Jump to content

MBNA / Optima Legal CC Claim - Counter Claim?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4372 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all.


Thanks in advance to all who read and offer advice. After just a few hours on this forum, it seems we are not alone.

I will try to be brief at to the details but I have today received CCJ Claim Form from Northampton Court, from MBNA via Optima Legal.

This MBNA card dates back only to 2008, so I understand my options are limited.

However, the defualt notice seems to fall short for the rectification date (DN dated 09/04/2010, received 13/04/2010, MBNA rectification date 26/04/2010, 13 days?) and also mentions the paragraph 8, which is not on my agreement.

Furthermore, I have lodged a number of complaints with MBNA regarding their methods, and in particular, phoning during unsociable hours, remaining on the line even after the call has been terminated, suggesting I'd simply labelled as a complainer etc etc.

Most of the things we've witnessed I've read about somewhere in these forums and yet they seem to be able to continue to ignore the UK laws and general decency.

Has anyone succesfully counter claimed against them for distress / harassment.

I would also appreciate any advice that could be offered in dealing with this Claim Form.


Many thanks



Link to post
Share on other sites

get it set aside faulty dn should do it,


this text from another thread might help



these are some of the reasons you can use to set aside including the acts needed hope it helps


The Defendant totally disputes the debt.

The alleged creditor has not provided a valid notice of assignment

The alleged creditor has not provided a legible copy of the agreement that contains the prescribed terms and is executed.

The alleged creditor has not provided any compliant default notice as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

The alleged creditor has not provided any statements for the duration of the account (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of excessive charges

The alleged creditor has not provided any proof that the alleged debt has been securitised under English law

Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act a formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to ******* via recorded delivery on the ********** (see attached document 1 – you need to copy the letter and the recorded delivery slip (take 2 copies) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act

I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements


(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and..

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms.

Consumer Credit Act

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

(N.B - For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation……

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6))


1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007.


2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006.


3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007.

(2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007.

Transitional Provisions

4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007. (cont)

5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in—


sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act;


section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and


section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act,

in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007)






As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that:

‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest



The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:-

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.”

If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the bankruptcy demand was issued.






The Need for a Default notice

Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the demand.

It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment] regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the demand at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169


I refer to:

Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241

'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON.

As a lone parent/low income earner/low income family with limited finances I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court.

I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount.

In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:-

Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch)

In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:-

27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection[ where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).


leeched from debt4get post - dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...