Steve v MBNA 1 of 3 (from 1999)

[steve2577]

Hello my thread number 5 and this is 1 of 3 MBNA issues I hope I dont bore you on page one but at least all the info is on one posting.

 

Well I must admit initially a few weeks ago it was hell then I became a bit chilled but now just got a reply from MBNA which I hope you can help with but I think it may throw up a few interesting things for discussion.

 

I have scanned into Photobucket but its very small text and difficult to read so I will try to pick out some of the areas where I feel it might be dubious.

 

One of those folded postcard size applications that has a bit of glue to seal it. I think MBNA have tried to make it as unreadable as possible.

 

http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae46/steve2577/MBNANo11of2.jpg

 

http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae46/steve2577/MBNANo12of2.jpg

 

There are a number of anomolies which I will underline

 

The first page is basically the address headed Financial and Related Conditions (which seems a bit strange almost as though it was added I am sure these applications had an address on one side then a blank page on the other so when folded it didn't confuse the postman) also seems to me to be a very clumsy attempt at doing some prescribed conditions.

there are paragraphs 1-12 it starts with

 

to start with it refers to provisions contained in conditions 8 and 9

 

 

1 We will from time to time choose the credit limit and notify you

 

2 We will choose the first statement date blah blah blah

 

3 Within 28 days of the first statement date payment required blah blah

 

4 Minimum payment will be the greater of 2% or £5 except as mentioned in 9.4 10.5 and 10.6 (not on form)

 

5 Makes a reference to 9.1 (not on form) and 14.1 (not on form)

 

6 Handling charge blah blah blah

 

7 Table showing APR calcs blah blah blah

 

8 The APR does not take into account any of the following alterations. We my from time to time.

 

(a) Alter the interest rate on any item by notice published in at least three national daily newspapers and

 

(b) Alter the interest rat on any item, alter any charge under this agreement and alter the basis which any interest is charged or any charge under this agreement is made, by such notice in writing to you as is required by law, we will at the earliest opportunity inform you of a valid reason for altering any charge.

 

9 We will not charge interest blah blah blah

 

10 Refers to condition 9.1 (not on form) and 14.1 (not on form)

 

11 We will charge interest on a daily basis both before and after any judgement

 

12 We may at any time allow you to omit all or part of a minimum payment during the payment holiday specified under a notice under condition 15 (not on form) If we do this we will charge interest as if no payment holiday had been allowed and we will not extend the period within which payment must be made in order to avoid interest on Retail Transactions.

 

 

Summary

 

Thanks if you have got this far.

 

The offical Stamp has a date of 10th Nov 1999 the application was dated 30th April 1999 and there is another stamp dated 11th May 1999.

 

The date of Franking by the PO seems to be 10th April (but could be 30th April)

 

At first I thought oh **** they have something then I read it a fw times and thought surely this is crap can somebody confirm my gut feel.

 

I know MBNA were rubbish on these in the early days is this one of the rubbish ones and could anybody suggest my next step I was think about either a request for a clear copy or a SAR request for evrything since 1999 leaving no stone unturned as another well known poster once put it.

 

 

Many Regards Steve

Edited December 5, 2009 by steve2577

[WelshMam2009]

What you're really looking to identify Steve is whether or not the two images were part of the same document. Do the franking marks (dates/locations) tie up.

 

Just a cursory glance seems to sugest that the prescribed terms are there (credit limit/how when to pay/interest). It is permissible to refer to clauses not contained in that document.

 

Hope this helps hun

[steve2577]

Wow cant believe somebody not only looked but responded within minutes of posting. Do you want to be my best ever friend of all time?

 

 

 

Regards Steve:)

[PRBrown]

Your Terms are much like many other peoples MBNA documents returned from a CCA s.78 request, my partners included, although the clause numbers may vary slightly depending upon what year the agreement was signed.

 

Although it is clearly referencing conditions on another document, so all the terms are not available within the "4 corners rule", I'm not sure how relevant these additional clauses are, and whether they would make your agreement unenforceable at court (or even be deemed as relevant), as I'm unclear whether they are affecting the prescribed terms which seems to be the determining factor.

 

Similar questions have been asked several times, but I'm not sure I've seen a definitive answer. I've seen people expressing a view that similar documents are irredemably unenforceable, but I've never been sure whether it is because of these specific additional clauses or whether there are other elements in the document that lead people to this conclusion.

 

I'd love to know the specific answer too.

[WelshMam2009]

Wow cant believe somebody not only looked but responded within minutes of posting. Do you want to be my best ever friend of all time?

 

Regards Steve:)

 

lol It would be an honour Sir!!

 

Actually, there's a really good bunch of people on this forum and the only reason I was able to help you so quickly was because someone took the time to help me previously!!

 

Do a search for those postcard MBNA agreements though and read some threads. These will tell you what else you should be looking out for.

 

Best of luck!!

[steve2577]

What you're really looking to identify Steve is whether or not the two images were part of the same document. Do the franking marks (dates/locations) tie up.

 

Just a cursory glance seems to sugest that the prescribed terms are there (credit limit/how when to pay/interest). It is permissible to refer to clauses not contained in that document.

 

Hope this helps hun

 

 

Actually I have heard about them creating fictitious documents but I thought that was a bit of hearsay and rumour, I mean yes a one man band can try this but a multi-national corp surely wouldn't even consider it but guess what?

 

I have just photocopied one side cut out the image and it is bigger than what is supposed to be the reverse side only by 4mm or 5mm but it should be the same size shouldnt it?

 

And if you care to look at my scanned image first page it has a definite tear at the top right hand corner, now if this was a tear mark then surely the same tear would appear in the top left hand corner of the reverse absolutely amazing if I am right this could a really important issue not just for me but for loads of other people. It would not have been difficult if they fabricated this to just tear the second page of the so called reverse to make them look the same.

 

Could be something concrete here for others to admire who knows?

 

Thanks for the advice my best ever friend;)

 

 

Regards Steve

[amber]

Hi Steve

 

I've been having a good look at the copies of your CCA that you posted up and I've found the following, which is quite perplexing, although not uncommon by all means if the bods at MBNA have been at it with their cut and paste jobbies.

On the page entitle 'Application Form', I note that you signed and dated it on 30/04/99.

I also note that they have stamped it twice, both dates being in May 1999. Sorry, but I cannot make out the actual 'day' it was stamped.

However, when I look at what they have supplied you with as the supposed back of the document, the one entitled 'Financial and Related Conditions', there is a date stamp in the top left hand corner what looks like 10th April 1999.

 

My question would be: how can they receive said 'application' and stamp it with a date BEFORE you had even signed the document yourself??

 

Two different date stamps on front and a completely different date altogether on the 'back'.

 

Steve, have a look at that April date stamp and please confirm said date.

 

I smell a huge rat IF that date is 10th April 1999.

Edited December 5, 2009 by amber
sp

[steve2577]

Yes I also thought the date stamp looked suspicious but the key bit is hidden when I do a SAR request we may find out.

 

But what I would really like to know is why is the first page torn top right but amazingly the so called reverse isn't. Now if anybody thinks I can issue some sort of case for fraud or whatever the official word is for trying to lie and cheat I am game for court action of anytype and I can promise you all I will not cave in or accept defeat. I might be a bit green but the fact they did this as a form of deception has really lit my fire for taking them on.

 

Regards steve

[MandM]

Subbing

[nick20045]

I am going to be the devils advocate on this one.

 

Date of postage stamp 10 April 1999.

 

Date on application end April 1999.

 

Date of approval for credit May 1999.

 

So, if I was to postdate an application (maybe so it ties in with the date I want the statements to be sent....... e.g. I love my direct debits to go out on 1st of the month) does it make an application unenforceable? IF the date of approval was before the date on the application I would say yes, there is something wrong. But, I doubt the date of postage compared to the date of application (anybody can put any date there) compared to date of approval for credit will hold as an argument in Court. If I was the Judge I would ask as to whether it is expected that the credit card company was to return the application to the person involved (due to post dated date) and ask for a new application to be filled or, if the bank just acted prudently and waited until the date became in effect and then approved the credit facility.

 

Personally I would send a letter (recorded mail):

 

Dear Sirs

 

Your reference:

 

Thank you for the copies of what you state is, the alleged agreement between us.

 

I wish to ask you for the following which I think you should be able to comply with:

 

a: Can you please confirm that what you have sent me is a true photocopy of the alleged agreement?

 

b: Can you please advise as to why on one of the pages, on the right hand side, there is a tear but, on the other photo copied side said tear does not show? I am sure you will agree with me that, if one wants to allege that this tear happened when opening the application, then that extra piece (which tore off) should logically show as being stuck on the other side. Please explain why this is not so.

 

I believe a time allowance of 7 days from the date of this letter should suffice for you to write to me.

 

I wait for your kind reply which is deeply solicited.

 

Yours sincerely

[nick20045]

Notes:

1: Notice the wording "alleged" account. (Try to understand the meaning of why written like that).

2: Re true photocopy. Let us see if they dig a hole for themselves by saying they are a true photocopy when the OP says the size is different. (This is pending on the OP having properly and truly measured the size correctly).

3: Re "tear" let us see how they answer that one. The answer may sound plausable (but it can be challenged) or it may dig them a deeper hole.

 

p.s. Is that your signature? If it is I suggest you change it. Anybody can copy it in 3 seconds flat. (No offence intended but a signature should be something unique).

Edited December 12, 2009 by nick20045

[amber]

b: Can you please advise as to why on one of the pages, on the right hand side, there is a tear but, on the other photo copied side said tear does not show? I am sure you will agree with me that, if one wants to allege that this tear happened when opening the application, then that extra piece (which tore off) should logically show as being stuck on the other side. Please explain why this is not so.

 

No disrespect, but personally I would not provide them any bullets for their gun. Just ask them to confirm that it is a true copy and keep the rest up your sleeve for a further date. See what they come back with and pull them up on this at a later date, play your cards close to your chest.

[nick20045]

 

No disrespect, but personally I would not provide them any bullets for their gun. Just ask them to confirm that it is a true copy and keep the rest up your sleeve for a further date. See what they come back with and pull them up on this at a later date, play your cards close to your chest.

Fair comment but keeping it close to your chest you still have to query it at a later date and hence, in my personal opinion, you are only delaying asking the same question.

[amber]

Yes Nick, you are correct in either way as it is only a delay. Can't remember which thread I read it regarding this 'delay' or why for that matter. LOL Back to the drawing board for me! Please do as you see fit Steve, I'm still quite a novice although I'd now be inclined to go with what Nick is saying as reading Desparettes thread, the chap knows his stuff. x

[nick20045]

No problem amber. Let us look at it logically (which is the best way to look at things in life).

 

Send letter 1 re true copy. Post recorded = £1.14. Arrives. Answered in say 2 weeks. (Most probably before as it will just be a quick reply saying "Yes it is"). They are not going to say "We sent you a fake" are they? :lol: That is not a delay. Tops you have delayed is by say 1 week or 2 weeks.

 

Now what to do? Have to send question 2. So it will cost an additional £1.14 (not much but have to pay it) to send the letter.

 

On the other hand, if you want to delay, send the two questions. Get the reply. Then write "Not happy and I am going to ask the FOS for their independent opinion and I am putting the account into dispute". Result = FOS will charge the bank £450+ for the privilege and you delay by about 4 months (if all goes to plan as the FOS is saying they have a 6 month delay. Then contest the FOS decision if against you. It will go to the Ombudsman and that is another 4 to 6 months delay). Note: You have to put the account into dispute otherwise still have to keep paying ;-);-);-)

 

As you can see, there are tactics you can use if you want to delay.

Edited December 13, 2009 by nick20045