'BOS>MBNA>Hilisden/DLC/Aplins vs Littlbert

[littlebert8]

I have today received what I believe could be considered a letter before action from Aplins solicitors acting for Hilisden Securities.

 

This is the latest correspondence in respect of MBNA Credit Card account sold to Hillisdens last March. This account was originally opened with Bank of Scotland in 2001 and sold to MBNA on 2005.

 

The account has been in dispute with MBNA since August 2008 as they were unable to provide a copy of the original BOS agreement. Hilisdens did eventually track down a copy of the BOS application form, but this (IMHO) is hopelessly unenforceable and I wrote to tell them so. They wrote back saying that they were happy to rely on it and I've not contacted them since.

 

In the last six months or so I have started getting regular threatograms from DLC as the case has worked through their standard collection strategy. I've ignored all of these, but I think they may now be close to issuing a claim through Northampton CC in the hope of an admission/default judgement so they can apply for a charging order.

 

I'm wondering how best to handle this. Should I sit tight and wait for a claim or should I go on the attack now and remind them that I know the agreement is unenforceable and that I'm more than happy to defend?

[Pinky69]

Wouldn't do any harm to fire one across their bows. Send it to their Complaints Deprtment and mark it at the bottom "Cc The Office of Fair Trading Consumer Credit Licence Fitness Deprtment - threatening vexatious court action whilst the alleged account is in dispute. Alleged agreement unenforceable."

[dx100uk]

no i doubt that VERY much.

 

all you are getting is a clever series of letters, each climbing a supposed ladder toward what they want you to think...we can go to court.

 

end of the day is they can't, else they would have done years ago.

 

stand your ground

 

ignore the lot of 'em

 

you're on a phishing list.

 

dx

[Pinky69]

I believe in showing them they are talking absolute drivel and I know it. It has worked for me. There is time to ignore them and a time to say "That is enough of that before you go any further." If they think you don't know any better, they will try to take court action.

[RoyalIrish]

A E Locke is a retard and I wouldn't worry too much about him and Hillesden/DLC.

 

If you are positive that the agreement is unenforcable then just ignore the twats!

[littlebert8]

Here is a scan of the BOS application form that Hilisdens forwarded to me at last year:-

It doesn't appear to contain any prescribed terms at all. If memory serves, it was a magazine insert and there might have been another part to it, bit it is not shown on the reverse of the document supplied - that is an underwriting sheet.

[Helios]

Application form, no prescribed terms - unenforceable

[Bazooka Boo]

Right to Cancel??? Hilarious if they think they can put that in front of a court.,...

[littlebert8]

I wrote to them saying that the 'application form' was unenforceable and that they should take the matter up with MBNA because they had been sold a pup ;-)

 

This is how they responded:

[RoyalIrish]

Just the usual Hillesden crap!

 

File away under 'giggles & guffaws'.

 

Tony Locke is a well known half-wit who, in my opinion, actually 'believes' the crap that he writes!

 

(he has his own unique way of interpreting the OFT guidelines and the rest he just makes up as he goes along!)

 

You just got to admire his determination!

 

He KNOWS full well there is not a damn thing he can do about this as it is an 'Application Form' TONY! yet he keeps churning out letters in the hope that someone will be gullible enough to believe his warped understanding of the OFT Guidelines!

 

I've had the same nonsense from him and I just told him to get stuffed!

 

If he wants to issue 'proceedings' let him go ahead!

 

Otherwise, sit back, relax and let him waste his time!

 

Check Para.3 - Utter bayleeks!

Edited July 6, 2010 by RoyalIrish

[Bazooka Boo]

What a load of bowlarks! As soon as they are out of time send them the 'failed' letter, and ignore any further deforestation the fools send unless it is a SD.

 

P.S if they are happy to rely on that in court, your laughing!

[Pinky69]

No wonder they keep losing money.

[littlebert8]

I've already written to them explaining that its unenforceable. I can't find a soft-copy of that letter, but it contained all the usuall points. I will post a scan up later.

 

Im confident that I can defend any claim, but I just don't want the hassle. I'm quite sure that any decent lawyer would advise hillisdens not to sue, but we all know that the decision isn't taken by a competent lawyer - its far too easy for this account to find its way into a batch sent to northampton. Incidentaly, I work in IT for a high street bank and I've seen some of the collection strategies - they don't even pull the original paperwork unless the claim is defended!

 

Once its in the system, they may not give up easily. This is over 5k so I would expect to be able to claim costs if it goes past AQ, but I still don't want to go there if avoidable.

[RoyalIrish]

As advised, just ignore it unless Hillesdicks try for an SD then you will be quids in!

 

As I said, I've had dealings with A E Locke for about 9 months now and he is a 42 carat bell-end!

 

His letters are imaginative, they look frightening but ultimately they are pure booker prize winning fiction!

 

I'd love to meet the guy just so I could put a face to the drivel!

 

He was the chap who inspired the Danny Kaye movie 'The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty'.

[littlebert8]

I've had another letter from Aplins today. This one says that they are going to issue a claim with the intention of asking forthwith judgement. It goes on to state that they don't expect payment in full, but that they want to obtain a charge on my property. Its the standard guff that Ive seen here on the forum, but it does seem to be followed by a claim, so I think a 'shot across the bow' might be in order.

 

Does anybody have letter that I could use or adapt? Otherwise I'll draft something myself and post up over the weekend

[littlebert8]

This is the text of my last letter to A E Locke last summer:-

 

Thank you for your letter of xx September 2009 in which you enclose a copy of a what you assert to be a copy of my “original agreement with MBNA Europe Bank”. I note the document enclosed with you letter is a photostatic copy of a microfilm document that is clearly labelled as a Bank of Scotland Application Form.

 

 

I assume that your letter is a response to my letter of xx April 2009 in which I notified you of my dispute with MBNA Europe Bank Ltd. due to their being in default of my request to supply me with a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account.

 

 

The document that you have supplied does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

 

The document does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:

“127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).”

 

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

 

I note that you intend to resume “collection activity” in the next 14 days. I would therefore like to remind you that such action will be in violation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Collection Guidelines.

 

 

I you cannot supply a compliant copy of the agreement I require written clarification that this is the case.

 

 

Should you ignore this request and attempt enforcement, I may file complaints with appropriate authorities such as Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading, the Information Commissioner and Financial Ombudsman Service. I may also initiate litigation in the County Court.

 

 

I would also like to remind you that I require all communication to be in writing. I refer you to the contents of my previous letter regarding harassment by telephone and the threat of doorstep calls.

 

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable, it would be in both our interests to bring the matter to a swift conclusion that avoids both the cost and inconvenience of a protracted dispute. I can only assume that MBNA Europe Bank Ltd failed to inform you of my dispute with them prior to assigning their rights and responsibilities under this account to yourselves. I respectfully suggest that you seek redress from MBNA for any loss you believe you may have suffered as a result of this transaction.

 

 

I suggest you give serious consideration to the above as any attempt at litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages and/or wasted costs.

[unclebulgaria67]

I found this letter the other day, scanning through a forum post, where there was a similar situation.

 

I have received your letter dated xxxxx and note its contents.

 

As I have repeatedly explained to your client, I consider this account to be in dispute in that to date they failed to comply with my request for a copy of the executed agreement underlying this account.

 

The document currently disclosed, being an application form, does not represent a properly executed credit agreement according to the regulating Act.

 

I have attempted to resolve this matter with your client without success to which end I have already explained my concerns and which would be pointed out to any court dealing with the matter.

 

In the meantime therefore I would ask you also to provide full documentary proof of my liability for this alleged debt and proof of your and your clients entitlement to collect it, failing which any further correspondence from yourselves will be filed unanswered.

 

I will of course respond vigorously to any legal action as and when it arises by putting you to strict proof of your claims and any documents pertaining thereto.

[littlebert8]

Thanks unclebulgaria, that seems pretty much spot on.

[littlebert8]

Right, 'shot across the bow' has been fired. Hopefully they won't issue a claim before receiving it.

[Bazooka Boo]

Not a chance in Hell will they!

[littlebert8]

Hope you're right, but I've just had the same letters that thus guy had before a claim landed on his doormat.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/263672-hillesden-securities-aplins-ccj.html

[unclebulgaria67]

Hope you're right, but I've just had the same letters that thus guy had before a claim landed on his doormat.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/263672-hillesden-securities-aplins-ccj.html

 

There is nothing for you to do now, as you have said everything that you wanted to say in your last letter from them.

 

Wait for the court form to arrive in the post and then defend vigourously.

[littlebert8]

Aplins received my letter on Tuesday (20/7) , but have yet to respond. However, I have today received a 'Notice of Default Sums' from DLC showing the following transaction:

 

21/07/2010 - Litigation Cost (debtor) - £100

 

I'm not sure why they have sent this. Perhaps they are obliged to do this whenever they add fees/charges to an account.

 

Guess I can expect that N1 soon.

[dx100uk]

i've seen that before on here i think its a frightener only and the last person just reclaimed it.

unlawful fee you can claimback any how so's more money to your pot!

 

dx

[littlebert8]

+++++ Mods - please move to 'Legal Issues' - claim received ++++++++

 

N1 arrived today, POC as follows:

 

"The Claimants's [sic] claim against the defendant is for the amount due and unpaid at todays date under a regulated running monthly credit account."

 

The amount claimed is over £5K.

 

The POC is a joke - couldn't be vaguer if they tried. I'm wondering how to defend as I think to plead 'embarrassed' would actually give them too much credit. It really is taking the **** - it shows no cause of action whatsoever.

 

I'm thinking of asking for strike out or order to re-plead a fully particularised claim.