Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i point you to two threads whereby you'll see an explanation by andy (post 22 here) https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/410486-lowell-interim-charging-order-from-credit-card-debt-2009/?tab=comments#comment-4912902   and   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406428-remortgage-issue/   if yours says:    written notice of the disposition was given to XX Council ( - disposition = sold vis: disposed of) ..... notice means letter telling them it's been sold -    doesn't say it must be paid or settled BEFORE disposition..   that's the way i read it.          
    • dx100uk   You are absolutely correct. That's exactly what the wording is! And if that's the case then - happy days for me! However, I thought that:   1. This wording meant the conveyancing solicitor had to tell the council that the house was about to be sold so they were aware!   But you are saying that the council only needs to be informed AFTER the house has been sold? Can I tell the council that? [I think I've seen something on the internet that says I can, rather than the CS] Or do I need the conveyancing solicitor to contact the council?   2. That this wording wasn't a restriction K [as I'd looked at Schedule 4 of the Standard Forms of Restriction] and tried to match my wording to those listed - and thought restriction K was the closest.     3. That this was a non-standard restriction [and that's what the Land Registry told me too and that the restriction was not a Restriction K!!! [see extract below]   Please remember that when applying for a restriction not in standard form:   it must always contain the words ‘is to be completed by  registration’ rather than ‘is to be registered’. This will serve to make the effect of the restriction clear. The term ‘registered’, where used in any of the standard form restrictions, means the completion of a registrable disposition by complying with the relevant registration requirements prescribed in Schedule 2 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (rule 91(3) of the Land Registration Rules 2003), but this statutory definition only applies to standard form restrictions. Please note that we will not accept restrictions not in standard form for registration that contain the words ‘is to be registered’   So I'm confused now. IF it is a restriction K - then the conveyancing solicitor doesn't have to do anything and I can let the council know.   It seems it is dependent on the wording 'completed by registration' and 'is to be registered'???   Below is copied from Martin's MSE.   This relies again on the 'is to be registered' whereas my wording is ' completed by registration' which you say is restriction K and LR says is not.   I need to go to sleep now!   Thanks dx.   Extract from MSE below.   If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction. The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor. However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to deceive you believing you are stuck with a CO. However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them Quote: Restriction The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :- No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of /I]an interim[I/I]a final[I charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).        
    • Hi Tony,   Please ensure YF does NOT acknowledge any debt  when confirming their new address.   They should simply state, " Please note my new address, as shown above."   Do not say anything about "a debt owed", or "the money you are chasing."   Do nothing that resets the SB Clock - ie acknowledging the debt and causing probs for the next 6 years. 
    • you ring you bank    
    • i suspect the charge on the Land registry site against the house reads:   2. (XX.XX.2007) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by the applicant or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to XX Council at P.O. Box XX, STREET, TOWN, POSTCODE, being the person with the benefit of a Charge under Section 22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.   ..............   that is a restriction k and is useless to the council, as all 'legally' your have to do is inform them AFTER the house has been sold . then it's too late money has gone.   dx
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
seriously fed up

two MBNA Cards sold to arrows and their CCA reterns

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3192 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

The point that I was trying to make was that the signature would need to come after the prescribed terms within the agreement, page one if the terms were there, page two if the prescribed terms were on that page. An unscrupulous person could say sign here on the front page, while denying the unweary the chance to see the terms overlef.

 

And there was this:

 

In relation to position of Signatures and Prescribed T&C

It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers”: Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras 30.102-30.103.

 

This is interpreted by John McCloud, PhD, LLB, Barrister, Professor of Law, University of Liverpool:

 

On the same side as the signatures the document itself must contain the terms prescribed in the Agreement Regulations [Reg 6(1)]. To the extent that these rules refer to information which must be stated ‘together and as a whole’, that will ensure the larger list is included in the actual agreement rather than any document referred to in it.

 

 

An agreement with the debtors signature and the prescribed terms, but is laid out incorrectly, will be improperly executed (s.61(1)(a)) and enforceable only by a Court order. (s.65) The Court isn't excluded from enforcing it under s.127(1) or s.127(3), so that's little help to those folk in that situation.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Car2403, but there is still the question of "what is the agreement"?

Often when CCAd or even SARd, they will send back an application form, but very often that just includes the applicant's biog details - address/ employment/ income/ bank detaiils etc - along with some legal guff, but often (though not uniquely) nothing at all that looks like a credit agreement at all - ie on the sig page there are no prescribed terms.

Along with that they will usually send the t&cs that they say apply. Now leaving aside whether the t&cs they send are contemporary to the signature on the page - or lets say that they are contemporary - there is an issue of what it is that the court can enforce. Is it

  1. only the agreement that precedes the signature - for instance the agreeement might well run to several pages, but the signature is at its end, so the clear implication is that even if you chose not to read it all, that is what you are signing up to
  2. the agreement and the T&Cs, where these are clearly separate documents - ie the agreement (or application form includes your sig but no prescribed terms) and the T&Cs are within separate documents. In these circumstances, could it not be argued that the agreement (or application form) is a separate document from the T&Cs. This would be my view, though based mainly on the Mitchell (v BoS) case where inter alia the judge says ""The key words in Section 61(1)(a) are the reference to a documentitself containing all the prescribed terms, and conforming to the regulations under Section 61. This language is clear and specific, and ensures that mere reference to terms contained in another documentwill not suffice. The document must contain the prescribed terms, justas the signed document referred to in Section 127(3), which might savethe day, must however contain the prescribed terms. The construction contended for by the defendant is entirely consistent with the languageof Section 61(1), and is also supported by Professor Good in his encyclopaedic work - see Good & Consumer Credit Law and Practicevolume 2, 2B 5.121, and see also the comments at 2B 5.247."

In other words, if i understand this judgement right, the prescribed terms must be within the agreement - they cannot be attached or dealt with by reference to another document - "the signed document .... must contain the prescribed terms". So "An agreement with the debtors signature and the prescribed terms, but is laid out incorrectly, will be improperly executed (s.61(1)(a)) and enforceable only by a Court order. (s.65) The Court isn't excluded from enforcing it under s.127(1) or s.127(3), so that's little help to those folk in that situation." is, if I may say so, only partially correct - the issue will be how incorrectly the document is laid out. If you look at the 1983/1553 regs you will see that the last item on the agreement is the sig box. I dont think they put this last because it was an after-thought. I think its last because - while we probably all often just zip past the legalese and chose not to read it - by putting the sig box at the end we are either given the opportunity to read the obligations we are entering into as debtors, or to chose not to read it. Either way, its not hidden from us. However, where you sign up, and the T&Cs are on another page, or in another document (or worst of all "sent to you as part of our welcome pack") I think the lender has a problem. Why for instance, do they put the sig on the first page, and then the T&Cs on elsewhere (even on the back)? Could it be because if we read it all we might have had second thoughts? Surely not? But from the look of the Mitchell case, it LOOKS as if the courts might be taking a strict view on these obligations. But, of course they will only be required to take this strict view, if its argued to them.

Other views very much welcomed.

Edited by seriously fed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This mob bought two old MBNA accounts about 18-24 months ago - one of them is utterly hopeless (pages upon pages and not a term or condition in sight), the other one a wee bit more worrying, but then they would have to explain the different fonts on each page. In fairness not heard anything from them about either for about a year now. Then yesterday two letters (one for each account) pops through the letter box, advising me that the debt is being assigned from Arrow Global LLC to Arrow Global Guernsey, and that any future queries about either account should be directed to Wescot Credit Services in Hull.

Has this happened to anyone else?

Is this a further example of financial machinations? Am I being securitized (again?)?

Is it something I should be worried about (there isnt the usual "pay up or we sent the boys with the machine guns around to see you" threat)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received 2 letters the other day. One was from Nat West informing me they had sold my debt on to Arrow global. I found this very strange because this debt was passed onto Apex of Stratford upon Avon 3 or 4 years ago!! The letter was allegedly from the credit card dept of Natwest, whose head office is in Southend on Sea. This being the case why was the address on the back of the envelope the same as the one from A G, which was a Scottish address?? The second letter was from A G saying I owed RBS/Natwest £xxx.xx. Now as I have already stated, this debt was passed on to Apex and I had been paying them for a while but in 2009 my finances took a turn for the worst so I applied for, and got a DRO and the debt to Apex was on this DRO. This being the case, why are A G asking for payment when the debt should have been written off last year? Can I ignore this letter or should I write and tell them about the DRO and Apex having the debt in the first place? I'm sure they know this and are just chancing it, but I want to be sure ....

Edited by blondie46
typing error.

The man of my dreams is where he wants to be. If he wanted me, he'd be here ... :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was APEX's role in this? They chase debts up for existing creditors as well as buying them from OCs and then chasing them. It could be that it was the former (ie that Apex was acting for NatWest) and that its only now that Nat West have decided to sell the debt, in this case to Arrow. Do you know the answer to this? It does sound to me that APEX were 'acting for' rather than in their own interests.

As for the posting address - no idea really. Arrow Global's correspondence address on their website is Manchester. I have checked my two letters and the only address is the new "owner" which is in St Peter Port in Guernsey. Why Scotland, no idea really - maybe its somewhere they use to send out their standard letters (which these sound like).

What puzzles me is why you say "the debt should have been written off last year"? If you have been making payments to APEX till 2009, then you have acknowledged it and it cant be Statute barred yet (would be 2014 in Scotland or 2015 in England). Had you paid the whole thing off to APEX? Sorry if these sound like stupid questions - got the flu just now for one thing so even more stupid than usual.

Might be best to sit tight just now and see what their next move will be. Had you CCAd Nat West to see if they have an enforceable agreement? Long way to go yet, so best not to worry. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the debt was on the DRO then it would have been wrtten off after a year. once you start a DRO the creditors are not allowed to contact you (as I understand it). You should contact the people who arranged your DRO, but I am pretty certain thay are not allowed to do this. I mean we all know any firm that holds a CCL would never break the rules!!!!!!!!!

 

What are the dates of your DRO?

 

That said, Blondie I think you should realy be starting your own thread to ask this question as this is seriously fed up's post and people can't practically answer both of you in the same thread.

Edited by count orlok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi seriously fed up

 

Yeah the same thing has happened to us with an old Abbey (MBNA) credit card - we got the same letter as you. Certainly sounds like financial machinations, as you say - and a bit of the old 'tax efficiency'..!

 

Arrow tried it on with this one three years ago though and are now seriously in the poo. MBNA had (rather stupidly) included an internal memo saying 'the original credit agreement has been destroyed' with our SAR - when the debt was assigned to Arrow we told them to clear off because there was no way they were ever going to be able to produce an agreement. Of course they did try to reconstruct an agreement, but this related to the current MBNA terms and conditions (with the £12 penalty charges), not the 2004 t & cs we had - blatant attempt to mislead. Now they are back and I am very much looking forward to the battle!

 

Good luck with your fights chaps!

 

MC


WOOLWICH -S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 03/03/07 :cool:

LBA sent for non-compliance with Data Protection Act 28/04/07 :mad:

 

ABBEY - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 03/03/07 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been fighting Link off for some time now. Usual thing - application form with a set of T&C s that couldnt possibly be connected. They were quiet for a bit but have been intermittently a nuisance since about the end of last year. That's all fine. My uncertainty is that I had the statements for this account sent to my working address rather than my home address, and its that address that Link have used for their letter ping-pong. Thing is that today they wrote to me at my home address - its like its all starting again - basically the "hi ya" letter and a nice form for me to tell them all about my income and outgoings. I am not sure what to do about this. It might well be that they got this address from MBNA as it was the address that the account was opened up at originally. But maybe not - fishing expedition? So what should I do:

 

  1. ignore it - which was my initial reaction
  2. express surprise and say nothing to do with me - i can see the unwisdom in that one
  3. tell them that my position remains exactly the same no matter whether they correspond with me at work or at home.

Views as always are welcome.

Thanks

SFU :violin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was actually addressed to you personally...not the occupier etc then i would send them your sod off letter


Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an MBNA account that has been sold to Link. There were actually three of them, but havent heard anything about the other two (sold to Arrow) for the last year or so, and the agreements they supplied were just rubbish. However, Link have been more determined and the agreement MBNA supplied to me is about the best I have seen from them, though its by no means clear that they application form and the T&Cs are linked - basically its two bits of paper.

However, to put the thing to bed I offered them 3%, which they have refused (in passing I should say I made this offer back in July and its only this week they got round to making a reply). I am in a bit of a quandry about what to do now. As I see it, I can either

 

  1. offer some more - but how far am I likely to have to go with them before they are likely to agree, and doesnt every offer make me look weaker than before?
  2. dig in and suggest they do their worst. I have appraised them that the document they have put up says "Application Form" at the top, and that the page with my sig has not a prescribed term on it - there would only be a problem if the other page was held to be part of the same document (there isnt even a staple in place, but they are the same size, similar font - but quite separate).

So, basically what I would appreciate are opinions on what to do

 

  • offer them more, and if so where do Link settle in such cases - i would be pretty sure they got this for 10% of its true value
  • or is that a sign of weakness (its more a sign that I would prefer to avoid the hassle of going into the court process though I reckon I would win) and I should tell them to do their worst?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

several threads merged.........

 

does this debt show on your cra file?

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes it does indeed - but, lets just say :jaw: its a long way from being the only one. The defence of my credit record doesnt loom high since its already well round the u bend :violin:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its getting anyone to mark your file 'settled'

with F&F's that is the issue currently.

 

link certainly wont do that i bet.

 

how long since your last payment and how much bal is involved?

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about 3k - must be at least three years since MBNA got anything. Link never have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever sar'ed MBNA with regard to charges/ppi reclaiming?

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you know that the bal has gone up and they have not frozen things

by my calcs that could be £24 every month since then.

 

have you had a recent statement?

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no statement that i can recall getting from them - tho knowing these people they will say it has been sent.

I am not aware of it going up, though a statement would certainly clear that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pers i'd sar them

lets get the full picture

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just for clarity this would be Link i would send the request to and not MBNA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no

always sar the OC

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually looking back through my records, I have done this about three years ago now. After a bit of huffing and puffing MBNA paid up (now if someone could tell me how to do the same trick with Cap 1).

I have what they describe as "an agreement" - headed "application form". Along with this - admittedly same size of paper, but otherwise wholly separate - are T&Cs which of course include the prescribed terms. So I suppose the issue is whether they are contained or merely embodied.

I know where the other paperwork they sent me is, and i can look to see if there is a default notice - to the best of my memory there isnt. What they sent were statement copies. I recall an unpleasant conversation with some woman representing them who was very displeased that I wouldnt raise the money to pay them what was owed from a friend or relative (no i didnt record it) and the next thing I heard from Link - it was them who sent the "agreement" which I have been arguing with them about since July 2009.

So, two ways forward that I see

 

  1. SAR MBNA and see if a default notice comes up
  2. negotiate with Link for an F&F (even if they dont repair my credit file - which, as I said would take a lot of repair)

Alternatively, see what they might do.

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...