MBNA county court Summons " Help Please

[manchestman]

Hi Dizzy and so very sorry for your illness.

 

I can offer no concrete advice and only hope that Andy, GH or someone with the knowledge and experience will be along shortly to help.

 

What I do know is that when you receive a WS or defence like this that refutes everything you have said or know and also seems to prove it too, is utter nonsense and is meant to scare you to death - it initially succeeded in my own case until I later realised most of what they said was just hearsay and twaddle!

 

This is completely my own personal opinion you understand? But I am sure your 'agreement' issue is the key argument and I'm not sure whether you might get so bogged down in the default notice issue that you forget your strongest point. I take it that you have read and well clued up on the Clary case and know what they will bring to the table in their defence.

[citizenB]

The only way you are going to get those barcodes deciphered is to contact the legal department of Royal Mail/UK Mail, I would think.

 

You should be able to obtain the differing UK Mail delivery options from their website. But any gaurantees of delivery are to Royal Mail themselves, for the "final mile" delivery as UK Mail do not deliver to households.

[citizenB]

Dizzy, I have been given permission to post up the following for you. Please also see attachments which have been provided for your assistance.

 

Looks like MBNA telling Fairy Stories again!

 

 

They are inventing things to try and make themselves sound convincing.

 

 

I have read, heard and seen this myself, and such tactics were completely rubbished in the High Court.

 

 

I'm sending you pages from my High Court Bundle, and have rotated the DN Envelope to make it easier to read.

 

 

A lot of this MBNA guff is meant to sound like the Witness knows what they are talking about, so there's a lot of padding at the start to suggest an organised Witness, who knows the bank and has discussed this with other employees who are just as organised and sensible. The reality is likely to be somewhat different!

 

 

 

 

This Witness is using standard MBNA smoke and mirrors tactics.

 

 

Paragraph (i):

 

 

This can only be taken at their word, we cannot prove nor disprove what that Department sent, or didn't send, or which Envelopes it may have used. We have no idea, and I suspect neither does MBNA.

 

 

Paragraph (ii):

 

 

They have provided a late Envelope, so what. The "S" I think is more or less meaningless, and if a UKMail Envelope, will relate to their Service or some pricing issue. Get onto UKMail's Web Site, and start looking, and download their Terms. This UKMail's Terms will confirm that Royal Mail still do the deliveries, and most of the mail piece handling. It's all part of the UK's Universal Service, Google that to see what I mean.

 

 

UKMail when sending Post, are a front end carrier, who collect Mail Pieces from their Clients, and then deliver them to Royal Mail...after which Royal Mail delivers the item to the Addressee. So, don't let MBNA try to imply a UKMail Service is guaranteed delivery in 2 days including Weekends, or any such nonsense, because that ONLY relates to the time between Customer and UKMail to Royal Mail. It does not include the Royal Mail leg.

 

 

Google Richard Hooper CBE and download his 2008 Report into Royal Mail. This confirms why 1st Class can take +2 Working Days, and 2nd Class +4 Working days. Not much has changed, hence why in 2010 Richard Hooper was put in charge of the likely Royal Mail break up and sell off. His Report also confirms why The Interpretation Act 1978 and the related Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 are as applicable now, as they were then. The timescales for 1st and 2nd Class Royal Mail delivery have not changed.

 

 

MBNA's Witness in the High Court tried to claim similar UKMial issues, claiming they "would have used UKMail 1st Class" and was utterly defeated on the issue. I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they sent my s87(1) Default Notice via Royal Mail, and via 2nd Class Post, using a Royal Mail 2nd Class Postage Paid Impression (pre-printed). See the PDF.

 

 

MBNA's Witness stated via a Witness Statement and Statement of Truth, that MBNA had used UKMail 1st Class, with a guaranteed delivery in 2 days including Weekends. This was pure invention or a complete failure to check.

 

 

She was wrong. Completely wrong, and she was a Solicitor.

 

 

She had to concede that point when in Court and under oath, i.e. the MBNA Witness had to concede that point and climb down from her absurd claims that they had used UKMail 1st Class and UKMail could deliver faster than Royal Mail when Royal Mail handle the main delivery (LINK never did concede this point, despite their later claims to try and say they did, i.e. to avoid costs after they lost).

 

 

Paragraph (iii):

 

 

My 2008 s87(1) Default Notice envelope does not have any "Read me, Recycle me" Logo. The Witness is making this up, or has no idea and should say he/she has no idea. Invention is not for a Witness Statement.

 

 

My Envelope had no such Logo, so the Witness is utterly mistaken, and their evidence should be questioned via cross-examination and suitably trashed. They must be made to concede that they are wrong.

 

 

Paragraph (iv):

 

 

This is also nonsense, because they did not switch over to UKMail from January 2008, as my accepted High Court evidence confirms. Indeed, as my many other 2008 MBNA Envelopes also adduced to the High Court also confirmed.

 

 

My s87(1) DN Envelope did not show that Stock Code, so the Witness is making this up to try and mislead the Court, no doubt to avoid a s87(1) DN from being declared bad, and thus no enforcement can be relied upon it.

 

 

I am fairly sure that HHJ Chambers QC is also Senior to HHJ Denyer QC. Chambers is the Senior Mercantile Judge for Wales, and is a full High Court Judge. HHJ Denyer QC was, by comparison, a Crown Court Judge who had only recently switched to Civil. Denyer was only "sitting as" a Judge of the High Court. HHJ Chambers QC was shown the Denyer Judgment and elected to ignore it, as he was able to do.

 

 

Keith Harrison v Link Financial Limited is almost certainly a higher binding Precedent on the 2nd Class Post issue and its potential adverse enforcement effects for the Claimant who does not allow time for Postage, than American Express Services Europe Ltd v I K R Brandon (Denyer Judgment - subject to Appeal in the CoA in any event).

 

 

I can think of no satisfactory reason why the MBNA Witness is claiming the Defendant's Envelope is anything other than what the Defendant claims it to be.

 

 

I am happy to provide a Witness Statement if needed, or I suggest you let the Court have sight of the Harrison v Link Judgment.

 

 

HTH

 

 

Cheers,

 

Keith Harrison

MBNA Fairy Story 001.pdf

[citizenB]

The link for MBNA Fairy story is the section of the MBNA Witness statement sent to YOU.. which has been cropped so you can see what Mr Harrison is referring to in the comments posted for your attention.

[Chipmeister]

God bless you Mr Harrison!Dizzy - go get 'em!!!

[Gallahad]

Try putting that in your pipe and smoke screening it MBNA:lol:

G

[bazaar]

Oh deary me,

Edited May 12, 2011 by bazaar
my mistake

[DizzieDiva2010]

Deleted

Edited May 12, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[Chipmeister]

Oh, Dizzie, my thoughts and prayers are with you. Take care,

CM

[AndyOrch]

"with this latest application to the court. I'm still paying them £20 per month."

 

 

What application have they made DD ?

 

 

Andy

[DizzieDiva2010]

Since January 2011 i have been making payments of £20 to them at the end of each month.

 

 

Andy witness statement i have posted above is what they have asked the courts permission to be permitted to rely upon the witness statement of Sophie Anderson and that Sophie Anderson have permission to attend court as a witness. I have until tomorrow to have this application abridged, set aside, varied or stayed. I can ask the court for an extention until i seek advice from the advice centre which is on a monday.

I will be back online in the morning.

[DizzieDiva2010]

Oh, Dizzie, my thoughts and prayers are with you. Take care,

CM

 

Deleted

Edited May 13, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[AndyOrch]

Dizzie

 

As its getting late now I will let you have my deliberations tomorrow.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[DizzieDiva2010]

Dizzie

 

As its getting late now I will let you have my deliberations tomorrow.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Whilst i was in hospital Restons sent me an email saying that if i did not agree to allowing them add this further witness statement from Sophie Anderson they would apply to the court and this would be added to the costs that i would have to pay. I did not have time to read this witness statement and they went ahead and applied and got the order without my consent. I have not had time to read it and i have written to the court for an extension until i seek legal advice.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Dizzie

 

 

Ok re their application to submit a new WS.Firstly you must ask why would they wish to do this?

Are Nestons not up to the job? Out of their depth? Who knows but the content is probally worse than the original

and I wouldn't want to hing a case on whether my stationary had a logo on it or not:wink:

 

With regards to the DN she goes into great detail re delivery and dates this would indicate that you have touched a nerve.

As with any WS anything referred to or included must be backed up by fact and proved. I doubt anyone involved in the process

of DN instigation could actually prove what she states and is merely hindsight and smokescreens.

 

Be it an Hardship programme or agreement it is what it is and cant be differentiated in the detail she eludes.

Litigation was instigated even though there was " an Agreement in place"

 

I assume you have time now to digest what CB as posted for you and the implications of the Harrison case,

the application of a last minute WS really does smack of desperation and I am at a loss why any Global Company

would pursue this matter with the costs so far for the value involved, but as i have suspected all along this is personal

and your current situation as had no consideration in this matter from day one ,but merely reflects the nature of this company

and its treatment of its customers.

 

I personally would not attempt to stop this application, you may consider application to submit further testimonial yourself to highlight

the empty and amateurish content of said WS.

 

Let me know your thoughts

 

Regards

 

Andy:wink:

[DizzieDiva2010]

Hi Dizzie

 

 

Ok re their application to submit a new WS.Firstly you must ask why would they wish to do this?

Are Nestons not up to the job? Out of their depth? Who knows but the content is probally worse than the original

and I wouldn't want to hing a case on whether my stationary had a logo on it or not:wink:

 

With regards to the DN she goes into great detail re delivery and dates this would indicate that you have touched a nerve.

As with any WS anything referred to or included must be backed up by fact and proved. I doubt anyone involved in the process

of DN instigation could actually prove what she states and is merely hindsight and smokescreens.

 

Be it an Hardship programme or agreement it is what it is and cant be differentiated in the detail she eludes.

Litigation was instigated even though there was " an Agreement in place"

 

I assume you have time now to digest what CB as posted for you and the implications of the Harrison case,

the application of a last minute WS really does smack of desperation and I am at a loss why any Global Company

would pursue this matter with the costs so far for the value involved, but as i have suspected all along this is personal

and your current situation as had no consideration in this matter from day one ,but merely reflects the nature of this company

and its treatment of its customers.

 

I personally would not attempt to stop this application, you may consider application to submit further testimonial yourself to highlight

the empty and amateurish content of said WS.

 

Let me know your thoughts

 

Regards

 

Andy:wink:

 

As you put it like that yes I agree. I havnt even read there witness statement properly i have skimmed it and i was not going to ask it to be set aside because at the end of the day i am telling the truth and i shall ask them to provide proof of delivery service like i aways do ie a postal reciept. I have asked the court to give me time to seek advice and allow me to add a further witness statement. How do i go about this what application to the court is required to allow me to do this?

[DizzieDiva2010]

Dizzy, I have been given permission to post up the following for you. Please also see attachments which have been provided for your assistance.

 

Looks like MBNA telling Fairy Stories again!

 

 

They are inventing things to try and make themselves sound convincing.

 

 

I have read, heard and seen this myself, and such tactics were completely rubbished in the High Court.

 

 

I'm sending you pages from my High Court Bundle, and have rotated the DN Envelope to make it easier to read.

 

 

A lot of this MBNA guff is meant to sound like the Witness knows what they are talking about, so there's a lot of padding at the start to suggest an organised Witness, who knows the bank and has discussed this with other employees who are just as organised and sensible. The reality is likely to be somewhat different!

 

 

 

 

This Witness is using standard MBNA smoke and mirrors tactics.

 

 

Paragraph (i):

 

 

This can only be taken at their word, we cannot prove nor disprove what that Department sent, or didn't send, or which Envelopes it may have used. We have no idea, and I suspect neither does MBNA.

 

 

Paragraph (ii):

 

 

They have provided a late Envelope, so what. The "S" I think is more or less meaningless, and if a UKMail Envelope, will relate to their Service or some pricing issue. Get onto UKMail's Web Site, and start looking, and download their Terms. This UKMail's Terms will confirm that Royal Mail still do the deliveries, and most of the mail piece handling. It's all part of the UK's Universal Service, Google that to see what I mean.

 

 

UKMail when sending Post, are a front end carrier, who collect Mail Pieces from their Clients, and then deliver them to Royal Mail...after which Royal Mail delivers the item to the Addressee. So, don't let MBNA try to imply a UKMail Service is guaranteed delivery in 2 days including Weekends, or any such nonsense, because that ONLY relates to the time between Customer and UKMail to Royal Mail. It does not include the Royal Mail leg.

 

 

Google Richard Hooper CBE and download his 2008 Report into Royal Mail. This confirms why 1st Class can take +2 Working Days, and 2nd Class +4 Working days. Not much has changed, hence why in 2010 Richard Hooper was put in charge of the likely Royal Mail break up and sell off. His Report also confirms why The Interpretation Act 1978 and the related Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 are as applicable now, as they were then. The timescales for 1st and 2nd Class Royal Mail delivery have not changed.

 

 

MBNA's Witness in the High Court tried to claim similar UKMial issues, claiming they "would have used UKMail 1st Class" and was utterly defeated on the issue. I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they sent my s87(1) Default Notice via Royal Mail, and via 2nd Class Post, using a Royal Mail 2nd Class Postage Paid Impression (pre-printed). See the PDF.

 

 

MBNA's Witness stated via a Witness Statement and Statement of Truth, that MBNA had used UKMail 1st Class, with a guaranteed delivery in 2 days including Weekends. This was pure invention or a complete failure to check.

 

 

She was wrong. Completely wrong, and she was a Solicitor.

 

 

She had to concede that point when in Court and under oath, i.e. the MBNA Witness had to concede that point and climb down from her absurd claims that they had used UKMail 1st Class and UKMail could deliver faster than Royal Mail when Royal Mail handle the main delivery (LINK never did concede this point, despite their later claims to try and say they did, i.e. to avoid costs after they lost).

 

 

Paragraph (iii):

 

 

My 2008 s87(1) Default Notice envelope does not have any "Read me, Recycle me" Logo. The Witness is making this up, or has no idea and should say he/she has no idea. Invention is not for a Witness Statement.

 

 

My Envelope had no such Logo, so the Witness is utterly mistaken, and their evidence should be questioned via cross-examination and suitably trashed. They must be made to concede that they are wrong.

 

 

 

Paragraph (iv):

 

 

This is also nonsense, because they did not switch over to UKMail from January 2008, as my accepted High Court evidence confirms. Indeed, as my many other 2008 MBNA Envelopes also adduced to the High Court also confirmed.

 

 

My s87(1) DN Envelope did not show that Stock Code, so the Witness is making this up to try and mislead the Court, no doubt to avoid a s87(1) DN from being declared bad, and thus no enforcement can be relied upon it.

 

 

I am fairly sure that HHJ Chambers QC is also Senior to HHJ Denyer QC. Chambers is the Senior Mercantile Judge for Wales, and is a full High Court Judge. HHJ Denyer QC was, by comparison, a Crown Court Judge who had only recently switched to Civil. Denyer was only "sitting as" a Judge of the High Court. HHJ Chambers QC was shown the Denyer Judgment and elected to ignore it, as he was able to do.

 

 

Keith Harrison v Link Financial Limited is almost certainly a higher binding Precedent on the 2nd Class Post issue and its potential adverse enforcement effects for the Claimant who does not allow time for Postage, than American Express Services Europe Ltd v I K R Brandon (Denyer Judgment - subject to Appeal in the CoA in any event).

 

 

I can think of no satisfactory reason why the MBNA Witness is claiming the Defendant's Envelope is anything other than what the Defendant claims it to be.

 

 

I am happy to provide a Witness Statement if needed, or I suggest you let the Court have sight of the Harrison v Link Judgment.

 

 

HTH

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Keith Harrison

 

Exellent, do i need to refer to this case in a further Witness Statement?

Edited May 13, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[AndyOrch]

Hi

 

 

The hearing as been adjourned i understand so subject to the continuation you simply make application on a N244 to submit your further WS, the same as the Claimant.Think carefully Dizzie as anything you add further may appear tit for tat and its a further cost to yourself.

In all honestly that Witness will have to attend and you will have opportunity to raise rubbish and question anything she has stated as fact.

I dont think you need further extensions to consider because in effect what they have introduced is as I have stated tantamount to smoke screens and here say

not fact and very difficult to prove if required.

 

By all means study CBs links and the Harrison case and include in your argument.

 

 

Andy

[DizzieDiva2010]

Hi

 

 

The hearing as been adjourned i understand so subject to the continuation you simply make application on a N244 to submit your further WS, the same as the Claimant.Think carefully Dizzie as anything you add further may appear tit for tat and its a further cost to yourself.

In all honestly that Witness will have to attend and you will have opportunity to raise rubbish and question anything she has stated as fact.

I dont think you need further extensions to consider because in effect what they have introduced is as I have stated tantamount to smoke screens and here say

not fact and very difficult to prove if required.

 

By all means study CBs links and the Harrison case and include in your argument.

 

 

Andy

 

Ok so i do not request to add a further witness statement, all i do is bring it up in court in my argument and refer to the Harrison case and ask them to prove they sent the default notice second class UK Mail?

[Chipmeister]

Ok so i do not request to add a further witness statement, all i do is bring it up in court in my argument and refer to the Harrison case and ask them to prove they sent the default notice second class UK Mail?

 

As MBNA have made it clear that they wish to rely on their oh-so-accurate witness statement and Sophie Anderson's testimony at the hearing I would have thought it is now up to you to get the orange bar code on the DN envelope deciphered so that you can blow their WS (and their witness) out the water in the court room. JMHO.When has the hearing been adjourned too?

[citizenB]

Also remember that Keith Harrison has offered to provide a Witness testimony for you as well if you require one. Just let me know

[DizzieDiva2010]

As MBNA have made it clear that they wish to rely on their oh-so-accurate witness statement and Sophie Anderson's testimony at the hearing I would have thought it is now up to you to get the orange bar code on the DN envelope deciphered so that you can blow their WS (and their witness) out the water in the court room. JMHO.When has the hearing been adjourned too?

 

Once the court has sent the paperwork I have to state how long I want the case adjourned for, at the

moment my mind is not fully on this case but I have to try my best now I have come this far bc I don't want to loose.

Edited May 14, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[DizzieDiva2010]

Also remember that Keith Harrison has offered to provide a Witness testimony for you as well if you require one. Just let me know

 

Has he wonderful of course I require one that will be the icing on the cake. Thank you so much for your input much appreciated.

[Chipmeister]

Has he wonderful of course I require one that will be the icing on the cake. Thank you so much for your input much appreciated.

 

Fantastic!!

[bazaar]

You should also in the meantime, go through each point she has stated that looks like hearsay, then interject with a question in court, 'do you know this from personal experience etc' if she flusters then go for the jugular, its hearsay then is it not??

You need to be prepared to rubbish this witness in court, back it up with paprwork from Harrison etc. but be prepared also for the judge not to look at all you bring