Arrow (MBNA) v IGNM pt 2

[I've got no money]

As many caggers know I have received a summons from Arrow for an alleged MBNA credit card debt.

 

They applied to strike out the defence but following a hearing to day the application to strike out was dismissed by consent and I was given permission to file an amended defence in the terms of a draft amended defence that I already filed.

 

They've got 21days to file a reply and defence to my counterclaim and the case has now been transferred to a chancery county court.

 

I'm now waiting for their reply and defence.

 

The strike out thread is here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191754-arrow-global-ignm.html

Edited August 18, 2009 by citizenB

[I've got no money]

IN THE

XXXXXXX COUNTY COURT -------------------------------------------------------CLAIM NO:

On Transfer from the

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

 

BETWEEN

 

 

ARROW GLOBAL LLC

 

 

CLAIMANT

 

 

And

 

 

 

 

 

IGNM

 

 

DEFENDANT

 

 

 

 

 

Amended DEFENCE and Counterclaim pursuant to the Order of District Judge made the 2009

 

 

 

 

1. The Defendant avers that the Claimant had previously brought Proceedings in the Northampton County Court in respect of this matter. Those Proceedings were discontinued by the Claimant. The Defendant avers that these present proceedings are a nullity until the Permission of the Court is given for them to be commenced.

2. If, which is not admitted, Permission to issue these Proceedings has bee granted the Defendant responds to the Claim as hereinafter set out.

3. The Defendant admits that he signed a document provided by MBNA Europe Bank Limited. It is Not admitted that the Defendant signed an agreement with MBNA Europe Bank Limited.

4. It is admitted that, in the sense that the Defendant applied for and was given a credit card that there was an agreement between the Defendant and MBNA Europe Bank Limited. The Defendant does not admit that such agreement was reduced to writing. The Precise terms and date of any such agreement are not admitted. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the date and terms of such agreement and is put to strict proof that a written agreement is in existence.

5. It is averred that the agreement was a regulated agreement within the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). It is denied that the Agreement is enforceable within the terms of the Act in that the Defendant avers that the agreement alleged by the Claimant does not contain the Statutory Particulars as to payment, rate of interest and calculation of credit limit. It is further averred that the alleged agreement is defective in that it is not executed by or upon behalf of MBNA Europe Bank Limited.

6. If, which is not admitted, there is a written agreement in existence it is, for the reasons set out at paragraph 3 above, denied that such agreement is enforceable. The claimant is put to strict proof of the terms and conditions thereof

7. Further and in the alternative It is averred that a copy of the documentation signed by the Defendant was not provided to him at the point of signature and that, which is not admitted, if this document was the agreement it was therefore improperly executed and in respect thereof may only be enforced with leave of the Court.

8. The Defendant did not, until after the issue of these proceedings, receive a copy of the document that he had signed. Further the Defendant recalls receiving a credit card following on from the completion of the application form. The Defendant does not recall being provided with, at that juncture, any documentation containing any alleged terms and conditions. A copy of the document signed by the Defendant was not provided. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such terms and conditions were so supplied.

9. The Defendant avers that before Proceedings may be commenced that the Claimant must serve the Defendant with a Default Notice complying with the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act.

10. The Defendant denies that the Notice upon which the Claimant seeks to rely was a notice complying with the Act in that it contained inaccurate information as to the account number, was inaccurate as to the precise amount claimed and failed to provide the Statutory 7 days from date of Service for remedy of the alleged breach. The Defendant therefore avers that the Notice was fatally flawed and therefore invalid.

11.In consequence of the service of an invalid Default Notice the Defendant avers that the claim is fatally flawed.

12.The Defendant avers that it is further incumbent upon the Claimant to serve a Termination Notice before any proceedings are commenced. The Defendant does not admit service of a valid Termination Notice. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the service, content and validity thereof.

13. It is not admitted that the aforesaid alleged agreement was lawfully assigned to the Claimant. The Defendant has not been permitted to inspect the alleged Assignment and has therefore been unable to satisfy himself as to its validity. Consequently that issue is outside the knowledge of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a Lawful Assignment took place.

14.If, which is not admitted, a lawful assignment to the Claimant did occur it is denied that the notice required by the Law of Property Act 1925 was served upon the Defendant. It is averred that the notice upon which the Claimant relies was defective in that the sums referred to by the said notice as being owing under the alleged agreement were inaccurate thereby rendering the whole notice invalid. Further and in any event the Defendant avers that the Notice referred to an account with a different number to that allegedly assigned to the Claimant and consequently is in any event a nullity.

15. Further and in the alternative if, which is not admitted, an enforceable agreement is in existence it is not admitted that any or all of the monies claimed are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how those sums are lawfully owing.

16.Further it is denied that both the alleged contractual interest and the alleged contractual account charges which have been claimed are lawfully owing in that it is averred that not only is there no contractual basis for the sums claimed but also that the sums claimed are in any event unfair and in breach of the general law.

17. The Defendant avers that in any event the account charges claimed are in breach of the common law in that they are penal in nature in that they do not reflect any actual loss or the true extent of any costs incurred by the claimantand are therefore void.

18. Further and in any event The Defendant avers that the clause of the alleged agreement under which the account charges are claimed is an Unfair Term , contrary to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and by virtue of Regulation 8 (2) of those regulations “shall not be binding on the consumer”. Such contractual terms are therefore void.

19.In any event and pursuant to the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 the claim for interest pursuant to Section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 is denied

20. In view of the foregoing it is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

Counterclaim

1. The Defendant repeats his Defence

2. In consequence of the issue of the defective Default Notice registered by the Claimant as a Credit Default the Defendant has suffered injury to credit.

3. The Defendant claims general damages limited to £10000

4. The Defendant claims interest thereon pursuant to the S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the Court shall determine

5. Further and in any event The Defendant seeks a declaration pursuant to S142 (1)(b) Consumer Credit Act 1974 that, in accordance with S127 (3) and S61(1) of that Act that the aforesaid agreement is unenforceable.

6. Costs

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this amended defence are true.

I am the Defendant.

 

 

]IGNM

Amended this day of 2009

 

 

 

I know that it is NOT perfect and that it should not be relied upon as a correct and complete statement of the law but it seemed to do the trick.

Edited May 6, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

I've just done them a Part 36 offer and offered - dismiss claim and counterclaim and no order as to costs.

 

I know that it sounds like I'm wimping out a bit but I really can't be doing with the stress and of cause the outcome of litigation is never certain - so if at all possible I want to knock it on the head now

 

We'll see what their response (if any is)

Edited May 6, 2009 by I've got no money

[I've got no money]

My skeleton - a joint effort between me and some helpful caggers

 

I know that my skeleton is NOT perfect and should NOT be taken to be a complete and accurate statement of law but it worked.

CAG Skeleton.doc

Edited May 6, 2009 by I've got no money

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello IGNM!

 

Just a speed read:

 

I think " its' " may be valid Grammar, but it looks odd and catches the eye, maybe just change that to "its"?

 

Para 2:

 

...at such a late stage.

 

Para 7:

 

I think Defendant needs to be changed to Claimant x2.

 

Space after (The Act) before full stop needs to be deleted.

 

Para 8:

 

Needs a close bracket after the 2nd Law of Property Act 1925).

 

Para 10:

 

Extra space needs to be taken out " Credit Agreement".

 

Space needed after comma after the word MBNA... "MBNA,it refers"

 

2nd Defendant needs a Capital...defendant.

 

Extra space to delete..."construed as (here) not being an agreement"

 

Para 13:

 

Extra space after "unenforceable,"

 

Para 22:

 

Upper case for default notice?

 

Para 25:

 

Extra full stop after 25..

 

Possible extra word days after breach "breach days"

 

Para 30:

 

Upper case for default notice?

 

Para 31:

 

Also mention s76(6) as well as 98(6)?

 

Para 32:

 

Perhaps change to Termination notice being unlawful, rather than invalid? i.e. they can Terminate even when in the wrong.

 

Para 34:

 

Extra space after "otherwise,"

 

"assignment"...Assignment?

 

Para 35:

 

"assignment"...Assignment? x5

 

Para 36:

 

Extra space after "debtor."

 

"assignment"...Assignment? x2

 

Para 37:

 

"assignment"...Assignment? x2

 

Para 38:

 

"assignment"...Assignment?

 

Para 39:

 

"assignment"...Assignment? x3

 

The end seems to tail off and may be missing a word or two.

 

Para 40:

 

Maybe add a comma when large £ values quoted:

 

£4,158.74

 

Para 44:

 

Same as above:

 

£10,928.84

 

Para 48:

 

"assignment"...Assignment? x2

 

Para 49:

 

"notice of assignment"...Notice of Assignment?

 

Para 50:

 

Wording is a little hard to understand, maybe re-draft a little?

 

Para 51:

 

"assigned"...Assigned? maybe not.

 

Para 52:

 

Extra spaces after "denied." and "Paragraph 2(3)(a) (here) of the order"

 

Para 53:

 

Needs a full stop at the end.

 

Para 54:

 

"default notice"...Default Notice.

 

Para 58:

 

"Defendant's Costs"

 

 

Some is pedantic, the word assignment may be OK in places...but all the above is intended to help not criticise.

 

Otherwise, looks good.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[I've got no money]

Cheers BRW - what I might do - when I get time is sit down and go through and correct it and turn it into a standard document to use in strike outs

[citizenB]

Looks prety good to me IGNM:D

 

BTW, can you please tell me why your amended defence is underlined througout ?

[citizenB]

Para 35.. The Defendant 'assets' that he is entitled to inspect. Should that be "asserts" ?.

[I've got no money]

Looks prety good to me IGNM:D

 

BTW, can you please tell me why your amended defence is underlined througout ?

 

It's not all underlined is it - when I first filed a defence it was a basic holding defence. Any additions to the original defence are underlined to show that they are the amendments. If you look carefully you should see bits which aren't underlined - they're the original defence - I know there's not much but it is there

[citizenB]

It's not all underlined is it - when I first filed a defence it was a basic holding defence. Any additions to the original defence are underlined to show that they are the amendments. If you look carefully you should see bits which aren't underlined - they're the original defence - I know there's not much but it is there

 

 

Ah, right thanks I understand now. Yes, I can see now, it isnt all underlined.

[I've got no money]

Well they've declined my Part 36 offer and told me that they are going to take the case to trial...this is going to be fun...its' a long time between now and a trial date...

[citizenB]

So, have you filed your amended defence and when will their 21 days to respond be up ?.

 

[I've got no money]

Service of the amended defence was dispensed with - their defence arrived today...my scanner is poorly but I'll get it sorted and upload it in the next couple of days - their defence says very little

 

So I've decided on a part 18 request for further particulars of the claim - I'm gonna get that done and off tomorrow

 

By the way I need to get an updated credit reference report - anyone got any suggestions as to the cheapest way to do it

[I've got no money]

The next stage will be AQ's

[I've got no money]

I got my scanner to work...somebody had unplugged it

 

Their defence to my counterclaim and the request for further information I'm going to send tomorrow

 

Any comments, as usual, would be appreciated

ArrowDefPt20.pdf

Request for FurtherParticsof the Claim.doc

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello IGNM!

 

By the way I need to get an updated credit reference report - anyone got any suggestions as to the cheapest way to do it

You can send off for the £2 Statutory Credit Report, they have to send that back in, I think, 7 days. But don't quote me!

 

However, that is the best value, and probably costs the CRA vermin a lot more than the £2 it costs you.

 

It's also very comprehensive, and you can avoid having to jump through the silly hoops they require for on-line access, i.e. silly hoops that are really designed to tease out as much information about you as they can get. Silly games like sending you a special code for web access via Royal Mail...that not only takes longer than getting a £2 Statutory Report, but it stops the real purpose and that's them checking delivery to your address via the Web Code Letter etc.

 

Nothing the CRAs do is for the Consumer's benefit, so I'd say go for £2 Statutory Reports, and send one to each CRA. Then do it again every Month or so while things are changing during battles.

 

All CRAs have to offer this, but they will hide it on the public access areas of their Web Site, so you may have to dig. Or just send them a letter via Special Delivery along with a £2 Postal Order, and sit back and wait. Most will try some guff to say you must verify something, so be prepared for the usual nauseating CRA Data Harvesting games.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited May 27, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Can't type nauseating, let alone spell the blurdy word!

[citizenB]

Crikey IGNM, those are really both short and sweet.

 

I dont have enough knowledge to offer comments on either.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello IGNM!

 

Their defence to my counterclaim and the request for further information I'm going to send tomorrow

 

Any comments, as usual, would be appreciated

 

First glance, looks OK. Had a long day, so may have a better look in the cold light of day Tomorrow.

 

One issue that might be worth mentioning...did MBNA Securitise the alleged Debt! Perhaps add in a little poison pill to put them on the spot, i.e. did MBNA actually own the Debt before they sold it, and what have the DCA pond life actually bought.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pt2537]

ah ha IGNM, i see you are havin some fun with Arrow Global LLC, are Copes their lawyers in this case?

 

the reason i ask is a "friend" was in court against them today and his counsel, Mr Turner who happened to do Dimond and Lovell in the House of Lords gave them a wee bit of a bloody nose. there were a lot of defects in their claim and i was wondering if you had the same problems my mate had so to speak

[mandyjayne]

Hi IGMN..

 

Following with interest here..being another Arrow hater!!

 

If its any help i have just done my credit check with Experian - they charge £6.99 but thats after 30 days.. you can cancel within that 30 days at anytime...which then makes it free.

 

MJ:)

[noomill060]

Mandy- you can get your credit report for £2. I'll post the link later

[I've got no money]

ah ha IGNM, i see you are havin some fun with Arrow Global LLC, are Copes their lawyers in this case?

 

the reason i ask is a "friend" was in court against them today and his counsel, Mr Turner who happened to do Dimond and Lovell in the House of Lords gave them a wee bit of a bloody nose. there were a lot of defects in their claim and i was wondering if you had the same problems my mate had so to speak

 

This lot are Mortimer Clarke

 

Their claim is less than perfect shall we say...

 

I'll attach a copy of the claim.

ArrowClaim.pdf

[I've got no money]

Hello IGNM!

 

 

 

First glance, looks OK. Had a long day, so may have a better look in the cold light of day Tomorrow.

 

One issue that might be worth mentioning...did MBNA Securitise the alleged Debt! Perhaps add in a little poison pill to put them on the spot, i.e. did MBNA actually own the Debt before they sold it, and what have the DCA pond life actually bought.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

That is an excellent idea - I'm going to amend it now

[r&b]

IGNM i dont know if ur bothered but uve left the bar code on the claim form...

(following with interest, probs with this mob myself...)

[I've got no money]

IGNM i dont know if ur bothered but uve left the bar code on the claim form...

(following with interest, probs with this mob myself...)

 

I'm not really bothered to be honest - they can work out who I am from the info I've posted.

 

Something I've found rather interesting from reading the threads is the number of different Solicitors they use....

 

Mortimer Clarke

Coles

Weightmans

 

etc...