MBNA CCA - Is it legal?

[BornAgainBiker]

excellent nks, thats brilliant, much appreciated. regards

[nks22]

I received this today:

 

 

 

Any comment on their legal arguments welcome, e.g. isn't selling an account 'collection activity'?

[BornAgainBiker]

didnt mbna sell the account before expiry of the time given to rectify? i havnt checked my files yet but think thats what happend in my case. BAB

[nks22]

Yes, in all cases that I'm aware of. Hillesden's admit that but say it doesn't matter because they didn't do anything themselves until after the DN remedy date. Seems to me, though, that the sale itself removes your ability to remedy the default so must count as collection activity.

[Dotty50]

Seems like Hillesdens have had a lot of letters regarding the fact that MBNA sold before the expiry of the default notice, so this is their new tactic!

 

Also they do not specifically refer to the DN, just stating a letter was issued to you, but then imply that a second letter of termination was issued (that's how I read it). I never had any termination notice, just a letter advising the sale.

 

So they are now using the argument that no collection activity was taken until well after the remedy date! (this is on the back of a recent court ruling, I just can't remember which one at the moment).

 

Brandon possibly? (and expert will be along shortly, I expect)

[BornAgainBiker]

my case is the same as nks ie. sold before i was able to rectify. however, they wrote to me on sept. 24 attaching a copy of the application form, which has at the top 'credit agreement regulated by the consmer credit act 1974' showing a signature and date, a credit limit and thats all. they are arguing that this account does not relate to a fixed sum agreement and the prescribed terms are not required to be on the face of the agreement.

 

now, i originally sent in a section 77 and think this was a mistake and followed up with a letter referring to section 77/78. can anyone tell me if their letter refers to s77 and should i write back referring to s78 again? any ideas anyone? BAB

[nks22]

I doubt it matters whether or not you quoted the correct part of the Act as long as it's reasonably clear that you were requesting a copy of the original agreement. You're a layman, not a lawyer.

[nks22]

So they are now using the argument that no collection activity was taken until well after the remedy date! (this is on the back of a recent court ruling, I just can't remember which one at the moment).

 

Brandon possibly?

Yes, the Brandon v Amex case. However, if anything, I think the judge's ruling is (for once) on our side. Denyer argued that because Amex didn't take any enforcement action within the 14 days it didn't matter whether or not the DN had allowed sufficient time. However in these cases MBNA did take action before the 14 days was up (as Hillesden's have kindly confirned) – they sold the accounts. We have clearly 'suffered prejudice' at the hands of MBNA by having our accounts closed and any opportunity to remedy removed prematurely.

"Now, somewhat theoretical though it is, had American Express taken enforcement action within 14 days of 19 June, it may well be that the validity of that enforcement action would have been open to challenge. I express no final view on the mattcr but I do understand the argumcnt because, to go back to section 87, it must specify the nature of the breach and if the breach is capable of remedy what action is required to remedy it. The whole idea is that a debtor should have 14 days within which to redeem the position, in this case pay £275.80. So I understand the argument. As I say, I do not dismiss it as being unreal. But, the fact of the matter is no enforcement action was taken within 14 days of 19 June. So we have the service of the enforcement notice but nothing immediately happens. In those circumstances, even if Mr Brandon's point is a good one it seems to me to be not relevant in that he has not suffered any prejudice at all by virtue of that technical breach..."

[Dotty50]

Yes it does appear to be in our favour (for a change), that's probably why they didn't quote the case in their letter!

Edited November 17, 2010 by Dotty50

[nks22]

It seems to me they've shot themselves in the foot by agreeing that the account was sold by MBNA before the default period had ended. It's of no relevance (IMO) when Hillesden's first began collection activity. It's MBNA who issued the DN, not Hillesden.

[BornAgainBiker]

nks, may i ask, have mbna or hillesden shown you a copy of your cca agreement and is it valid? i only ask because the copy they sent me on 24/09/10, i belive, is not valid and wondered if yours, and everyone elses was the same! BAB

[nks22]

You can see mine from MBNA in the first post of this thread along with my thoughts about its legitimacy. I haven't had a copy from Hillesden's and won't be asking them for one as my argument is that I have no agreement with them.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?224927-MBNA-CCA-Is-it-legal&p=2489789&viewfull=1#post2489789

[nks22]

I haven't updated this for a year but then nothing much has happened since the letter in #131. They sent me an 'Income & Expenditure' form in April (unsolicited), an annual statement in June and in the same month replied to a request to stop phoning me when they stated that "we maintain our stance as outlined in our letter dated 16 November 2010". Other than that nothing.

[Dotty50]

Hi nks22,

 

Where did the year go?!

 

You will probably find a bit more activity this time of the year so expect a flurry of letters.

[minmoo]

Hi nks22,

 

Where did the year go?!

 

You will probably find a bit more activity this time of the year so expect a flurry of letters.

 

 

Which is strangely when people have the least money. Could be to do with xmas i guess lol

[nks22]

Where did the year go?!

 

Who knows? Or, indeed, the two years since I first joined this forum.

 

Anyway, just had a letter from DLC offering me a settlement at 50% discount or a £10/month repayment arrangement.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nks

 

MBNA do not communicate with me or send statements etc; so, if some other chap offered me a 50% discount I wouldn't have a clue as to what legitimate principal he was discounting.

 

x

 

v

[nks22]

I have a former MBNA credit card, assigned to Hillesden/DLC in 2010 during the default remedy period and while in dispute. (See original thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?224927-MBNA-CCA-Is-it-legal .) Other than an initial exchange of letters I heard no more apart from an annual statement of the (alleged) debt.

 

I've now had this letter from MDB. I realise they're DLC by another name but should I respond or just ignore it? I've recently also had regular phone calls which I suspect may have been from them but as they were all 'number witheld' I didn't answer any.

 

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, send them a CCA request, MBNA have been pretty

sloppy in the past.

[nks22]

I had a copy from MBNA in 2009. See first post here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?224927-MBNA-CCA-Is-it-legal

 

Just thinking, as MBNA sold the account during the default period I never received a termination notice.

[postggj]

MDB is DLC, aka hillesden securities

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The OP knows that see post 1#.

[Dotty50]

I only get an annual statement from dlc, don't recall anything from MDB nks22.

[dx100uk]

you now had 3 discount offers [ inc the OC]

 

pers i'd either ignore everyone

 

dx

[nks22]

DLC have now transferred my account from Ruthbridge to Lucas Credit Services, who've sent me a 'final demand' for the full amount. Not even a discount offered, which seems a bit rude. Anyone else been passed on to them? It's now four-and-a-half years since I paid anything on this MBNA credit card.