Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi,  Update: the breeder has now had a solicitors letter sent to me refusing to accept judgement based on a faulty service ( claiming the name was spelt wrong etc), so no PoC has been received so I must stop the judgement or pay her costs in court as she now seeks an urgent order based on incorrect service.   I explained she confirmed their details twice upon being asked where she wanted docs to go and that she refused delivery at her home address of the action coming so she’s obstructed service herself.   lesley 
    • The above does need careful consideration of all aspects but   ‘You’ve ruined this country’: Israeli ministers heckled out of hospital WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK Civilians could be heard shouting ‘get out of here’ as public anger at the government mounts        
    • Israel knew of Hamas plot more than a year ago Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the devastating Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, according to documents, emails and interviews, but they dismissed it as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out. In fact, Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. Over about 40 pages, a document code-named Jericho Wall by the Israeli authorities outlined exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people. It did not set a date, but it described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases. Last year, shortly after the document had been obtained, officials in the Israeli military said that Hamas’s intentions were unclear. Then, in July, just three months before the attacks, a veteran Israeli intelligence analyst warned that Hamas had conducted an intense, daylong training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint. Those concerns were brushed off. Concessions: Israeli security officials have already acknowledged that they failed to protect the country, and the government is expected to assemble a commission to study the events leading up to the attacks. The Jericho Wall document lays bare the missteps that culminated in what officials now regard as the worst Israeli intelligence failure in five decades. More from the war: Antony Blinken, the U.S. secretary of state, urged Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to reduce civilian deaths in Gaza. At least three people were killed and six others wounded when two Hamas-affiliated gunmen opened fire on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Since the Oct. 7 attacks, extremist settlers in the West Bank have been emboldened, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians, according to the U.N. -NYT  
    • The Nationwide says there are "encouraging signs" that mortgage rates are starting to come down.View the full article
    • Hi, Updates have been made to the WS / Court Bundle document and incorporated @BankFodder feedback as well. The second draft of the Ws / Court bundle is attached and the updates are in blue font. Any further feedback / improvements is welcome 🙂   Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
      • 2 replies

Miss Muppet v. MBNA ***WON WITH COSTS ***

miss muppet
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5284 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, just thought I'd tell you the good news. Have just returned from a marathon session at the court re MBNA's application for summary judgement. I haven't posted a thread on this before because my case followed Staying Calm's very closely i.e. no properly executed and signed agreement. Optima Legal/MBNA sent a barrister to appear and of course Rankine was used. Points brought up as well were the Default Notice, timings and the fact that interest had been added during the dispute, the Barrister tried to deny this but I was able to refer to the statements to show that it had been added. Also pointed out that in both the "copy agreements" sent by MBNA there was no clause 3 that I had breached. Judge commented on Rankine saying that it had no bearing on this case as this case is a triable case because of the absence of a signed agreement. The Judge reduced my costs by £100 as some of the expenses were from before the case tried to-day, their Barrister was trying to oppose this and said that I had not sent in the costs previously whereas Optima Legal had done. I told the judge that I had only received their costs yesterday which amounted to over a £1000 and he said he had only received them yesterday as well and that the order for the application hearing did not require scheduled costs to be sent in, they have to pay up in 14 days.

Thank very much to PT, Surfaceagent and all the others who I have shamelessly cribbed from. Can you move my thread to the success forum!:-D:-D Will be donating as soon as they pay up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well done! Restons are on our backs for MBNA but we have exactly the same scenario as you - unenforceable agreement, the mystery clause 3 which does not appear, charges and totally useless DN due to dates being wrong. No claim issued yet... but we are waiting;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is excellent news - as they've lost their Summary Judgment application - where are you up to in general terms of the case


I think that if we can really hammer them on costs they might think twice - of course its' not just your costs but also the fact they have to pay their own

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.


I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brill, MM. Pity about the reduced costs.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, Yes Docman I'm not sure why he did that but hey I'm happy with £200. I wondered afterwards whether he thought I'd been to court already as they had been ordered to reply to my defence (Aug 2008)which they did on 11th December 2008. The Judge was extremely thorough - asking the Barrister questions on my Defence paragraph by paragraph, making sure that she knew the case came under CCA 1974 and not the 2006 amendment and picking her up very early on by asking whether MBNA had a signed application form and then later the signed agreement with them in court. I had of course dropped myself in it as one of my exhibits was a letter to Trading Standards stating that I had opened an account in 1998 and he asked me if I had signed an agreement, I replied that I couldn't remember and that MBNA say the account was opened in 1999 whereas I had thought it was the former. Then he asked me if I had a copy of the agreement to which I replied No! They also had the evidence of my raising court action in 2005 to reclaim penalty charges and he said surely I would have to admit that I knew that there had been an association between myself and the company and I said that it was true that I had reclaimed penalty charges when I got into trouble due to my illness, he then kindly asked me what I had been suffering from and I said Cancer and he said "but you're in remission now" and I said "Yes, Sir, thank you very much" but I said that at that stage I did not know my rights under The Consumer Credit Act.


The MBNA Barrister kept waffling on about there being no credit agreement didn't affect my liability to payment as I had had statements every month stating that if I didn't make the minimum payment etc, he asked her what the minimum payment I had been making before the CCA request was and she understated this so I picked her up on that one.


The Judge didn't say much about the dates on the default notice but I think picked up on my point about their misquoting the account number. Their excuse for this was that it had been charged off when it reached a state of default. I failed to point out altho' it was in my notes which I gave a copy of to the Judge that they had given a different explanation to the ICO saying that it was due to a system update in 2006. They sent out three copies of the default notice after the case started with one day's difference to the original which left under the prescribed limit to comply. I pointed out that they were prohibited from enforcement as the account had still been in dispute and in breach of their obligation to deliver a true copy under Section 78(1) of the Act, I said that the default notice was a step taken to enforce the agreement and a default notice is effectively a termination notice with notice i.e. "if you don't pay X by X we will terminate the agreement" (thanks to Pt).


With regard to Rankine I quoted the bit about the Rankine decision is a decision of HHJ Simon Brown QC sitting with permission as a Judge of the Queen's Bench Division. The QBD sits with appellate jurisdicition over the County Court in small claims and fast track cases only and its decisions do not create binding precedent but are merely persuasive where the reasoning behind the one decision (the ration decendi) may properly be applied to reasoning in another.


Altho I was quaking in my boots during all this, he gave me several chances to add anything else and one of the things I said was that I would have liked to cross-examine the witness regarding her statement that the copy the bank had produced was a true copy i.e. what qualification does this witness have to say that the pro forma would have been the one signed. As I understand it, this agreement is an Abbey one, was she exmployed by Abbey in Feb 1999 and in the department that dealt with the processing of this type of agreement at this time? The witness is unable to say that it was signed, only that it would have been . How is she so certain. Did she see the agreement bearing my signature and so on. There's plenty of info on all this on the site but just wanted to give you all an idea of what things could be like. At the end in his summing up, he mentioned the above para saying that I would have liked to cross examine the witness who was a different person author of the witness statement as opposed to the Barrister present. Oh, he also asked me during the hearing if I accepted their statement that they didn't have to attach the copy of the agreement as it had been issued thru MCOL and I said Yes, but too terrified to add that they had been given plenty of chances to supply the agreement before they raised they claim but didn't.


I also found the info supplied by my local Trading Standards very useful providing the Judge with a copy regarding Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 i.e. Reg 5(5)(d) states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include ' the execution of the product'. Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is alsoi a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Reg 5(4)(k) of the CPRS It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it. Quote from Susan Edwards, Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading.


By the way I only provided the Judge with a copy of my notes and he then had to get a copy for the Barrister - another point to bear in mind.


The Barrister told me later that it was her first case where the defendant had turned up, she obviously hadn't met a Cagger before but I'm hopeful she will again in the very near future!!


With regard to the question what happens next. Altho the Barrister in opposing my schedule of costs implied that there could be further hearings I am hopeful there won't be as if their schedule of costs is representative of the true cost, once they have paid my costs they will be approaching the amount I allegedly owed! Cheers me dears and I hope I haven't bored you all to death. I will be watching how you all get on with interest:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of costs - they won't appeal a £200 costs order

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.


I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, Thanks JGJ - I think - I understood the first bit but the second?

Joe, bless you, there are far more skillful and experienced people on the site than me, as I said at the beginning I shadowed Staying Calm, you'll find that on the legal sucesses bit and also Viano a few pages in on the same bit. You're in for a long struggle probably, MBNA are the very devil to get any info out of but don't despair, plenty of people on here ready and willing to help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miss Muppet,


Well done - you clearly fought your corner very well.


You were also lucky enough to have a judge prepared to listen to you, even though you were a Litgant In Person.



We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING



                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.


Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again - yes Slick, you're right about the Judge, the usher had told me he was a nice man prior to the hearing, he certainly had a twinkle in his eye when he questioned me about reclaiming the penalty charges, probably thought lucky person getting those refunded beforethe Banks wiggled out of their responsiblities!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

very well done miss muppet you've shown tremendous courage and along the way helped a lot of others on here thank you mm







Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...