MBNA/Arden/Britannica recoveries SARL/Mortlake - court paper received.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi ll

 

Well they have accepted a token payment from me but haven't acknowledged it in writing.

 

They have not responded on a separate account so I am not currently making a token payment.

 

Their goons have stopped harassing me for the minute; I guess they're pausing to 'think'.

 

I suspect this has something to do with the ruling; I am fond of quoting it to other gangsters like Barclaycard and Egg as the basis of my extant fos complaints, "failure to consider affordable offers from clients in financial difficulties..............."

 

love

 

vic

Edited February 1, 2011 by victoria_siempre
typo

[leopard lady]

Its not made any difference to me, still was getting around 10 combined landline/mobile calls a day. Since landline number changed, around 6 to mobile a day. You'd think as they have my formal complaint, and one of the issues is the hounding by telephone, that they'd stop. So the OFT directive hasn't made an iota of difference. Also looking on the threads on here, LB's and MSE , they still hound customers in financial difficulties.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi LL

 

I feel your frustration; my OH instinctively uttered Foxtrot Oscar to our 'death phone' when it rang this evening.

 

Have you made a FORMAL COMPLAINT and got a FORMAL RESPONSE advising you of your right to complain to fos?

 

The substantive basis of the complaint needs to be their failure to accept a reasonable offer based on OFT ruling v. MBNA; the harassment is icing on that cake; this has worked for me.

 

Do look at other threads about CPUTR http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291468-Fighting-back-with-CPUTR-2008....(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

And Tingy's posts about fighting back against DCAs.

 

Their 'phone calls are intended to psych you; state your position clearly (this is my affordable offer), complain and ignore them.

 

lots of love

 

vic

[leopard lady]

Yes Victoria, I used the OFT directive to substantiate my complaint regarding mbna lying about arrangements, not communicating in writing and hounding via telephone. As on my thread I just recieved the stock "we will respond to your complaint within 28 days".

 

I was hoping to get an idea on this thread of whether the oft directive had made any difference whatsoever to the people suffering from their harassment, as I personally suspect not.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi ll

 

As I said in earlier post, you will have to await they're reply, which will be 56 days; then complain to fos.

 

They will continue to harass; one has to live with that safe in the knowledge that one has done all that one can to be reasonable. I do think that the tide is turning in our favour with new EU consumer protection, but meanwhile....

 

 

x

 

v

[leopard lady]

I just wonder what could ever be done to stop them, as they don't seem to care about any official rules.

[victoria_siempre]

Hi ll

 

Why would a Yankee bank be bothered by UK or EU rules?

 

We just have to fight our own corner as best we can.

 

x

 

v

[leopard lady]

Hi Proprityone, just in case MBNA refer to the fact that they only need to supply a reconstruction of the original and refer to THE case (lol) would it be useful to put something similar to what Diddydicky has suggested on minmoos thread,

"Please note that in the event that the agreement has been varied your obligations extend to not only providing a copy of the agreement as varied- but - as confirmed by Judge Waksman in HSBC v Carey it must be accompanied by a true copy of the original agreement IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM ."

 

or is this only relevant if the original agreement can't be produced?

[PriorityOne]

Hi Proprityone, just in case MBNA refer to the fact that they only need to supply a reconstruction of the original and refer to THE case (lol) would it be useful to put something similar to what Diddydicky has suggested on minmoos thread,

"Please note that in the event that the agreement has been varied your obligations extend to not only providing a copy of the agreement as varied- but - as confirmed by Judge Waksman in HSBC v Carey it must be accompanied by a true copy of the original agreement IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM ."

 

or is this only relevant if the original agreement can't be produced?

 

You could...... but it also needs to be produced in its original form for them to re-enforce it under sec 127 (3), which IMO, is far more relevant.

 

[leopard lady]

OK, so I'll leave it as it is. Thanks again.

[Chazzyboy]

subbing

[leopard lady]

Have received a very interesting letter from MBNA today.

 

I would prefer not to to publish it on the open forum at the moment, but would be very grateful if gh2008, the shadow and priorityone would have a read and give me their opinion, as they have given me so much great advice. Is there any way to send this letter by pm at all?

[minmoo]

damn you have me curious now!

[leopard lady]

will reveal details when everything is finalised.

Edited February 5, 2011 by leopard lady

[the_shadow]

Hi LL,

 

I think the letter you have received is one of the better letters I've seen from MBNA, it contains some honesty but alas some also secretive parts in relation to internal stuff...

 

However I think you have received this on the back of the OFT slapping down MBNA for their treatment of debtors and people in financial difficulty.

 

S.

[PriorityOne]

Crikey LL.... it reads like something from the House of Shame.... that must have been a helluva slap from the OFT....

[leopard lady]

Crikey LL.... it reads like something from the House of Shame.... that must have been a helluva slap from the OFT....

 

I'm still in shock!!! There are a few fibs in there, like denying they made an offer for an arrangement when they did, but coincidentally don't have a recording of the conversation, but its a result!!!

[gh2008]

I agree, it would seem that they are now actually abiding by the Code of Conduct when dealing with hardship cases .......

 

For those watching that line should explain the contents, or at least the result.

 

Moving on, the contents do form an agreement of sorts and should anything go wrong from this point forward, could be used effectively by you to show the type of relationship that has existed.

[tam65]

subbing

[leopard lady]

Thanks for reading it. When I get more concise details and t's crossed and the i's dotted I'll explain all on here.

[Cadbury1879]

Thanks for reading it. When I get more concise details and t's crossed and the i's dotted I'll explain all on here.

 

Excellent sounds like a good result, perhaps MBNA are changing there attittude, let's hope so.

[Kitten1]

Next have supplied a copy of an agreement etc. And the usual letter saying that they don't have to hold the original copy re Carey v HSBC.

 

Now, as far as I'm aware, the claimant DOES have to have a copy of the agreement and as they would be the claimant, this means they are talking rubbish.

 

Could anyone give me a hand writing a letter with words to that effect?

[diddydicky]

are you sure that they didnt say that they dont have to provide a copy of the original rather than "hold" a copy?

[Kitten1]

The letter says that they do not require posession pf the original signed agreement as the information can be taken from reliable sources.

[Kitten1]

When I sent my cca request, I added onto the letter that, as they were threatening legal action, if they were going to send a reconstitued cca, could they confirm that they do actually hold the original and in what form.