AK Claimform - MBNA card 'debt'

[MeeBroke]

Well it was good enough to stop them getting Summary Judgment and you attaing victory at the hearing....which most claimants get 99.9% on application.Perhaps share your several page defence here with others MB.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy

 

I'm still facing a Summary Judgement hearing. I've just been given some additional time to amend my defence.

 

I'll eventually share all.

 

MB

[AndyOrch]

Please do MB Im not familiar with adjourned Summary Judgment hearings...they either succeed or they lose and as the DJ as allowed you to now submit a fully particularised defence ( which is normal if the claimants application fails) I think you may have misunderstood the process.

 

Therefore your initial defence was very successful.

 

Andy

[MeeBroke]

Please do MB Im not familiar with adjourned Summary Judgment hearings...they either succeed or they lose and as the DJ as allowed you to now submit a fully particularised defence ( which is normal if the claimants application fails) I think you may have misunderstood the process.

 

Therefore your initial defence was very successful.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy

 

My solicitor knew my original Defence would fail, so he petitioned the Claimant's solicitor to allow him time to amend. The Claimant has agreed to give us more time and the DJ has seen my original Defence and granted an adjournment to a later date. The next step is to submit the Defence to the Claimant. My understanding of what follows is:

 

The Claimant will then decide to either allow my new Defence to be submitted, in which case we have to apply to the Court to get it changed or if they refuse we will launch an appeal to the Court to allow my amended Defence.

 

Of course, the Claimant upon receiving my amended Defence will be in a position to choose whether to pursue the SJ, drop the SJ and proceed to trial or even stop action.

 

MB

[AndyOrch]

With you now so its your side that pushed for the adjournment as opposed to submitting a particularised WS that should have served to stop the SJ

 

Many thanks and look forward to viewing his particularised defence.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Of course if you had of expanded within your WS you may not have needed to submit a particularised defence until after SJ hearing (assuming they failed to attain)...and therefore saving on costs

[MeeBroke]

Update:

 

Solicitor submitted my amended defence and AK's solicitor dropped off the map- suddenly stopped communicating for a month. No returned phone calls, emails or letters from my solicitor.

 

Today they have been in touch notify me AK has dropped the SJ action. Not sure what'll happen next, waiting to hear from solicitor.

 

MB

[citizenB]

ooh, well that is good news, meebroke

[MeeBroke]

Quick check in to say there has been no real movement. After the SJ was abandoned, AK's solicitor requested another negotiation. My solicitor made them an offer on my behalf, considerably more than previous. This was rejected outright and their solicitor again made no attempt to negotiate but demands what they consider to be the full balance. They are not willing to discuss taking one pound off of the amount they suggest is owing.

 

That was a couple of months ago and we have heard nothing. My solicitor wrote to the Court this week to find out what is actually going on. Nothing on that yet.

 

This has been an on-going battle for 5 years now. I have maintained a perfect credit score otherwise.

 

Wonder if Durkin can be used in my case-my credit rating has been destroyed for 5 years on an agreement that was unlawfully rescinded, with a defective DN.

 

MB

[citizenB]

[/color]

Quick check in to say there has been no real movement. After the SJ was abandoned, AK's solicitor requested another negotiation. My solicitor made them an offer on my behalf, considerably more than previous. This was rejected outright and their solicitor again made no attempt to negotiate but demands what they consider to be the full balance. They are not willing to discuss taking one pound off of the amount they suggest is owing.

 

That was a couple of months ago and we have heard nothing. My solicitor wrote to the Court this week to find out what is actually going on. Nothing on that yet.

 

This has been an on-going battle for 5 years now. I have maintained a perfect credit score otherwise.

 

Wonder if Durkin can be used in my case-my credit rating has been destroyed for 5 years on an agreement that was unlawfully rescinded, with a defective DN.

 

MB

 

Something worth investigating I suppose !

 

It seems a bit odd that they are not prepared to accept an offer in order to put an end to this - especially as it looks as though they dont have a way forward with the court process ?

[MeeBroke]

[/color]

 

Something worth investigating I suppose !

 

It seems a bit odd that they are not prepared to accept an offer in order to put an end to this - especially as it looks as though they dont have a way forward with the court process ?

 

It really is frustrating. They keep saying they want to 'negotiate' but when I make any offer they refuse it and instead demand the full amount they claim is owing.

 

I have had the worst luck on this issue as, in the whole of the five years, noone has ever offered to negotiate or reduce by one penny.

 

Yet, when they saw the strength of my case, they quit the SJ immediately.

[MeeBroke]

Update:

 

Well, AK/Chivers have managed to drag this right out. We've been locked in a stalemate for a while. I offered them a tiny settlement, they rejected. I offered them 10%, they rejected. I offered them 30%, they rejected. I offered them 50%, they rejected. I offered them 75%, they rejected. We have finally agreed a settlement figure around the 80% mark.

 

However, all of my offers have been with the stipulation that they remove all record of this from my credit score. No that we have agreed a figure, they refuse to remove it. They have cited that the ICO will not allow them to remove it. I rang the ICO office and they laughed and said there is no reason whatsoever that any lender cannot remove a mark on a credit file at any time. I asked them to put that in writing, which they did. I forwarded the letter from the ICO to AK/Chivers (via my solicitor).

 

Guess what? They still refuse.

 

I've been trying to settle this for almost an entire year.

 

It's coming up to 5 YEARS that I have been trying to sort this out. MB

[Old Cogger]

Chivers = Duncan Brown?

[MeeBroke]

Chivers = Duncan Brown?

 

Yep.

[Old Cogger]

Yep.

 

 

Ignorant Git he is, mind you a call can be made to him late at night and he answers, = Mr Skuba Instructor is his hobby, his A.K. contact usually is Steve Glassborrow!

[MeeBroke]

Agreed.

 

I still believe that I have a solid defence. But for anyone reading this thread I would caution you:

 

Even if you have a really solid case like mine, I'd give some very serious consideration as to whether or not you can live with all of this for many, many years. If I could do it all again, I would abandon my principles, pay up and move on. Life is too short and this has really taken its toll on me over the years.

 

They've broken me, I just want it to be over. MB

[Dotty50]

Hi MeeBroke what is your solicitor doing about it?

 

Surely, if the agreement of payment was on the basis of removing information on your credit file and they have reneged, then I would have thought that your offer no longer stands.

 

Did you ever have written confirmation that they would remove it or was it just in your correspondence to them in which you stipulated it?

[MeeBroke]

Hi MeeBroke what is your solicitor doing about it?

 

Surely, if the agreement of payment was on the basis of removing information on your credit file and they have reneged, then I would have thought that your offer no longer stands.

 

Did you ever have written confirmation that they would remove it or was it just in your correspondence to them in which you stipulated it?

 

Hi Dotty. Long time no speak.

 

No, what they have done is each time they rejected the offers they referred only to the money offer and made no comment on the caveat of the removal of the Default. We took that to mean there was no issue with the caveat, that there was only an issue with the sum being offered. So, conspicuously, they did not suggest they wouldn't be willing to adhere to the caveat in the first 5 offers. When we finally agreed a figure, they now refuse the caveat.

[Dotty50]

We seem to have been here a few years now!

 

I really think that your solicitors should have picked up on this, you simply can't trust these companies!

 

Without going back through your thread, I don't know what happened with the court case but I think I would be informing them (or your solicitor should be!) that the offer of repayment was only ever made on the proviso of the removal of the history from the CRA's therefore the offer is no longer on the table.

[Capricorn1601]

Hi there Meebroke, long time no speak.

 

Quick question, your argument was based around the unlawful rescind, and you kept the original envelope it came in? What was the response by AK or the court regarding this as evidence? Was it presented and proved to be sent 2nd class?

 

Thanks

 

Caps

[MeeBroke]

Hi there Meebroke, long time no speak.

 

Quick question, your argument was based around the unlawful rescind, and you kept the original envelope it came in? What was the response by AK or the court regarding this as evidence? Was it presented and proved to be sent 2nd class?

 

Thanks

 

Caps

 

Hi Caps

 

Sorry for late reply. Yes, I've retained the envelope. We've never been to court so this has not been submitted as evidence. My solicitor is of the steadfast opinion that they can rectify the issue by merely reissuing a new Default Notice- hence rendering that key Defence point moot.

 

I have now got them to sign a Tomlin Order stating that all terms of the settlement be kept confidential. Upon payment of the settlement they should therefore be bound to desist reporting to credit agencies any reference to this situation.

 

Which for me is a huge admission of failure, as I have always been fighting on principle-but i want to move on from this. It's been a long 4.5 years.

 

MB

[Capricorn1601]

Thats interesting. I am in a position where AK have asked to see my envelope ( which I do have). I have sought advice from two different places. One said the same as your solicitors and felt they could try and issue a replacement default notice, despite me accepting their unlawful termination. The other said only MBNA could issue the default notice and not the DCA.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Caps

 

Sorry for late reply. Yes, I've retained the envelope. We've never been to court so this has not been submitted as evidence. My solicitor is of the steadfast opinion that they can rectify the issue by merely reissuing a new Default Notice- hence rendering that key Defence point moot.

 

I have now got them to sign a Tomlin Order stating that all terms of the settlement be kept confidential. Upon payment of the settlement they should therefore be bound to desist reporting to credit agencies any reference to this situation.

 

Which for me is a huge admission of failure, as I have always been fighting on principle-but i want to move on from this. It's been a long 4.5 years.

 

MB

 

Indeed the solicitor is correct the creditor can issue a new complaint DN, judges will often allow this even once a hearing is started.

[Guest]

Thats interesting. I am in a position where AK have asked to see my envelope ( which I do have). I have sought advice from two different places. One said the same as your solicitors and felt they could try and issue a replacement default notice, .......The other said only MBNA could issue the default notice and not the DCA.

 

'try' being the operative word. yet to be authoritatively tested in the higher courts afaik.

if they do, and it is accepted, then cld ask for compensation (damages) for all that has transpired since their 'Mistake' (breach of statute and contract).

[Capricorn1601]

I think I must be having a blonde moment. What would they gain by issuing a second default notice? Unless of course the argument for the account being in dispute was soley based upon a defective default notice.

[Guest]

re a non compliant dn, they cant (or shldn't be able to) do what they want to do (Harrison case for eg). so, their aim cld be to 'try' issue a 'correct' dn so that they can then do what they want to do (as was 'mentioned', but not actually decided on). but, imo, cld be too late. but if a J accepts a reissued correct one, then there shld be some sort of recompense/redress, in whatever form, re what has followed the incorrect one (which in itself is a breach of statute and contract) which they weren't allowed to do, perhaps re the law of Mistake (as mooted by sweet & max for eg).