Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • £3000* as your contribution (Excess) to the sum insured.   If you are on fully comp. you’ll get your repairs, their repairs (and costs) and have to contribute £3k*.   If you are on 3rd party (fire & theft) you’ll get their repairs (and costs) and have to contribute (£3k* AND all of your repair costs), [unless you don’t want your car repaired when you’ll just pay the £3k*]   * £3k if the total exceeds £3k, the tot value of the claim if the claim doesn’t exceed £3k : why it  is important to find out the value of their claim and if their claim is appropriate or inflated.
    • I think you're conflating the discussion with your own view of what open borders means.  Obviously I don't think it's sensible to allow people to come to the country and claim whatever they can - They can't even do that now.  If they have a job, and are able to support themselves then that is what I would say is fair enough.  The real issue with selecting who comes to the country is that you can't devise a system that selects people fairly, and it would need some human intervention down the line.  How do you decide who is of benefit to the country etc.. I think if we go down that route, that is where I feel uncomfortable.  Even if we adopted an Australian points based system it wouldn't reduce immigration, and the hole notion of only allowing people that earn above a certain sum of money to come to the country is plain silly - As if the amount of money someone earns is the mark of their character.  And as we know, we rely heavily on low skilled seasonal labour.     Your point is moot because our low skilled workforce have no reason to move to another country unless the standard of living is equal or better to ours.  I did read the other day though that the UK provides the greatest number of immigrants from any other country to Australia.   I would suggest that the foreign aid everyone likes to grumble at is a way to improve living standards in other countries.
    • I dont care what race, colour, creed, sexuality or personal religious beliefs anyone holds and just like I dont believe anyone should be penalised in any way for their purely personal choices and beliefs, neither do I believe they should expect or be given benefit or preference over any others based on them.   Real non-discrimination in my opinion.   If a person is a benefit to our society - I don't care about their purely personal choices. If a person is not a benefit to our society - I dont care about their purely personal choices.   ... and that certainly is not anything approaching Nazi-ism in my opinion. Sounds more like real world socialism to me than most self-proclaiming socialists I hear and see.     Are people who make 'profit' - all 'bad' - are they heck as like Are people who say we should give everything away to those more 'needy' - all 'good' - are they heck as like and in the vast majority of those cases most are nether of the extremes of 'good' or 'bad',   .. although it is arguable that those who consciously make a personal choice give away all their personal belongings other than perhaps the absolute minimum they NEED - to those more needy ... are 'saints' - if their personal choices accept that, and whether officially acknowledged or not.     I agree it would be great if the world was at peace with itself and everyone, and no-one went hungry or feared for their childrens futures, and there was no greed, or fear or hate or even want - but this is the real world, and we have to deal with it in real ways.   Not even Star Treks federation is close, let alone the reality we need to deal with.
    • This will be won’t pay more.  The Ex-husband got his ex-wife to go to mediation to sort out the financial side because they own property together.  The ex-wife did not like what she heard from the mediator and would not cooperate. So they wasted 3 visits. Afterwards she arranged another mediation meeting but just for herself without the ex-husband involved and paid over £120 to tell the mediation service how shit she thought they were. Then told the ex-husband what she had done.     Now here’s a new bit of information at the moment the ex’s have one of their houses up for sale, can my sister put a lean on the house?  If yes, how does she put the lean only on the ex-wife’s part of the money
    • I have had to fill in a declaration a few times. southern Water are the worst performing Water provider in the UK. They have even been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.    I have no doubts there will be many vulnerable Southern Water customers with similar issues who are not aware there Watersure Tariff has been wrongfully  removed.   The culture within Southern Water as I have experienced lacks transparency. The Customer Service Manager used language that removed all blame from Southern Water. Instead of saying they would accurately re bill me he said he would look into the overpayments Inhabe been making!!
  • Our picks

Fluffystuff

Fluffystuff's OH & MBNA

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2338 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Fluffystuff

 

How are you doing.

 

Where did you see it is a problem for them if they assign it before the DN date has expired. I am unclear about the implications of that.

 

Good Luck

 

Pedross

 

 

Hello Pedross,

 

In the grand scheme of things, I'm doing fine thankyou.

 

Sorry, but can't remember exactly where the info re. assigning before expiration of default notice came from - advised on this forum somewhere!!

However, have not had any contact concerning this debt since last October when I informed DLC of the situation.

 

x


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, long time no speak!

 

Could do with a guiding hand please, husband received claim today, issued CCBC 14/11/12

 

POC:

 

The Claimants Claim is in respect of a credit facility................provided by MBNA at the Defendants request on ../../2005. The agreement was subsequently defaulted. Failure to meet requests for payment resulted in the account being terminated. On ../../2010 all legal and beneficial interest for the monies was assigned to Hillesden Securities Ltd. The defendant was duly notified in writing of the assignment and that a balance of £...../.. Was due. The balance of £...../.. remains owing from the defendant.

 

Signed by a named person for Claimants Solicitor, Aplins.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In our possession from earlier CCA request, is an application form (clearly mocked up!), DN which is short of 14 days required, TN letter from MBNA & hello letter from Hillesden confirming the debt has been assigned to them. Both these letters were dated and received before the end of the default notice period to rectify!

 

Have completed AoS online this morning, assume next step is CPR 31.14 request?

 

Although we have successfully defended a CC claim before, the circumstances were slightly different (that one hadn't been assigned or terminated during default period to rectify!)and I know certain things to do with the CCA have changed a little since we did this so would very much appreciate your help and guidance once again please.

 

Thankyou. X


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think much has changed that from what you say in today's post you are likely to rely on. I suppose the main area would be the application form aspect. On the one hand Carey v HSBC allows creditors to send a reconstruction - but ONLY for the purpose of s77 - for enforcement (ie s61 1a) they should still produce the original, and from having had a quick look through this thread it seems unlikely that they will be able to do this. google Harrison v Link to see the problems that MBNA can cause those they sell their accounts to. The fact that what they have presented is clearly a mock up remains a strong and valid point for you and unless they can find a way round/past it, I would have thought they are sunk. The manner in which they defaulted - and in particular sold the account before the default notice had expired - is a killer point as well for you as far as I can see.

The only other major thing that I can think of that has been mentioned in your thread is that the s59 argument has been knocked on the head by the courts. Other than that, since you are able to rely on the 1974 Act, things are much as they were, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that SFU, so to clarify, my main defence will be the selling of the account before the expiration of the default notice, which in itself failed to give requisite time to rectify? Do you know if the notice of assignment has to be in a particular form? I'm a bit confused over equitable and absolute assignments.??


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting at the end, absolute assignment, I think, sells the whole thing - lock, stock and barrel - to the dca. Equitable is somewhat less, but I am not entirely sure.

I would certainly go after them for the DN, and the fact they sold before you had time to remedy. Notice of assignment is a bit vague. Creditors argue that its enough for them to write to you and tell you your debt has been transferred to them - Cabot's hello letter for instance. But, if I wrote to you to say your debt has been sold to me, why should I believe you. But if they have screwed the DN by not giving enough time to remedy AND sold before the (overly short) time they have given you to remedy, then those are strong points.

I would though still go after them about the application form/ agreement with all the points that you and Vint raised about it being a reconstruction. They may not attempt to defend that, but if they came up with such a duff reconstruction it might be that they have a problem finding an enforceable version of the agreement. This is why you need to read Harrison v Link, because he tied MBNA in knots about what type of agreement he is supposed to have signed (in fact, if you are an optimist, if they see you refer to the Harrison case, it might just be enough to get them to go away and leave you alone). Remember that what they sent you three years or so ago was in response to a s77 request (what Waksman called "the information purpose" in Carey). But now they are seeking to enforce in court, its s61 1a that they have to worry about and the onus of proof here in on them to show that your OH did sign an enforceable agreement. Read Harrison (you can get it here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html) but when you do, remember since Harrison brought the case the onus of proof was on him to prove he didnt sign an enforceable agreement. In your case the onus of proof is on them to show that your OH did sign an enforceable agreement, and in this respect HHJ Chambers statement that "Entirely understandably, the Defendant's evidence given through MBNA is of the "would have" variety. "We would have sent the terms & conditions because that is what we were required to do and our systems would have been designed to do". But there was evidence neither of the system nor its implementation." is telling.

Were I you, my defence would be based on both heads - unenforceable agreement and defective DN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Seriously, much appreciated. I read the Harrison case at the time 'pt' won but skimmed through as all was quiet in our household at the time! Will now digest thoroughly.

Remiss of me not to have asked after your well-being, apologies, hope all is good. X


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polite request to site team, please can you move this thread to legal? Thank you.


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fluffystuff

 

If the DN is definitely faulty it is a strong defense and prevents the action they have taken. I will comment further if you post a copy or confirm the dates/details etc.

 

Pedross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pedross,

 

DN definitely faulty, not enough time to rectify, amount includes penalty charges and they also sold debt before expiration.


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen any documents so my comments are based on my understanding of the situation.

 

You need to put your defense together covering all points but the main issue with the DN is the fact that it did not allow 14 days from service (if that is correct). The case you need to refer to is Brandon v AMEX in which it was stated that an error such as that could not be classed as De Minimis.

 

A valid DN is required under the CCA for the claimant to commence proceedings and if it is not valid I do not believe that the claimant has a case. I am not convinced that the other points will help but they can be included, I just do not recall any legal precedents to rely on.

 

Pedross

Edited by pedross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrears.

 

(Though they did ask for payment of the whole outstanding balance some months before D/N was issued!)


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOS!

 

Does anybody have a copy of an original MBNA Points application form from around September 2009? This really would save our souls!

 

Thankyou.


Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...