Link have a ccj and CO MBNA Card which I am keen to have set aside or appealed

[atom02]

DB, Robin, GH,

 

thanks for looking in. Going back, it is a bit of a treatise but i'll try to address your questions:

 

I knew I returned the admission. NNBulk processing had previously advised me (in writing) that it was a default judgment hence my initial post. Since then, they have said this was communicated in error and it was by determination because the other side did not accept my offer of payments.

 

I started to make payments to blink in nov. of 2007. They have said one DN was sent by the OC and one by them but it seems they simply didn't realise they had sent 2 in total or considering they wouldn't give me their account details, they were shocked when I was able to get the number and start making payments and so possibly felt they should issue another DN (I speculate but it seems the only logical explanation)

 

atom

Edited December 19, 2010 by atom02
to clarify...

[atom02]

Here is a sequence of events:

Catalogue of Events - Link[1].pdf

[atom02]

I agree, everything seems to be out of order here. It needs to go back to square one – the account appears to have been sold ‘live’ so there’s a few avenues to look at.

 

Re the two DNs – did you satisfy the first one by making payment as requested? I’m trying to work out why they sent two.

 

Hi DB - I made token payments, not the sum they were demanding, if this helps

[atom02]

Hi Atom, got your pm

 

Need to go back a few steps first. What was your application that was refused? Was it to set aside based on non compliance with CPR's and wrongfully obtaining judgement in default or was it an application to withdraw your admissission? The reason I ask is that you can't withdraw your admission until you have the judgement set aside. You stated earlier on your thread that they obtained judgment wrongly albeit you made an admission. The correct proceedure to follow is application to get judgment set aside then application to withdraw admission. Can you confirm that this was the proceedure you followed? If not, canb you detail the applications you made and the order they were made in?

 

R

 

It was both but I have been told it was a regular judgment

[nicklea]

ok, from reading your sequence of events they have sent you an agreement. At the end of the day, it all hinges on whether this is enforceable or not. Before you start thinking about making an appeal you have to be absolutely sure that this ageement is not enforceable or you are just wasting your time and money.

 

Also, what did you put on your setaside application that was refused.

[RobinWayRobinme]

Who told u it was a regular judgment and what grounds did they say it was regular?

R

It was both but I have been told it was a regular judgment

[atom02]

Hi Robin - the Claimant said so.

[atom02]

ok, from reading your sequence of events they have sent you an agreement. At the end of the day, it all hinges on whether this is enforceable or not. Before you start thinking about making an appeal you have to be absolutely sure that this ageement is not enforceable or you are just wasting your time and money.

 

Also, what did you put on your setaside application that was refused.

 

- please see PM

 

I had posted an agreement previously, not sure what happened to it. Will repost below...

MBNA - Copy CCA.pdf

[atom02]

There are a few points that may help:

 

1. The POC lists in the name of the Claimant as b*ink not the OC

2. The alleged agreement appears to have my signature on it but it does not comply with the regs + the date is different from that on the POC - this was admitted by their lawyer at the last hearing (judge didn't look at it though)

3. they have also admitted they don't have the original and never have.

4. the dates of assignments according to OC and Claimant are different

5. the clause am supposed to have breached appears nowhere on the alleged agreement so I think it is a copy paste job from different sources

 

Does this help?

Edited December 19, 2010 by atom02
added paragrap 4

[Rhia]

Hello. MBNA are known for their shoddy record keeping - they rarely have a properly executed agreement which is "easily legible" and which meets with the requirements of the CCA and the Regulations. This is exactly the same as numerous ones I and many on CAG have seen.

If you look at the top of this "document" it has a serrated edge and is obviously a tear strip from one of their "flyers" which they have mailed to homes across the land - totally unsolicited - and the consumer ends up with a rotten MBNA deal.

Is that a signature(blacked out) at the bottom? But why is the box above it for a signature empty? This seems to be the place for the customer's signature or is it the additional cardholder - it's not very legible.

I see they do mention the terms and conditions but it is illegible I had to magnify it to make that out so that's non compliant but it does not have the prescribed terms within the signature document so this is unenforceable. However many judges ignore this.

Otherwise I would agree with my fellow CAGers above. You need to observe the court processes and follow the actions outlined above to simplify it all. When does this date from?

Also IO don't think Link can send the default - I believe this has to come from the OC but others may come along to confirm that.

[atom02]

Hi Rhia,

 

Yes, I think the document is a flyer and the blacked out bit is where I supposedly signed. It looks like a cut and paste to me.

 

Regarding the DN, I have been told previously that the DN/s should have had to come from the OC for them to be compliant. But at least one is defective on other grounds too. I have tried to send the last application I made by PM cos it will be a straightforward giveaway if I post it here.

 

The POCs are rubbish as well.

 

I am struggling with the grounds I should put forward for appeal cos at the moment the judge just said it's been a while and the claimant already has a CO which seems very unfair considering they simply got so far without ever even being asked by the courts to show anything.

 

Please let me know what you need to see and I'll post/send it...

atom

Edited December 19, 2010 by atom02

[citizenB]

If B*nk are the claimants then there should be a notice of assignment somewhere.. have you ever received notice that this account had been sold to them ?

[atom02]

If B*nk are the claimants then there should be a notice of assignment somewhere.. have you ever received notice that this account had been sold to them ?

 

Hi CB - not from the bank but had a copy from the claimant as part of cpr 31.16 response in the summer (it is not dated but they say they sent it twice 3 year ago). It is written in their own name. The date they say they took it over is different from the date the bank say they sold it. It basically says they are introducing themselves, they now currently own the debt and as a result of the assignment, they want xxxxx amount of money paid asap...

 

My scanner is broken but I can try to sort this out and post it later this evening

Edited December 19, 2010 by atom02
clarification

[DonkeyB]

Judging by the L-ink NoAs, this account was not defaulted and terminated by MBNA but was clearly sold live. If it had been terminated, then L-ink would not be able to – no need to – issue a DN. As it was sold live, then L-ink should have been offering exactly the same facilities as MBNA.

 

A full SAR to MBNA should have rooted out the facts of this.

[atom02]

DB, am not sure I understand what you mean by mbna offering the same facilities.

 

I sent a SAR which does not show mbna issued a DN, NOA or TN at any time. It does show the account was sold (zero bal), only the date they state is different from that bl*ink say it was assigned to them (I think this discrepancy may be material?).

 

I guess my main concern now is on what grounds I can appeal as this all looks messy to me and there's a few good grounds on which it can be defended - if only I knew then what I know now. But all water under the bridge.

 

Was the judge wrong for disregarding the new evidence that has come to light or that cpr requirments for disclosure were not observed when the claim was filed and instead dismissing the application solely because the claimant already has a CO? I really don't know and this is what i need help with.

 

atom

[DonkeyB]

Personally I think you are appealing the wrong thing, as mentioned earlier.

 

One issue is what the judgment was – if it was a default judgment, as claimed by L-ink, then a set aside is possible.

 

If it was an admission, then there may be problems.

 

Have you a copy of a judgment issued by the court?

[atom02]

It was a judgment by determination, based on an admission. It was nnbc (not b**nk) that said it was a default judgment but have since corrected that. I wasn't here at the time and didn't recieve the initial order. When I asked the nnbc for it, they sent the redetrmination and said they had made a mistake when they told me it was by default.

 

That being the case, I think I have to accept it was not a default judgment.

[atom02]

can i not appeal on the basis of the new evidence? a bit like saying one cannot go back on uninformed consent?

[citizenB]

atom, I think what DB is saying is that .. if the account was never defaulted or terminated by MBNA it was sold as a live account and Link should then be able to offer the same facilities as MBNA ie a credit facility. In that way, they would be able to issue the Default Notice.

[atom02]

I see now what he meant but they are only a debt purchasing company, not a creditor (at least as far as I can see on their license). What would be the implications of this though? Clearly, they have been issuing notices in their name when they ought not be doing so but does this help me in any way now?

[citizenB]

I see now what he meant but they are only a debt purchasing company, not a creditor (at least as far as I can see on their license). What would be the implications of this though? Clearly, they have been issuing notices in their name when they ought not be doing so but does this help me in any way now?

 

TBH, I am not absolutely certain how it would help. I am certain however, that DB will probably know

[atom02]

actually, to correct my earlier comment, I see they have always had a credit license. They have just changed the letter head they use now but both companies still exist under 2 separate licenses.

[DonkeyB]

Exactly. The DN is a bit of a red herring UNLESS MBNA can be proven to have terminated the account. Did they inform you they had reduced your credit limit to zero, for example?

[DonkeyB]

It would be useful to see the copy of the T&Cs they say relate to the account.

[atom02]

Exactly. The DN is a bit of a red herring UNLESS MBNA can be proven to have terminated the account. Did they inform you they had reduced your credit limit to zero, for example?

 

Is it really? It is defective on dates i.e. time allowed to remedy - I think...irrespective of who actually owns the debt. B**ink said a DN was sent by mbna but I never saw onw so can't prove they did. I only know I was told to call b**ink when I tried to pay mbna sometime in late 2007 and the mbna memos say 'sold' and give current balance on transaction records as zero.