wmr / Help with OPTIMA LEGAL, please.

[miss muppet]

:D Pumpeytums. Wmr, Optimistic legless were very confident in my case too until they lost, had to pay hearing costs and then discontinued when DJ ordered them to supply 2nd witness statement. With any luck when they get your letter they'll run back to the forest and throw nuts at each other.

[emandcole]

So, the head in the sand approach appears to make up a large part of one module on the legal practice course

 

Turdburgers the lot of them.

[vint1954]

Hi WMR, they do seem to get upset if you dare to question them.

 

I don't think that you can do much more, than go back to them reiterating that you are convinced, having sought further advice, that you have an excelent defence.

 

You need to avoid trying the case by letter as it were. If they have the nerve to go to court, then there is where you defend, not in letters giving away your defence bit by bit.

 

You can reiterate breifly the fact that the DN is faulty, despite their assertions, and that you dont beleive that the terms were on the back of the application and that you do not recognise them. Add that you will be obviously looking for strict proof on that matter.

 

Keep it breif.

[GeoffreyAlby]

Hi wmr,

 

Hows things progressing? I tried sending you a pm but it says your inbox is full and wont let me!

[wmr]

Hi Geoffrey:

 

Thanks for your asking. I got your message on my PM and yes it was message 50. I have tidied it up a bit so space is available.

 

I have a couple of bits and I let emandcole know, who excellently came back. As the matter at present is not for the Forum hence the PM. Spies about of course and all that. I will PM you to put you in the picture.

regards

[wmr]

Hello Folks:

 

Further to my earlier postings regarding the "Application Form" which Optima states IS the Agreement, and supplied me ONLY this twice under my CPR request to them.

 

A recent discussion with the Legal Community Advice on the matters here they contacted Optima, and they were sent the attached (file)documents of terms. I have never been supplied with these either now, or when I opened the account. They show no signature of mine or the MBNA officer.

The charges are shown also as £12, which were not the original chargesII feel?.

 

I cannot get the "Application Form" (purported agreement), any better as this was the way it was sent me (twice), and only this even on my request for CCA true copy when I paid the £1.

 

I would be most grateful for any of you who are up to it to give me any comments on the terms they have supplied the Legal Community people with ( and not myself).

 

Bearing in mind that the PPI acceptance of course is false in the Application (I never asked for it ) also I welcome any advice; thanks.

CCA TERMS MBNA FORUM SCAN.pdf

CCA SCAN MBNA TERMS AGREEMENT FORUM COP.pdf

[GeoffreyAlby]

It appears your application form/ agreement doesnt contain the required prescribed terms that should be contained within the document, therefore Id say it makes its unenforceable... Those conditions on page 2 down the right hand side look like a copy and paste job to me... I may be wrong

 

take a look at this thread....

 

 

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/609-mbna-agreementsapplication-forms

Edited July 23, 2010 by GeoffreyAlby

[vint1954]

the strip on the right hand side of the reverse of your agreement is the usual cut and paste insertion.

 

They won't be able to supply a copy of the original, as they scan then destroy agreements. Fools. I have this in writing on 3 occassions. The application and terms perported to be on the reverse of the document may well pass muster for an s78 request, but not for a court submission. You must maintain that this is hearsay evidence at best. They will need to prove it.

 

You must also maintain that the doccuments are illegible.

 

The typed up agreement is just a reconstruction of the current terms that they like to call an agreement. Has nothing to do with original terms.

 

Problem is that these companies largel use clerks for their responses. Look on the footer of your letters from Optima and you will find the e mail address of the person that is dealing with it.

 

Have a good search on this forum for relating posts by Banker_Rhyms_With and surfaceagentx20.

 

Just one last point of interest. Your agreement needs to be between you and the Oc, giving their registered address. Usually they use a PO box number. Have a look at the Companies act 1985 and you will find this illegal and a criminal offence!

[wmr]

Vint/Geoffrey

 

Thank you so much for your very valued input on the Application Form"

(supposed Agreement).

 

The laughable thing about this of course, is that the letter I received from Gail Powell at MBNA states how meticulous they are at ensuring that the pre-contractual agreement, is always sent back to the customer, together with the original agreement to be signed. And ALWAYS signed by both the customer and MBNA.

 

If that is the case, then they should have no problems supplying.

 

You will see that letter on my thread which I put up.

 

 

.

[wmr]

Right Folks

 

Having just received papers from the court regarding our friends at Optima applying for the "Stay" to be lifted, and applying for a "SJ", I think I should for quickness give a resume of events, (which are copied by file, most of it on this thread).

 

Here goes then:-

 

* DEC 4TH 2009: DEFAULT NOTICE ISSUED (FRIDAY) SENT 2ND CLASS (HAVE ENVELOPE) AND RECEIVED HERE ON THURSDAY 10TH DEC.

ACCT BALANCE: £6613. PAYMENT OF £990.15 REQUIRED BY 21ST DEC 2009. IF NOT, ON OR AFTER THE ACCOUNT WILL BE TERMINATED...MAY TAKE COURT ACTION ETC.

------------------------------------------------------------

* 4TH JAN 210

 

LETTER FROM OPTIMA DEMANDING PAYMENT OF BALANCE. STATED MBNA WILLING TO CONSIDER ANY PROPOSALS ETC. MUST WRITE OR CONTACT WITHIN 14 DAYS OR MAY START LEGAL ACTION.

---------------------------------------------------------------

JAN 6TH 2010: RESPONDED WITH COPIES OF "cccs" INCOME OUTGOING AND POINTED OUT ALREADY HAD ARRANGEMENT FOR £3 MONTHLY WITH MBNA. OFFERED SAME ARRANGEMENT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

JAN12 2010:

REPLY FROM OPTIMA CONFIRMING ARRANGEMENT OF £3 TO CONTINUE AND PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE TO THEM NOT MBNA, FIRST ONE TO START BY 20TH JAN. (ALREADY HAD PAID JAN INSTALMENT AND ADVISED THEM). STATED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO APPLY IN DUE COURSE FOR A"CHARGE ON MY PROPERTY" ALSO TO SAFEGUARD CLIENTS INTERESTS.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

JAN 18TH 2010:

 

HAVING ACCEPTED THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT. COURT PAPERS RECEIVED DATED 18TH JAn 2010 northampton county court for £6607 plus £190 court plus £100 SOLICITORS.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

JAN 21 2010:

RECORDED DELIVERY LETTER SENT TO MBNA WITH £1 REQUEST OF COPY OF CCA UNDER SECTION S77/78.

--------------------------------------------------------------

JAN 22ND 2010:RESPONDED TO OPTIMA LETTER REGARDS LETTER OF JAN 4TH POINTING OUT IF ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE, NO COURT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AND COMPLAINING OF OVERSTEPPING MARK BY ATTEMPTING TO GET A "CHARGE ON PROPERTY" PRIOR TO OBTAINING CCJ ORDER ETC. AND THEN ISSUING CCJ ON 18TH JAN ETC.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

JAN 25TH 2010:

 

LETTER TO OPTIMA UNDER CP 31.14 RULES. REQUESTED COPY OF AGREEMENT , TERMINATION NOTICE,ETC SENT TO THEM RECORDED DELIVERY.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

JAN 28TH 2010:

 

LETTER FROM MBNA AND ENCLOSED COPY OF "APPLICATION FORM" DATED SEPT 2000. STATING IT WAS A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT.COULD NOT DECIPHER CONDITIONS. IT WAS NOTED THAT A TICK HAD BEEN PLACED ON PPI INSURANCE. THE TICK WAS NOT MADE BY ME AS NONE WAS REQUESTED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5TH FEB 2010:

 

LETTER SENT TO MBNA POINTING OUT THAT ALL THAT WAS RECEIVED UNDER CCA REQUEST WAS APPLICATION FORM & NOT AGREEMENT SHOWING SIGNATURES OF BOTH PARTIES ETC. ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PPI SECTION HAD TICK NOT MADE BY MYSELF.

POINTED OUT A SEPARATE LETTER WAS BEING SENT ON THIS MATTER TO THEM

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

7TH FEB 2010:

 

LETTER OF "UNLAWFUL RESCISSION" SENT TO MBNA BY RECORDED, REGARDING THE FAULTY DN.

 

***NOT ACKNOWLEDGEDAT 28/7/2010 (LETTER WAS 2 PAGES: ALSOFAXED AND SENT 1ST CLASS MAIL)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

10TH EB 2010:

 

LETTER FROM OPTIMA RE: MY REQUEST FOR PROPER DOCUMENTS.

APPLICATION FORM (AGAIN)

COPY OF DN NOTICE DEC 4TH 2009

COPY OF CURRENT TERMS & CONDITIONS

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

FEB 12 2010

 

SENT TO MBNA BY BOTH FAX & 1ST CLASS MAIL...........

LETTER REGARDS THE PP AND ASKED FOR COPIES OF ANY PAPERWORK I SIGNED ETC.

**AS AT 28/7/2010 NO RESPONSES OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

FEB 12 2010

LETTER SENT TO OPTIMA REF RECENT CORRESPONDENCE DRAWING ATTN: TO "UNLAWFUL RESCISSION" AND POINTED OUT THAT PPI WAS NOT REQUESTED ON APPLICTION FORM. OPTIMA ASKED TO CONFERM WITH CLIENT & COME BACK TO ME.

ALSO POINTED OUT THAT MY LETTER RGARDS CPR 31.14 HAD NOT BEEN REPLIED TO STILL (MORE THAN 7 DAYS)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

FEB 16 2010 RECORDED DELIVERY TO NORTHAMPTON COURTCONTAINING EMBARRASSED DEFENCE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

FEB 26 2010: LETTER BY RECORDED DELIVERY SENT TO MBNA REF: APPLICATION FORM SUPPLIED CCA, POINTING OUT NOT INLINE WITH REGULATIONS ETC. GIVEN 7 DAYS TO COMPLY.

-------------------------------------------------------------

MARCH 5TH 2010:

 

LETTER FROM GAIL POWELL MBNA STATING MATTERS WERE TAKING LONGER ETC, AND WOULD REPLY IN 28DAYS.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

MARCH 11TH 2010:

 

LETTER FROM OPTIMA WITH A PART 36 OFFER.

 

OFFERED TO ACCEPT REDUCTION AND IN PARAGRAPH 2 AS A PASSING SENTENCE MERELY STATES... PPI INSURANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN RETURNED IN SUM OF £1508! NO LETTER RECEIED CONFIRMING THIS A PER MY LETTER, ONLY A PASSING MENTION IN PAR: 2. ALSO WAS TOLD I HAD NO PROSPECT OF WINNING AND IF DID NOT ACCEPT IN 21 DAYS THEY WOULD ASK FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

LETTER 16 MARCH2010:

TO OPTIMA:

CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF PART 36 OFFER.NO COMMENT MADE ON CONTENTS BUT BROUGHT UP PAR, 2 AND MENTION OF PPI. ASKED BY WHAT METHOD THIS HAS SUPPOSIDLY BEEN REPAID AND TO SHOW EVIDENCE ETC. POINTED OUT THAT MBNA HAD WRITTEN THIS MONTH QUOTING ANOTHER FIGURE WHICH WAS OVER £500 LESS THAN QUOTED BY OPTIMA

----------------------------------------------------------------

MARCH 18TH 2010:

FURTHER LETER TO OPTIMA RAISING MENTION OF PPI £1508! AND MENTIONED HAD SPOKEN TO OFT ABOUT THIS & TRADING STANDARDS AS I HAD NOT PUT THIS TICK ON THE APPLICATON FORM. POINTED OUT TRADING STANDARDS SAID THEY WOULD PUT IT TO THE CRIMINAL TEAM.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

MARCH 18TH 2010:

 

EMAIL FROM OPTIMA ABOUT LETTER. "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" TO SAVE AS COSTS. STATED SUMOF £1509 HAD BEEN RETURNED AND STILL OWE THEM £5388. STATED COMMENTS NOTED BY ME RE: OFT AND TRADING STANDARDS AND THESE WOULD NOT BE ADMISSABLE IN COURTAND I WAS NOT HELPING MATTERS WRITING SUCH LETTERS. THEY WERE GOING TO REPORT THIS TO JUDGE.

------------------------------------------------------------------

22ND MARCH 2010:

 

BY RECORDED TO MBNA.

REQUEST FOR ALL EVIDENCE OF MY SIGNING ANY INSURANCE APPLICATION FOR PPI OR ANY PAPERWORK, REQUESTED IN 7 DAYS.

POINTED OUT THAT OPTIMA HAD STATED £1509 RETURNED ANDMBNA STATED £500 LESS. POINTED OUT GAVE THEM FURTHER 7 DAYS TO SEND PROOF.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

MARCH 23 2010:

 

LETTER FROM GAIL POWELL MBNA TO MY PREVIOUS LETTERS:-

 

STATED THAT I ASKED FOR PPI.

STATED THAT CREDITS FOR £1016 RETURNED.(THIS CONFLICT WITH OPTIMA FIGURE OF £1509). PAGE 2... GOES ON ABOUT HOW PERFECT THE ARE WITH CREDIT AGREEMENTS ETC. COPY ALWAYS SENT TO CUSTOMER FOR SIGNATURE AND COPY OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL ALWAYS SENT BACK WITH COPY OF AGREEMENT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES ETC.

LOAD OF COBBLES!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

APRIL9TH 2010:

 

LETTER TO OPTIMA SUGGESTING MATTERS BE SORTED OUT AND LISTED POINTS RE: NO AGREEMENT, FAULTY DN BREAKDOWN OF ACCOUNT AUDITED REQUIRED FOR PPI AD WHAT AND WHEN WAS IT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED, WHAT EVIDENCE ETC/

INVITED TO DISCONTINUE AL PROCEEDINGS & CONTACT CLIENT ON THIS.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

APRIL 13TH 2010:

 

FROM OPTIMA

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

APPLICATION IS AGREEMENT

WE ARE TAKING INSTRUCTION WITH REST & WILL COMEBACK ETC.

STATED AGAIN £1509 PPI IS CORRECT (DIFFERENT FROM MBNA STATEMENT IN WRITING).

STATED WILL ADVISE WHEN CLIENT TALKED TO

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

APRIL 19 2010:

LETTER SENT TO GAIL POWELL ASKING AGAIN WHEN THIS PPI WAS CREDITED

 

NO RESPONSE AT 28/7/10

-------------------------------------------------------------

MAY 5 2010:

 

FURTHER LETTER TO GAIL POWELL ASKING FOR RESPONSE RE PPI

--------------------------------------------------------------

MAY 13 2010:

 

EMAILED OPTIMA ASKING FOR CONFIRMATION AND RESPONSES RE MY LETTER TO MBNA ON PPI.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

MAY 13 2010:

 

FURTHER LETTER FROM GAIL POWELL ASKING FOR FURTHER 28 DAYS.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NMAY 18TH 2010:

 

EMAIL FROM OPTIMA ADVISING CREDIT WAS REFUNDED 10TH MARCH FOR PPI. (nOTE THIS ACCOUNT WAS TERMINATED AND RESCISSION ACCEPTED IN FEB 2010) HOW COULD IT BE RETURNED TO A TERMINATED ACCOUNT IN MARCH?)

 

ASKED IF I COULD SUPPLY A COPY OF MY DFENCE SUBMITTED TO COURT AS THEY HAD LOST SOME OF IT. SENT COPY BY EMAIL TO THEM.

HE STATED MBNA WERE NOT PREPARED TO DISCONTINUE.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

MAY 21 2010:

 

FROM OPTIMA.

LETTER REGARDS MY EMBARASSED DEFENCE. ENCLOSED AGAIN COPIES OF AGREEMENT (APPLICATION FORM) DN NOTICE AND COPIES ACCOUNT GOING BACK TO 2003. (NO COPIES OF ORIGINALS TO 200) HEY CHANGED ACCOUNT NUMBER IN 2003 FROM ORIGINAL NOT STATING AS TO WHY!

 

STATED ALL MATTERS DEALT WITH & I HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING.

INVITED TO WITHDRAWMY DEFENCE & SIGN DECLARATION SUPPLIED AND ADMIT TO PAY COSTS ETC.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

JUNE 2ND 2010:

 

ANOTHER LETTER FROM MBNA CUSTOMER ADVOCATE MANAGER MAKING APOLOGY & WILL ANSWER IN 28DAYS

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

JUNE 4TH 2010:

 

FROM MBNA CASE MANAGER: PPI WAS CREDITED DURING MARCH 2010 AND WILL NOT CORRESPOND ANY FURTHER.WRITE TO OMBUDSMAN IN FUTURE ETC.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

JUNE 7TH 2010:

 

4 PAGE STATEMENT SENT T OPTIMA GIVING REASONS WHY I WOULD NOT SIGN MY RIGHTS AWAY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (ON THREAD)

COPY TO NORTHAMPTON IN CASE THEYGOT UP TO ANY FUNNY BUSINESS RE: SJ!

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

JNE 21 2010:

 

LETTER FROM OPTIMA:

ACKNOWLEDGE MY LETTER AND THEY NOTE MY TONE!

STATED I SHOULD TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM SOLICTOR OF MY CHOICE. STATED THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO REASONABLE SUGGESTION FOR MY PAYING THEM

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

AUGUST 4TH 2010.

 

COURT ADVICE STATING OPTIMA HAD APPLIED FOR STAY TO BE LIFTED AND DEALT WITH AT BRADFORD COUNTY COURT. (100+ MILES AWAY FROM MY HOME). DATED 28/7/10 AND APPLIED FOR AT NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT. tHE COURT TOLD ME ON FRI JULY 30TH AND MONDAY AUG 2ND THAT NO ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN SINCE MAY BY OPTIMA.

YET APPLICATION WAS DATED 28/7/10 BY OPTIMA.

BUNCH OF COURT PAPERS RECEIVED TODAY FROM DURHAM COURT, STATING THAT CASE WAS DOWN FOR SJ HEARING ON REAR END OF OCTOBER!

OPTIMA HAVE ATTEMPTED TO GET IT DEALT WITH BY BRADFORD IT APPEARS, BUT NORTHAMPTON MUST HAVE REALISED (TIME WISE) I SUPPOSE I COULD NOT DEAL WITH IT (7 DAYS SINCE APPL TODAY) SO THIS IS SERIOUS. IF COURT AT NORTHAMPTON SAY NO STAY LIFTED ON MONDAY, HOW COULD DURHAM SAY THEY GOT CASE YESTERDAY WHEN I PHONED THEM TODAY.

wAS TOLD BY LADY THAT THEY HAD TRIED TO GET IT TO BRADFORD, BUT AS I HAD A RIGHT TO HAVE IT NEAR ME, NORTHAMPTON CHOSE DURHAM. IT IS DOWN ON THE COMPUTER FOR OCTOBER. FEEL OPTIMA WILL BE SO ANNOYED AT THIS).

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THE ABOVE IS A RESUME OF EVENTS WITH THE LAST ONES TACKED ON TODAY. I HOPE IT HELPS WITH QUICK RESUME FOR 6 MONTHS.

I WILL COMMENT FURTHER LATER BUT WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL FOR ALL HELP BY YOU EXPERTS AND THANKS. AGAIN.

PS: APLOGIES FOR ANY SPELLING MISTAKES DUETO TIME ON THIS!

[emandcole]

Let's give Optima something to read shall we? In the case of Upendra Rasiklal Patel v. Vithalbahi Bikabhai Patel which Optima actually spelt wrongly, Optima are very selective in their submissions. Yes, para 76 and 77 might well state that

 

"It is important to consider whether there are matters bearing on the fairness

of the relationship which weigh in the opposite direction. ... I think it relevant

that the Defendant has benefited very substantially from the loans made by

the Claimant".

 

However we both know if you read the rest of it that paras 78 and 79 go on to complete that with the inclusion of

 

 

1. Even giving full weight to these matters, however, I have reached the very clear conclusion that the relationship arising out of the 1992 agreement was unfair to the defendant – because of the terms of the agreement, because of the way in which the claimant has exercised his rights under the agreement and because of the other acts and omissions of the claimant to which I have referred.
   
2. I must therefore consider what order, if any, to make under s.140B in the light of this determination. It is plain from the width of the provisions that the intention is to give the court a very wide discretion to make whatever order it thinks just. But in principle it seems to me that the order made should reflect and be proportionate to the nature and degree of the unfairness which the court has found.
   

 

As for stating other solicitors have told Optima that WMR hasn't a chance just how professional is this? Let's see what the community solicitor has to say about that as they're supposed to be acting in the interests of WMR, not moonlighting all over the place. Is this the same solicitor that considered a DN as prescribed by parliament was 'unimportant'? Go figure.

 

Enough said I think.

Edited October 21, 2010 by emandcole