Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[citizenB]

Yes, a lot of older agreement give a table of credit limits, 1000, 2000, 3000, with different APR's next to them. If your credit limit is not one of those, say 3500, you have no clue as to the APR.

 

Thios may be the case with your MBNA application form. The other point with MBNA applications, is that there is no printed place for the creditors signature, so could never become or be intended to become an agreement. Some Judges do argue though that a stamp and a squiggle is enough for the creditor.

 

Wasnt this point regarding the credit limits raised by pt2357 somewhere. I think on the egg thread that was started some while ago. It did seem to be applicable to MBNA agreements.

[katie3105]

The Judgment by HHJ Waksman QC has clarified a number of points in respect of credit agreements, “…in making an executed agreement, if it fails to conform to requirements made by regulations as to form and content it will be an improperly executed agreement.” Further, the banks will be required to provide a, ‘True Copy’, when disputing any breach of the Consumer Credit Act.

The Judge also confirmed what a bank is not permitted to omit from any reconstituted copy of an agreement under Regulation 3 and that any copy should be ‘easily legible’. Experts believe that many banks will have great difficulty in complying with this part of the Judgment.

 

Found this article and I think it clarifes the point i have been asking about. If my copies are not easily legible then they have not complied with s78 and I am going to ring the solicitors now and find out what they are playing at:p

[saddler68]

 

Found this article and I think it clarifes the point i have been asking about. If my copies are not easily legible then they have not complied with s78 and I am going to ring the solicitors now and find out what they are playing at:p

 

 

I would katie. Seems to me like you have landed a really inept firm of solicitors. In fact Im surprised you even went to a CMC having just read some of the other issues you are dealing with for your friends. You seem more than capable of handling these matters yourself, unike me:D.

Edited January 20, 2010 by saddler68
Cannock Inglish

[katie3105]

Yes but I did this 2 years ago before finding this forum its only because I wanted to know what was going on with them that I went looking for answers. When I found this I couldve kicked myself.....£2000 wasted on something I could have done myself. They claimed it was secret and wouldnt tell me how it was done and that it would only take 24 hours...How wrong was I ?? still I was in a vulnerable place at the time...we had just lost our business and money was tight and none of my creditors would give me a break despite having paid them for all them years with no arrears....I found myself in a strange place with no where to turn and a friend advised me to try this company ...so I did, more fool me.

 

When friends started asking me about it and I had found this I told them not to do it with a company and have since helped a few. I have also had 2 store cards with less than £500 with CL finance thrown out of court.

 

I just wish I had gone searching for answers earlier that £2000 could have gone some where else.

[katie3105]

Hey Saddler, we going to Cannock this weekend to visit friends lol

[the_shadow]

Wasnt this point regarding the credit limits raised by pt2357 somewhere. I think on the egg thread that was started some while ago. It did seem to be applicable to MBNA agreements.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/184041-all-mbna-caggers-fight-11.html

 

Cant believe nothing on this thread since Sept 09

 

Post #208 onwards I believe.

 

S.

[seriously fed up]

Just an example of where it can end up.

I had a card with CRAP1 which ended up with charges twice the credit limit and the balance (I will need to look out the court papers for that as they wont go further than 20% of my claim). Despite having an application form and no T&Cs that they could link to it (never mind contemporary), they sold it on to crapquest with whom I have been doing battle for the last few months.

Just this morning I got a letter from crapquest saying they still havent got the documentation from Crap 1 - which isnt the case, and even if they havent, I sent them what Crap 1 had sent me, so they must recognise its a lemon

Since they havent got the paperwork crapquest have put the account "on hold" (very good of you since you seem to accept the account isnt enforceable)

BUT they own the debt and assert that they can continue to process my data - in particular they quote Flaux in McGuffick case that "the reporting to CRAs and related activities do not constitute enforcement for the purposes of the CCA".

The finsih by confirming that the account remains open on their system but on hold till they get the agreement from crap1 (which since they already have the application form will be never)

Just to emphasise the point, this letter was sent this week (ie since the Manchester judgement), so its quite interesting that they arent going down the "we must have given you the t&cs when you opened the account route". I think. Anyone else want to comment? :idea:

[katie3105]

I think I am In agreement and I have been looking at other sites. I think I am right in saying that the judge has not actually ruled on s61 as this article says:

 

Edit: What is interesting is that HHJ Waksman declined making a judgement on the provisions of s61. All he would say is that on the 'assumed' facts and principles the terms were contained, but the scenarios required further elaboration to give an answer.

 

So how my firm of solicitors can make a decision on something that has not been ruled upon yet is anybodies guess !!

 

Can anyone confirm that this is so and when we might get a more definitive answer from the court.

[katie3105]

It would seem that out of the 8 cards I had only 2 refer to terms being attached to application form and in light of what Judge waksman said these 2 may not be successful ...However what they claim to be original is printed froma computer so who knows ??

[seriously fed up]

I understand that Carey is going to a full hearing some time next month. How long that will take, and how long before he hands down a judgement, I really dont know.

[katie3105]

I just spoke to the solicitors who have said that they are not pursuing claims under s77/78 anymore obviously. They are in meetings with chambers to decide how best to proceed with the tech breaches. They said it would depend on whether they could get someone to take them on on a no win no fee basis and only if over 60% chance of winning and also if they could get the insurance to cover them in case they lost. They also confirmed that no ruling was actually made in regard to s61. They said that all cases are on hold until the outome of their meetings but that they felt if they sent the application form along with original t &C containing prescibed terms then they would probably not be successful !!

[katie3105]

Forgot to say that it is best to use s61 as defence rather then attack and that way it is uo to creditor to prove !

[the_shadow]

Forgot to say that it is best to use s61 as defence rather then attack and that way it is uo to creditor to prove !

 

[scroll back about 15-20 pages for that conclusion]

 

S.

[katie3105]

Thanks for that I knew already but I paid them £2000 to attack attack attack as they claimed they could Lol

[katie3105]

Solicitors have confimed all on hold until outcome of next case. Case management conference is in early feb and they will come back to me after then !

[B3rty]

also if they could get the insurance to cover them in case they lost

 

Its all about money for them at the end of the day.. doesn't matter who's side they represent they always make money

[katie3105]

I agree !!

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
professional advice to do so

[katie3105]

Thanks for that oilyrag...I will start my own threads if need be to defend my cases in the furture. Can I ask which solicitors you used in case I need to change? I dont want to be an LIP dont think I would have the confidence in court lol

[vint1954]

Wasnt this point regarding the credit limits raised by pt2357 somewhere. I think on the egg thread that was started some while ago. It did seem to be applicable to MBNA agreements.

Hi CB,

 

Yes, it was on the MBNA library of forms as a comment.

[babybear39]

Never trust a lawyer who says it aint gonna cost ya

[vint1954]

Solicitors have confimed all on hold until outcome of next case. Case management conference is in early feb and they will come back to me after then !

Revised OFT guidence should be out by then

[angry cat]

Never trust a lawyer who says it aint gonna cost ya

 

Never heard truer words!

[stevehatesbankers]

Hi Katie, do you min me asking who is the CMC

[saddler68]

Yes Katie I think it would be a good idea for you to tell us who your CMC and solicitor is too. Firstly they write to you dismissing your claims in the 'light of Waksman' but when you put them on the spot they tell you they are looking for Prescribed Term breaches? Seems like a firm best avoided.