MBNA Agreement & Con.

[Ilike banks]

Thats what I thought. How on earth can you have t&c's taken from their main t&c's. They are all equally important and relevant IMHO.

[Ilike banks]

And additionally, seeing as they have confirmed to me in writing that they are the T&C's I signed under CPUTR, they are a bit naughty I feel. See earlier posts on this thread with pictures of the app. form and see if you agree..

[Ilike banks]

Bump.

[Always Struggling]

The only way compliance or non-compliance of sect. 78 would be decided would be via a judge. Sect.78 as a defence is not so much dead in the water but would be better used in relation to some other problems/errors. Such as an accummulation of avoidances or non responses to your questions by the OC. Failure with other legal requests etc.

 

What is it you wanted to get from the copy? Was there a specific reason you wanted it, such as PPI?

[Nomore Baloney]

Well in my opinion (not that thats worth a lot!) the paperwork they are passing off as 'the agreement' looks like it is a cut and paste job. In its original form it was at best a double sided flyer, yet the terms they appear to have pasted onto the back refer to attached t&c's as well. As you probably are aware, none of those card applications EVER came with an A4 7 page attachment.

 

Its a bit late for them to try and reconstitute an agreement as they have told me that the info they have sent me is a compliant true copy..

 

So it appears to me thatthey are leading me to false conclusions in a direct response to a formal CPUTR request.

 

Additionally, as there are lots of posts on here with DCA's passing those printouts of a microfiche as compliant, there must be a lot of people who have been mugged. Wasn't it a part of the Waksman judgement that the DCA's could not provide a copy of a copy which a copy of a microfiche is?

[Always Struggling]

Valid points NB, I think all I'm trying to suggest is let them build up a case for you, a lot of errors or non-complaince presented to a judge would be better than just the non-compliance of sect.78. You mentioned about the interest rates being different on t&c to application/agreement, this would therefore show another 'error'. The more incorrect they are the better

 

I say, give them enough rope The facts appear to be the banks/dca's avoid and are obstructive in consumers acquiring the information they have a legal right for. Let them, so long as you cover as much as you can, they avoid as much as they can just increases the interpretation of the facts in your favour when/if going to court. They give you more and more 'ammunition' to present showing them acting dubiously at best, allowing the judge to be more sympathetic to your case when he sees one poor response after the other. Some will obviously be non-compliant, or be down to the judges interpretation of the facts, their replies and content are facts My main concern is relying purely on non-compliance of sect.78, and to gather as much by way of correspondence backing up this failure (showing they are given plenty of opportunity etc.)

 

The point about the PPI was that- if PPI was there, then I would have thought it has a financial bearing on the agreement and so any PPI documentation should also be included to correctly comply with sect. 78