Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
    • India has thousands of small gold refineries which are facing more competition from big players.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • 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
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Valid CCA? MBNA Debt


cag_MBNA
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5396 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Alledged MBNA Debt, now passed to Link. I'm out of the country, and was in discussions with MBNA regards a short settlement when they defaulted it, and I'd asked them to put the account in dispute until they provided a breakdown of charges v interest v late payments v "actual cost to them"

 

I sent a SAR and CCA request, and they never responded to the CCA but cashed both cheques, and sent me a whole load of stuff in response to SAR. I think the CCA signature is faked. (Ever since I can remember, my signature leans to the right, but this one leans to the left)

 

Can someone please review and advise if this is a valid and enforceable CCA?

 

http://imgfreehost.com/out.php?i28728_Page1.jpg

http://imgfreehost.com/out.php?i28729_Page2.jpg

out.php?i28728_Page1.jpg

(I can't believe they'd fake a signature on a invalid CCA), but I am 99.9% sure I never signed anything, and am equally sure that is not my signature.

 

Has anyone else experienced similar faked signatures? And what is recommended next steps? (remembering I am out of country, and am unlikely to return. Not at all bothered about CCJs, etc.)

 

Also, how enforceable is a debt outside the UK, if I am living in Ireland. I don't want Irish credit history affected, surely UK law (CCA etc) is un-enforceable outside the UK. I also don't believe Link would have bought the debt if they knew I was out of the country.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Yours confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be enforceable, an agreement must have the prescribed terms and your signature in the same document. THe prescribed terms are on the first page and your signature on the second. The questoin then is whether this is one document. IMHO a court would probably rule it was on the balance of probabilities - so, yes, IMO it is enforceable.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a long shot but perhaps you can collect more information.

I am not sure what good it is turning up with a CCA that is enforceable if they have violated implied terms of the contract - e.g. defaulting while in dispute, not responding to a CCA within the prescribed periods.

 

Its worth arguing - but look for every little detail. Particularly if you can read the document - look to see if any term references another document, particularly a document that you could not have had in your posession when signing.

 

I couldnt really see if it was signed by both debtor and creditor. I know banks often argue that creditor doesnt need to sign, or that signing a new token counts - but I think this can be argued from the point of view that the processes laid down should be followed exactly. Did the account number change with a new card? Does the card you have now reflect the same product?

 

For example if your original agreement is for a standard card, but subsequently improperly served cards were issued with different terms and a different product name (i.e. a platinum card) it is a different product and the original contract may not apply.

 

The devil is in the detail - but enough details in your favour and you can argue that its material.

 

Enforcement from one country in the EU to another is supposed to be a straightforward exercise....although I really doubt this is the case in practice.

 

One final thought, a graphologist would be able to tell you objectively if the signature is yours. Cast doubt on the signature, have it corroborated by an expert and its a start. Also, try to date the form. Check with other caggers if that form of agreement was around when your account was opened. A certain bank that had changed its logo over the years sent me a CCA and terms, with an obvious anachronis. Needless to say, despite the signed CCA they settled on the basis of a cleverly worded part 36 offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...