Link Claim Forms -MBNA debts

[AndyOrch]

Hi Prudence

 

I will get back to you shortly.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Hi Prudence apologies for the delay,

 

Ok so you are going to defend and submit a counter claim with your defence.This is known as a Part 20 Counter Claim, there is a fee and both can be submitted on-line vis a MCOL.I understand you have validated your penalty charges using the sites calculator but there is still a years worth of possible charges unverified or undisclosed.

 

I will need to read your thread in its entirety to get the history and advise accordingly, in the meantime as advised by CB you need to request information pertaining to their claim and of course you can acknowledge on line your intentions.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Andy thank you very much. Shall I wait to acknowledge then as it asks you if you are making a counterclaim how much you are claiming and your reasons?

 

Have you got time to Pru? dont miss the dates, any counterclaim total would have to be adjusted after disclosure of said missing statements.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Acknowledgment needs to be done by 29/4/2012, Andy

 

Many thanks CB so we have time then.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Do I intend to "contest jurisdiction"?

No

[AndyOrch]

I was just worried that I would get half way through acknowledging online then find I have to answer the Counterclaim questions now & may make a mess of it!

 

Just acknowledge for now, or leave it a tad longer.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Pru

 

Do a search for user Shelley heres a link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?309037-Charges-older-than-6-years-***WON***-Compound-Int-t-and-**NO-SET-OFF**&p=3753070#post3753070 some success with unfair charges.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Hi Prudence

 

Have you any other reasons to defend apart from a non response to CPR 31.14? Your Counter Claim will be submitted with your defence, this is known as as Part 20 Claim.

There is a fee and you should prepare a spreadsheet of charges and evidence to back up your claim.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Some applications can double as the agreement once activated by the card (post 2007) providing it as the perscribed terms and as been executed then it may well be enforcible.Plink invariably ever respond to CPR requests so you need to draft an holding defence with other reasons for defending.None response to CPR can not be used as a defence as the courts will accept that they will disclose at Standard disclosure.You may be able to force the issue at AQ if its Fast Track.

 

You state " know I have received the PPI amount (Refund ?)but my application form had the PPI ticked by someone (not me!) Also I was clearly 'self employed' so not eligible. Does this not have any bearing at all on matters? Yes on your Part 20 Counter claim I don't remember receiving a Notice of Assignment of Default Notice. Again not really a valid reason as a defence they will simply state well they were sent.

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Well if the paperwork they are relying on is from 1998 I am pretty sure that it will be unenforcible.Have you actually posted it to your thread anywhere?

I will dig out a recent defence ( straight forward holding defence and Part 20 Counter Claim) for you to get an idea what is involved drafting form and content.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?344334-Court-form-arrived-help/page3

 

Post 52

[AndyOrch]

Their problem is proving that is the back and not separate.All credit agreements from that date must have the perscribed terms within the 4 corners and on the same page as the signatory area.I see no " see over leaf "

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Your very welcome Prudence lets hope we can get a decent outcome for you in this matter.Post up your final draft when its complete.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Good points made there Pru by Ricardino.

 

But never the less as said with an agreement from that age the T&Cs can not be separate (even if you state you agree to them) hence the loop hole that as now been rectified.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Hi Ricardino

 

Carey is post 2007 and not retrospective.

 

(1) As described, it is hard to see the form and attached terms as anything other than one document. It is not suggested that there were separate page numbers on the terms attached but if there were, on these assumed facts, it would make no difference;

(2) The signature page itself makes clear that it is incomplete as a document and needs something else because it has no terms on it at all and makes specific reference to the terms "attached"; it only makes sense if something else goes with it; equally pp 198-201 need something to go with them, not least a place for the applicant's details and signature;

(3) The signature page refers to a credit agreement regulated by the Act and so makes clear that it is the first page of an agreement for which there must be other pages;

(4) The signature page and terms are presented to the debtor as a package;

(5) This would satisfy the notion that the Prescribed Terms can be identified within the "four corners of the agreement" - see Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] 1 WLR 2351 per Tuckey LJ at para. 11.

 

 

Read more at: CAREY v HSBC

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Dont mix your reconstituted with prescribed form and layout ( Harrison>Carey) Reconstituted is with regards to the supply and giving of information Section 77/78/79 not enforcement as with Carey.

 

Pre 2007 the T&Cs must be within the signature area or otherwise known as the " 4 Corners " or in the key financial information or stipulated by number or connection or " see Overleaf " The Draftsman of the CCA1974 was quite specific what constituted an enforcible agreement.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

They will argue Statute Barred Limitation Pru going back that far, not that I'm saying you shouldn't try.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

But what did the £800. equate to 2006- onwards?

[AndyOrch]

What date was it refunded Pru?

[AndyOrch]

Ok so they are not going to argue Statute of limitations then

[AndyOrch]

That sounds like good news?

 

Ignore that, of course it is!

 

Hopefully unless they change tac to suit them:roll:

[AndyOrch]

If you are making the CC (Part 20) as part of your defence then you make it against the Claimant (link).If you are pursuing this as a separate litigation then you would make it against MBNA.

[AndyOrch]

Hi, here is a first go at my Defence & Part 20 Counterclaim.

The bits I've fiddled with I've put in bold.

Not sure what number 9 means? It simply means to reiterate your defence within your counter claim say for example your defence was struck out but the CC proceeded then your defence would still be encompassed within the CC.

Not sure about 14 & 15? Lose them

interest rate - am I correct in using 19.9% (as this is quoted on my 'application form')? Sec 69 is 8%and should be at the end of your CC and with the Courts discretion

Am I supposed to add another 8% on top? no see above

Many thanks for your support, Pru

Sorry it seems the formatting has gone a bit haywire.

 

Needs pruning a tad Prudence there is a lot of repartition

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

No Pru the 8% is on top of your claim (Section 69) and not included in your calculations you simply request the court to allow it should your CC be successful.With regards to the compound check with ims21 but I would use the higher figure.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

If it was served via MCOL then yes and no need to copy Plink Northampton will forward your Defence /CC.Needs to be trimmed and tidied first though what is your deadline date?

 

Andy