acknowledged that fees would be due if the course was left early. They referred me to their website which undoubtedly has changed since I was there.    I appreciate I shouldn't reply to STA however I'm not sure how to proceed with this overall.   I've read the claim form page and I'm not clear if I can request a copy of a credit agreement from the Uni as I'm not sure if its standard for a University to have required a credit agreement to be signed?    I'm not really clear what happens next and at what point I need to act. I've read about lots of different cases (fee related and non fee related) but can't find information on a case that is similar to mine. Do I wait until the Uni begins a formal action? I am concerned as I don't want the amount to increase from the already significant amount they are demanding.     Many thanks for any help you can offer.  staletter.pdf
    • I have now received some interesting responses....   Firstly - Lowell have sent a without prejudice letter offering a settlement of £3750 for a single payment or £4000 payable in instalments of £50pcm   Second - Lowell also sent a previous letter with the copy of the agreement saying it was the one they filed to court in 2018.  However I have not yet had it acknowledged from the court that they received a certificate of service for this.    Third - The court wrote to me today from the proper officer stating a video hearing will be heard 14 May 2021.    Dealing with each one in tern, I see the court hasn't responded to my email asking them to strike out the claim on the basis that Lowell haven't adhered to the order and that I haven't received the original documents and have now set this hearing date.    I note Lowell are willing to take an offer which is of interest. However I am inclined on the costs issue and trying to 'get rid' of the matter as cost effective and expediently as possibly to make a counter offer (at what level I am not quite sure yet).    Is there a letter template to use to draft a settlement or something that I can use to start with?     In Lowell settlement letter they are claiming it is not statute barred and that a payment was made to them for £200.  I have tried to go through everything and all I can find with the help of Santander who were my bank at the time, is a payment of £200 paid to Lloyds, but this does not have a reference on it only a s/c and a/c number.    How best is it to proceed?   Court Order 22_02_2021.pdf Response to Order.pdf Offer Letter.pdf
    • yes I have conversed over email and sent them forms both in email and by royal mail, firstly with erudio, then they sent it to capquest, then it went back to erudio and now with shoosmiths for a few years now.   And yes they are well aware of my correct and current address, I have only ever moved once since the loan and that was before Erudio and it was all plain sailing with Saas/slc.
    • 2 days now and the insurers have done nothing - just making it much more stressful.  
    • Pretty sure you are correct its not by royal mail either they are well aware of you correct and current address? so I'd ignore them.   Did you converse by email previously?? And or send your forms via email? Or royal mail?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

MBNA debt bought by Link - don't know what to do - can anyone help please?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4161 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Massamum, I was wondering about you today, how spooky. Sorry to hear you've been unwell, hope it isn't anything too serious.

 

Unfortunately, I can't help you on your t&c's - but i'm sure pretty sure angry cat will be along shortly to help you out.:)

 

Take care of yourself

Joemay:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Joemay, it was serious enough to put me out of action for quite a while and then I needed an operation, still getting over it. I do hope someone can help me soon, I really need to move forward on this, was just about to fill out the complaint to Information Commissioners when I came across what I mentioned above.

 

How are you, I haven't had a chance to look at your thread - are they still leaving you alone? I do hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure someone will be along shortly. Hope your recovering well from the op.

 

I'm not bad starting battles with Natwest & Halifax, and yes haven't heard a thing from Link, looks as if they can't find what their looking for;)

 

Take care:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirming that site team aware-please hang on a bit.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Massamum I see you've got site team awareness so you'll get a better response than mine, but from what I've just read back.. you applied under s78 to Link and they've sent you a copy of an online application and t&c printouts which dont match.

 

In my mind that means they are in default of the s78, they have to show you the t&c as you would have seen them on the screen when you applied for the card to conform with s78 in my opinion.

 

If you selected PPI and that was a separate t&c then that should be included too afaik

 

As to enforceability, I'm afraid only the prescribed terms need to be on the form which contains the signature (in this case a "tick")

 

S.

Edited by the_shadow

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Joemay and also Martin.

 

Hi Shadow, thanks very much for your response. Sadly I think you are right about it being enforceable :Cry:

 

 

Link sent me a copy of the CCA but attached no terms and conditions whatsoever.

 

MBNA (original creditor) sent me a copy of CCA and new terms and conditions in response to an SAR. They omitted NOD and Termination Notice though.

 

I wrote back to both Link and MBNA requesting the omitted docs and giving them 21 days to reply. I heard from Link who are insistent they have fulfilled their obligations under s78 but have not heard from MBNA (who are well over the 21 days). As I’ve been unwell I haven’t gotten round to reporting them to the ICO yet but will have to get my act together soon and do so.

 

I have been looking through MBNA’s SAR papers today and the PPI and others charges make up about £3k so I think I will definitely try and reclaim that and try to make a full and final to Link, hopefully that will get them off my back. No idea how I go about doing this though.

 

 

I hope I’ve explained that alright, I’m not very good at getting things down clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Massamum,

 

Have you managed to figure out what to do with this one? If not maybe get one of the site team to point you in the direction of someone who'll be able to help.

 

Good luck massa:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Joemay, thanks for your message. Still unsure what to do about this. Can't work out if its best to ignore Link and MBNA or keep sending them letters reminding them of their obligations (which fall on deaf ears). Could anyone please advise on what my best course of action would be? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok pleae read this.

 

 

4. In order to prove its claim the Claimant must establish a number of matters. Firstly that there was an agreement between myself and Sainsburys Bank, secondly that such an agreement complied with the requirements of The Act (and all consequential regulations made thereunder) both at the date of inception and at all times thereafter. Thirdly it must establish that Sainsburys Bank complied with all of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”) in that it must show that it served a proper default notice upon myself prior to terminating the agreement and prior to commencing proceedings. Fourthly, if the Claimant was not Sainsburys Bank then it must establish that there was an “absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor” (S136 (1) Law of Property Act 1925). Fifthly that proper notice of any such assignment was given to the Defendant (S196 Law of Property Act 1925. Finally it must establish that the sums claimed are lawfully owing both at the date of the alleged assignment and at all other times.

 

Well imho they have got this all wrong.

 

THE DATES DO NOT ADD UP, BECAUSE HOW CAN THE NOA BE THE SAME AS THE END OF THE DEFAULT NOTICE.

 

So have you had a noa from the oc

 

So if the own the debt, it is just the outstanding in the default sum

Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

 

please do not take my word for anything please do your own research All that i make comments on are done in good faith and to the best of my knowledge

Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of question come up a lot, an assignment can be made on any date, but not before the notice of assignment.

 

It is when it become effective that is important, that is when you get the notice of assignment from one of the parties assignor or asignee. That is when in this case Link can start to hassle you for payment or take action in their own name. That is if the paperwork actually exists and the alleged assignment by deed is absolute.

 

The notice has to be acurate, however DCA's do omit dates or balances as they do get it wrong very often.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Link Financial have failed to send you every document as referred to in the original credit agreement;

Link Financial remain in default of your valid CCA Request.

 

Furthermore, Link Financial must provide to you documentary evidence proving that, they are legally entitled to pursue the alleged debt;

a notice of assignment from Link will not be sufficient, they must provide an original copy of the document of the purported sale.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks very much for all your replies. Lilly, that was a very useful read, would it be possible to let me know the case law this comes from please?

 

No NOA from OC, only from Link (at post #15).

 

MBNA sold the debt on before the date of remedy in the default notice and the DN is also dodgy (post #11).

 

Thanks also AC, I requested a copy of the deed of assignment from Link ages ago but they are refusing point blank to let me have a copy.

 

I have this morning received a response from Link to my letter requesting all of the documents referred to the in CCA, they have responded by sending the same terms and conditions as MBNA sent (i.e. the latest ones). They seem incapable of understanding the simplest of requests :mad:. What now???

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, thanks very much for all your replies. Lilly, that was a very useful read, would it be possible to let me know the case law this comes from please?

 

No NOA from OC, only from Link (at post #15).

 

MBNA sold the debt on before the date of remedy in the default notice and the DN is also dodgy (post #11).

 

Thanks also AC, I requested a copy of the deed of assignment from Link ages ago but they are refusing point blank to let me have a copy.

 

I have this morning received a response from Link to my letter requesting all of the documents referred to the in CCA, they have responded by sending the same terms and conditions as MBNA sent (i.e. the latest ones). They seem incapable of understanding the simplest of requests :mad:. What now???

Hi Massamum,

 

You can try sending this letter to whoever owns the debt at present.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of the origonal creditors current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act. You will also be aware that the Origonal Creditor, should not have asigned this alleged account to yourselves, while in clear dispute with them.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement.

In relation to what constitutes a “true copy”, please read the details below. In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required.

 

“The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.”

 

This breach of the agreement by yourselves, can be demonstrated as follows:

 

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable. I await a “True copy” of my agreement and would remind you again that, whilst the request has not been complied with, the default continues.

Below are the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in dispute and you remain in default.

  • You may not ask for payment against this account.
  • I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  • You may not add further interest or any charges to the account
  • You cannot register any data with a third party.
  • You cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  • You cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  • You cannot sell the account.

I am now granting to you a further 7 days to produce a true copy of any executable agreement. After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt. If you are insisting that the non enforceable reconstructed Application form with added Terms and Conditions that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi Massamum,

I've responded to you PM.

 

Have Link or MBNA sent a letter at all stating that the agreement has ended. My understanding is that if sold to a dca then the agreement has terminated - but I maybe wrong. Hopefully someone will confirm if it's the case.

 

Glad to hear everything has been quite for you with Link.

 

Hope you have recovered from you Op:)

 

Take care

Joemay

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...