Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MBNA and Optima (Claim form from Northampton )


Gthereal
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4748 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I received another letter last week (5 days after their stated posting date but I’m used to that) with some interesting information regarding telephone conversations between myself and MBNA.

They apologise for getting a date about a conversation I had with them wrong by a year (24 Feb 2011 not 2010). They then go on to state that that conversation never happened and that it was actually a date that they inputted some data about me into the computer to submit my income and expenditure details! I'm not certain of the exact date in February when the conversation took place but presumed it was the 23rd as this was the date they took the 1st payment. They also deny that the last conversation I had was with Rowan (the initial guy that offered me a 33% get out) - which is possible though I did call MBNA on a number that he said was his. They state that they have no recordings of any of the conversations made but that the people that I spoke to are " willing to provide statements to support the above assertions if necessary."

 

They've confirmed that the debt balance is the figure that I had calculated, not their stated higher figure.

 

In relation to my point that I do not agree with the costs that they have added because I have never broken any agreement they then go on with:

"The costs estimates provided in our previous correspondence were in relation to our estimated costs in the event you a) settled the matter by way of Tomlin Order and b) the amount we will request the court summarily assess if an application for summary judgment is necessary.

As per our previous correspondence, you will note the claim is currently stayed and in the interests of saving costs, we invite you to withdraw your defence or in the alternative to respond to our without prejudice correspondence to exhaust settlement options.

In the event you are not agreeable to the same or we do not hear from you within 14 days of this letter we are instructed to proceed with litigation action.

To that end, if we do not hear from you by 4 pm on 6 May 2011, we are instructed to proceed with the Claim and make an application to a) lift the stay on proceedings and b) request summary judgment"

I'm thinking of just replying with my offer to continue the £141 per month payments again. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?? (thank in advance)

 

Hello Gethereal

 

If the claimant intends to rely upon witnesses in relation to "What was said" during the telephone call that concluded with a new contract being formed between you two parties, then the evidence given by his witnesses will be HEARSAY as he admits to not having the transcript of the conversation.

 

The claimant has been saying for a few months that he is going to make an application to lift the stay and seek Summary Judgment against you.

 

You were never at fault in this matter, the claimant's own actions gave rise to his cause of action, he abandoned the new contract, you did not.

 

Have a read of - COLLIER V. P & M J WRIGHT (HOLDINGS) LTD [2007] EWCA Civ 1329 in respect of legally binding oral contracts and promissory estopple.

 

If you want to offer to carry on with the payments as per the terms of the new contract, then that is your decision, however, the claimant will then be entitled to his costs as you will be effectively accepting responsibility for his cause of action.

 

Good luck and I am bowing out.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The Mould - sorry you're bowing out. Your advice so far has been greatly appreciated. If I've annoyed you with that last sentence I do apologise. I've annoyed myself by considering this option too but am not confident a court appearance would not lead to me either having to pay the full amount plus costs or add a CCJ to my two defaults which are already 18 months ago. I want to be able to move house once the defaults are off the credit history and a CCJ would stop this for quite a few more years.

 

I did read up what I could find on promissory estopple but I wasn't confident in being able to prove that my lesser payment amounted to the same thing as in the Collier vs Wright case. In that case the wording stated that the creditor had accepted "a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole debt":

 

"Where there has been a true accord, under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction, and the debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it, then it is inequitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the balance."

"Arden LJ's approach simply requires the debtor to show that there was offer, acceptance and performance of the promise to accept part payment of the debt as discharge of the whole debt and "it will of itself be inequitable" for the creditor to then resile from his promise."

I can't see anything in my case that the £141 per month would not have run until the debt was paid off fully so MBNA didn't accept a lesser sum, just allowed me to pay the same sum over a more manageable period. They did then stop taking the monthly payments, which in itself must be some breach of contract but I wouldn't be confident in the estopple argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mould - sorry you're bowing out. Your advice so far has been greatly appreciated. If I've annoyed you with that last sentence I do apologise. I've annoyed myself by considering this option too but am not confident a court appearance would not lead to me either having to pay the full amount plus costs or add a CCJ to my two defaults which are already 18 months ago. I want to be able to move house once the defaults are off the credit history and a CCJ would stop this for a few more years.

 

I did read up what I could find on promissory estopple but I wasn't confident in being able to prove that my lesser payment amounted to the same thing as in the Collier vs Wright case. In that case the wording stated that the creditor had accepted "a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole debt":

 

"Where there has been a true accord, under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction, and the debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it, then it is inequitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the balance."

"Arden LJ's approach simply requires the debtor to show that there was offer, acceptance and performance of the promise to accept part payment of the debt as discharge of the whole debt and "it will of itself be inequitable" for the creditor to then resile from his promise."

 

 

I can't see anything in my case that the £141 per month would not have run until the debt was paid off fully so MBNA didn't accept a lesser sum, just allowed me to pay the same sum over a more manageable period. They did then stop taking the monthly payments, which in itself must be some breach of contract but I wouldn't be confident in the estopple argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mould - sorry you're bowing out. Your advice so far has been greatly appreciated. If I've annoyed you with that last sentence I do apologise. I've annoyed myself by considering this option too but am not confident a court appearance would not lead to me either having to pay the full amount plus costs or add a CCJ to my two defaults which are already 18 months ago. I want to be able to move house once the defaults are off the credit history and a CCJ would stop this for a few more years.

 

I did read up what I could find on promissory estopple but I wasn't confident in being able to prove that my lesser payment amounted to the same thing as in the Collier vs Wright case. In that case the wording stated that the creditor had accepted "a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole debt":

 

"Where there has been a true accord, under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction, and the debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it, then it is inequitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the balance."

"Arden LJ's approach simply requires the debtor to show that there was offer, acceptance and performance of the promise to accept part payment of the debt as discharge of the whole debt and "it will of itself be inequitable" for the creditor to then resile from his promise."

 

 

I can't see anything in my case that the £141 per month would not have run until the debt was paid off fully so MBNA didn't accept a lesser sum, just allowed me to pay the same sum over a more manageable period. They did then stop taking the monthly payments, which in itself must be some breach of contract but I wouldn't be confident in the estopple argument.

 

Gethereal

 

With respect, this issue(s) in your case are nothing to do with Full and Final Settlement. The principles of the doctrine promissory estopple apply to your case (based upon what you have stated here in your thread).

 

It is of course entirely your decision on what route you take in this matter, I simply do not see any point posting advice, you defend based upon that advice and then act in a manner that is wholly opposite, there was no point in defending this action by the claimant if all along you accept responsibility for his cause of action against you.

 

Who is at fault here for the cause of action complained of, you or the creditor? This is a fundamental issue to your case. The creditor abandoned the new contact, did he not? He gave no notice to you indicating his intentions to abandon said contract, the original credit agreement was superseded by the new contract, who broke the terms of the new contract, you or the creditor?

 

I am not annoyed Gethereal, you must make the decision that you feel is the best one for you, I am bowing out as there is no point advising you that you have a defence against this action if you are now saying that you did provide the grounds for the creditor to sue you.

 

Good luck with whatever course you decide to take.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mould

I don't believe the creditor has any grounds to sue. We made an agreement for me to make a reduced monthly payment with no discussed time restriction and MBNA stopped this after 5 months then accused me of breaking the agreement. They have also lied to me on the phone, attempted to intimidate and generally given me the runaround over several months. I'm loathe to give them a single penny but don't want to risk a court appearance unless I'm confident in what I can prove.

 

I'm coming from a layman point of view so excuse my ignorance but you advised me to read up on case law relating to the Collier vs Wright case and this does seem to be based on an agreed payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole debt. Wouldn't the "whole debt" thing differentiate this case from the collier case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mould

I don't believe the creditor has any grounds to sue. We made an agreement for me to make a reduced monthly payment with no discussed time restriction and MBNA stopped this after 5 months then accused me of breaking the agreement. They have also lied to me on the phone, attempted to intimidate and generally given me the runaround over several months. I'm loathe to give them a single penny but don't want to risk a court appearance unless I'm confident in what I can prove.

 

I'm coming from a layman point of view so excuse my ignorance but you advised me to read up on case law relating to the Collier vs Wright case and this does seem to be based on an agreed payment of a lesser sum in satisfaction of the whole debt. Wouldn't the "whole debt" thing differentiate this case from the collier case?

 

Gethereal

The principles established under the doctrine of promissory estopple do indeed apply to your defence.

The creditor gave instruction to you stating what act he required you to perform until the debt was paid, you performed said act and without any warning or any reasonable notice, the creditor abandoned the new agreement and reverted to his strict rights under the original agreement, this said action of the creditor is inequitable at law.

You have evidence of your five payments made as per said new agreement; this in itself is proof enough to show the court that there must have been variation/modification or substitution of the original agreement. While you were honouring the terms of said new agreement, did the creditor send any correspondence to you asking why are your payments lesser than that to which you are obligated to pay under the terms of the original agreement? I think you will find that the answer is unequivocally, NO, Why? Because the creditor held full knowledge of his consent to said new contract, and so he had no reason to send you any notice stating that you were in arrears and that you need to contact him to discuss the matter.

You can argue your defence successfully Gethereal, don’t worry about speaking your defence in legal parlance, simply tell it how it is, in plain and clear English.

I hope that will help you further in this matter.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

The whole prospect of a court appearance is intimidating. It looks like Optima are intent on this course of action though. Should I respond to their letter or just wait for their next move?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

The whole prospect of a court appearance is intimidating. It looks like Optima are intent on this course of action though. Should I respond to their letter or just wait for their next move?

 

Gethereal

 

Intimidation is the key word and a big favorite of your opponent of course.

 

If I was in your position, I would wait for the claimant and when he calls, I would meet him on the battlefield. You are not obligated to do what I would do and so, you should make your own decision after a very long think about this matter and the series of events that have brought you to this point in your life.

 

Do you have evidence of your said agreed reduced payments? Did the claimant send correspondence to you after said agreed new contract, informing you to contact him as your account was in arrears? What was your normal monthly payment to the account before said agreed reduced payments?

 

You do, I believe, have enough evidence to substantiate your defence.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...