Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
    • Paying DCA's one penny, never mind £50 per month is a mugs game, they have really been milking him as a cash cow   See where received a claim form is underlined in your post, you need to click, on that and read carefully, then answer the questions, then copy and paste into a post on this thread Forget the CAB ,  their advice is sometimes weird. Is it worth defending? Lowell brought these debts for 10 p in the pound , years ago, because they are flawed. Think about it! if it was such an easy win, Capital one could have taken it to court and crushed him.  It could be an invalid agreement, default notice, or many other things. In a nutshell , yes, and we can help you.
  • 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
      • 161 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

MBNA Loan - The battle begins


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4395 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

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for spotting another error, albeit minor! Dotty50 has spotted that the 'Total Amount Payable' is slightly different, i.e. 13p, to the monthly payment figure times the term, in MBNA's favour of course!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dotty50, no facility to add a document to PM's in the same way as you can here! The transfer fee of £50 is included in the 'Total Amount Payable' and the first months instalment. It has not been added to the 'Total Credit Charge for Your Loan'. Appears no interest has been calculated on the transfer charge. Hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just PM'd you again Dotty50. Thanks for looking into this. I don't mind you posting your findings but I feel I need further confirmation. I'm wondering if 4 months and not 3 makes all the fifference for the defrred period. 8.02% compared to 7.9% is too close to what I believe is a margin for error allowed of 0.1%. Any views on this from anyone else welcome.

 

As for Mandy Reeks, they do seem to have some odd surnames up in Chester!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugger, just found the answer in that a tolerance of -0.1% is allowed and +1.0%! So even though I have been quoted 7.9% MBNA or any lender could put 7.8% or 8.9% and still be OK. Not impressed by the wide upward margin for error. Hohum!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any opinions on the enforceability of this agreement? I suspect it is OK but would like to hear from anyone who has looked into an MBNA loan agreement before and especially where it is one that has been topped up more than once.

Edited by exchange
attachment didn't work
Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH]12889[/ATTACH]

 

Here is the Loan agreement. If the sums are OK the it is probably enforceable. Problem is none of the figures seem to be correct so far!

 

I'll try adding the agreement this way then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been digging on this site and seems the term 'Cash advance' should be 'Amount of credit'. Trying to get some answers before the next payment is due in just over a week, which I will struggle to pay. Just look at the exchange rate sterling to euro and you will perhaps understand why, as I am in euroland but paid in sterling. Seemed like a good idea at the time:(.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This website is brilliant. I feel relatively confident that all my debts that I have questioned so far are potentially unenforceable and that it is well worth fighting. I would not have survived financially until now without the help and knowledge of the people on here and look forward to the day when I am in a position to donate something to help keep this site alive. Just felt like posting this at this stage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucial part as I see it for lots of us is that it says they couldn't produce the original agreement. If this means they were relying on a copy then MBNA are going to struggle to enforce agreements.

Anyone know how to find out if a journalist has got this right for a change? Sorry, but journalists have a habit of getting things wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...