MBNA and Aegis - No CCA received!

[ifoughtthelaw]

Hi Exchange

 

Yes your last one is the same letter as we have had - just puts a restriction on your account and notifies you of the account default - not the same as a proper default.

 

Looks like they don't have an actual copy of your agreement and once again are hiding behind what they can omit sending you and claiming compliance with Section 78 of the CCA, rather than just sending a first hand copy of an original agreement. Seems to be an awful lot of trouble to go to omit all the details rather than just copy. A lot of lenders are taking this approach - more of what we DON'T have to send you letters are appearing on here.

 

I wonder why that is? !!!!! They don't have it I would say!

 

Am I right in thinking that they eventually have to take an original copy to Court anyway?

 

Anyone comment please?

[exchange]

I believe they have to take an original copy to court.

My situation makes there life more difficult (I think) in that I am in the EU but not UK so they cannot go to court in the UK but would need to try the new EOP (European Order for Payment) or give up!

[exchange]

Got a couple of calls to my mobile yesterday showing as 'private number'. I answered the second time and it was someone from MBNA. I hung up so he called back and left a message asking me to call him which I will not do. So, Aegis have given up I take it and MBNA will no doubt now bombard me with calls. I log all calls but how can I prove one marked private number is from MBNA?

[exchange]

Bit confused as I did get a call from RMA but only one!

[exchange]

alleged agreement.pdf

 

Finally got my first of two application forms from MBNA. It looks familiar as I am sure I have seen much the same on other threads.

The T&C's have the table showing what your APR is depending on your credit limit if it is £1000, £3000 or £5000 but does not quote a rate for my credit limit.

Anybody confirm if it is enforceable or otherwise?

[exchange]

bumping

[exchange]

Anybody got an opinion on this agreement?

[exchange]

bumping again.

[basa48]

The way it is presented it looks as though you might struggle to get that declared unenforceable. Sorry.

 

The only thing I can see is there is no mention of default charges when MBNA clearly have made default charges and there is some question as to how they quote the interest rate and APR in table form. The question being that if the credit limit you have is not exactly one of the amounts shown on the table the interest and APR for the credit you have are not actually stated.

 

But it is not something I would take them to court over.

[Elgrand]

Hi Exchange,

 

IMO Looks like the date code on their terms are from 98, but i cannot see anything to link the two pages.

Do you remember what the original credit limit was, if it is not 1, 3 or 5k that has some significance.

 

I'm sure you have looked around at other MBNA threads, if you have not looked at mine, take a peek if you get time.

Elgrand vs MBNA

 

Ifoughtthelaw, has been giving you some good advice and i too have had dealings with AEGIS.

I completley ignored them.

I had a couple of conversations and they just talk total rubbish.

I have had dealings with RMA through my AMEX thread and they are no different.

 

Might be worth doing a SAR, as I have just done. They have only supplied me with 6 years statements and now i'm going to take them to task over the amount they claim to be outstanding.

 

Good luck, and i hope i have not waffled on too much.

 

Elg.

[basa48]

Hi Exchange,

 

.............., but i cannot see anything to link the two pages.

 

Elg.

 

I think we are suppposed to assume these are two sides of the same piece of paper. Difficult to prove otherwise.

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Hi have you looked at this link http://www.consumerforums.com/resour...lication-forms ? It's a collection of MBNA forms and their failings complied by citizenB

 

 

Stolen from my thread

kindly donated by cymruambyth

 

GK

[Elgrand]

Yes basa, we are supposed to assume that the second page is the reverse side, but it has to be linked in some way.

The reference numbers as i see, do not link them.

 

It is a poor copy of the agreement and i cannot make out if there is any reference to the allegded reverse page apart from the codes, that IMO do not match.

 

That is just my opinion and i would be happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

And as GK has just pointed out as i write this, there is a collection of agreements available to view and mine is included, year 2000

[exchange]

Thanks for all the responses. The supposed reverse page is suspicious in my opinion as it would have left a large area of blank paper on the reverse. I would consider it improbable that any company would not use the space for advertising or their details, etc. I did attach some T&C's that were sent to me before receiving the application but they have no obvious connection to the application and consist of 4 pages anyway so could not have been on the reverse. Therefore as they could not have been within the four corners of the agreement does this not help?

[Elgrand]

exchange,

The space that was left on my alledged reverse page was made up with a return address, prepaid envelope and it has been stated that they would not have had that on the back of an application.

[exchange]

Thanks to GK as I have now checked out the agreements already posted and there is reference in my paperwork to clauses in the T&C's which do not exist!

This makes me more confident in fighting on against them as the paperwork they have produced does not tie together.

I am in dispute with four different CCC's and all of them are messing up on default notices and procedures so I have no doubt that I should carry this through to the end.

Thanks to all on this site who have contributed so far, without whom I would have been clueless!

[Reader]

Hi Exchange subbing your thread with interest. It really is a minefield trying to see whether or not these applications are enforceable it's giving me a headache!

 

 

 

[exchange]

Hi Reader, I am subbed to one of your threads too. I know what you mean. It is a bit of a rollercoaster ride when you think maybe the game is up because an agreement looks enforceable but then you dig deeper and it becomes obvious that the CCC have screwed up yet again!

If the ones at the top of the CCC organisations are not getting the chop I would ask why?

The cynical side of me thinks they would get some huge payoff on leaving anyway so they never lose.

[basa48]

Yes basa, we are supposed to assume that the second page is the reverse side, but it has to be linked in some way.

The reference numbers as i see, do not link them.

 

It is a poor copy of the agreement and i cannot make out if there is any reference to the allegded reverse page apart from the codes, that IMO do not match.

 

That is just my opinion and i would be happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

And as GK has just pointed out as i write this, there is a collection of agreements available to view and mine is included, year 2000

 

This is a minefield .... if the two pages as presented are just copies of two sides of one page it is a good agreement. There doesn't have to be a visible link in that case as they are in fact one sheet of paper. Could you prove otherwise in court??

 

Exchange:-

 

Do take a closer look at the first paragraph on page 2 that clearly references the T&Cs where the particulars you believe are missing are located.

 

In any event the 'missing' particulars are not fatal to the agreement.

[exchange]

Hi basa48, I take it you are referring to there opening statement where they say 'Set out in paragraphs 1-12....'. In post 23 I attached a copy of the supposed agreement/terms and conditions and there is no condition 9.4, 10.5, 10.6, 9.1, 8.11 or 14.1. Condition 14 is in fact a list of definitions when they are talking about charges on cheque transactions. It might not be fatal in your opinion that there is no relationship between the documents but I cannot see how I am supposed to know what conditions I have 'agreed' to if nothing matches up between different documents. It looks to me as if the T&C's they sent previously are the wrong ones. I appreciate everybodies responses but the more I read the more holes I see in what has been sent to me.

[Elgrand]

This is a minefield .... A minefield, totally agree.if the two pages as presented are just copies of two sides of one page it is a good agreement. IF, agree although i think unlikely,. There doesn't have to be a visible link in that case as they are in fact one sheet of paper. Could you prove otherwise in court??would they not have to prove otherwise in court to enforce??.

This is only my opinion and i am happy to be corrected,

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Hi Exchange subbing your thread with interest. It really is a minefield trying to see whether or not these applications are enforceable it's giving me a headache!

 

 

 

 

 

I think you should put a claim in then.

 

 

Any good solicitors about?

 

GK:smile:

[exchange]

Thanks for your responses Elgrand. I do not think the two sides can be proved to be related but what is to stop MBNA copying both sides on to one sheet of paper and saying it is a true copy of what they gave me? There are no default charges mentioned in the last documents sent but they are shown in the T&C's sent previously and state £12, not the £25 or more that it would have been. As the agreement is from 1998 these are current T&C's not related to the application just sent to me. This is why nothing correlates. They have not sent me the correct T&C's from the time. I should have spotted it before but obviously I was not concentrating on the detail enough. Any suggestions on my next course of action? I am inclined to let them trip over themselves further rather than initiate any action yet.

[Elgrand]

Just a quick response exchange.

 

Have you sent a SAR, you will get another shot of what they have by way of an agreement/application.

[exchange]

No Elgrand, I haven't SAR'd them but did go the CPR 31.16 route without a response to date to that, at least they do not refer to that request in any response so far.