Link Financial (MBNA) - County Court Claim Form Received - Please help if you can?

[Nicky777]

Law upon to themselves Plink, Elsa.

 

Hi all,

 

I've come in tonight to find a CC Summons for the same firm in very similar circs to the original poster only mine relates to a very old overdraft I had with a bank going back to a default recorded in 1999. Can anyone give me any advice as to what I ask for from Link? I have no record of a default going back that long or the notice of assignment

 

I'm at a loss as to what to do but going to follow the steps on here by acknowledging the summons and advising of my intention to defend.

 

I thought I would use the letter on here too but I dont know what to do in terms of submitting the defence - Would anyone be willing to assist, you feel so ashamed and embarrassed......

[Jasper1965]

 

a matter which has been in dispute with them since 2007 when I sent a first request for CCA letter on behalf of my husband.

 

All we have ever received from them (and several times over in the past 4 years!) is a photocopy of a document called "The 10 Minute Application Form" provided by MBNA, and which Link are insisting is an enforceable credit agreement and we have been arguing is not. The form is a crappy photocopy and there are no terms and conditions, its also difficult to read in parts because of the poor quality of it.

 

 

Kotecha vs Phoenix Recoveries Uk Ltd (SARL)

 

Creditor cannot enforce whilst in default of a CCA request......

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi all,

 

I've come in tonight to find a CC Summons for the same firm in very similar circs to the original poster only mine relates to a very old overdraft I had with a bank going back to a default recorded in 1999. Can anyone give me any advice as to what I ask for from Link? I have no record of a default going back that long or the notice of assignment

 

I'm at a loss as to what to do but going to follow the steps on here by acknowledging the summons and advising of my intention to defend.

 

I thought I would use the letter on here too but I dont know what to do in terms of submitting the defence - Would anyone be willing to assist, you feel so ashamed and embarrassed......

 

Hi Nicky,

No need to feel ashamed and embarrassed, it can happen to the best of us!!

 

Sounds as if this debt would be statute barred if you've not made any payment for more than 6 years (5 in Scotland), which is an absolute defence.

Start your own thread in the legal forum, then put a link in here so we can find you.

Elsa xx

[spiritgirl59]

Hi again folks

 

We've received a pile of paperwork from Link today and it will take some time to format it to pdf, but I will put it up as quickly as I can.

 

Jasper - thanks for your post - this is part of our argument exactly - their "agreement" is an application form. They have sent a further 2 copies with the paperwork today and are STILL insisting its an agreement, and even commenting that we shouldn't need to ask for more copies as we have "commented on it" in prior correspondence - cheeky barstewards - yes we commented on it more times than I've had hot dinners BECAUSE its not a properly executed agreement!

 

Also at the very back of the paperwork is a "statement of account" from Link MINUS all the interest they have been adding, and saying that we can pay them in full now by cash or cheque or phone them to come to some agreement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Please can you guys have a look when I post it all up? and let me know what to do next if poss.

Thanks in advance.

 

Love S.G.

[spiritgirl59]

Hi again all

 

I have managed to scan in everything into pdf (Elsa thanks for the Zamzar link its ace!) - some of the paperwork is longwinded but I thought it best to scan in everything so you can see all the bumph Link have supplied. Have added rest of scans to extra posts as there were so many!

 

Before I attach the scans I did notice something which may prove to be very important. My husband insists he never ever received any terms and conditions as well as any Agreement as you know, and Link have now provided a copy of documents which we have never seen before.

 

As regards an "agreement" which has suddenly materialised (!) on page 1 is our address (his name is not on it) - obviously I have deleted our address for privacy reasons.

 

A code number was also added on the bottom of all 8 pages (also removed by me for privacy)

 

However what made me sit up and take note is that at their item 14 on page 5 there is a reference to the following :-

 

Payment Services Regulations 2009

 

Now it may be that my poor little brain is befuddled here...but how on earch could a reference to something which became a regulation in 2009 be referred to in a document which my husband SHOULD have received when he allegedly took out an MBNA credit card prior to 2007??????????????????

 

As regards the Assignment they have attached a very weird looking 2 page document headed "offer of receivables" ??? Showing a list of a pile of debts with my husband's name noted halfway down page 2.

 

As for a Default Notice they are not disclosing one - you will see from their letter they are stating that there is a "date" when a mark was registered with Credit Reference Agencies on my husband's credit file and it seems they consider this to be sufficient?.

 

They have advised as you will see that as we have filed an Acknowledgement of Service they "see no purpose" in extending time for compliance further.

 

They have sent two further copies of the front page of the 10 Minute Application form which I've not scanned in again as I put it up on here previously.

 

I'd be really grateful if you would have a read of the docs and let me have your views.

 

I find their "statement of account" very interesting - pay us by cheque or come to some arrangement NOW!! Well they can go forth and multiply!

 

I sent of the SAR to MBNA's head office by Special Delivery office but obviously that information could take some time to come back, so what happens if its not back by the deadline for my Defence to go in, since they are refusing to extend the time further???

 

So what is my next action guys?

 

Thanks in advance

Love SG x

CPR31.14reply.pdf

BKAPPFORM.pdf

Assignment.pdf

Assignment2.pdf

S78replylet.pdf

[spiritgirl59]

Next set of scans :-

GeneralTC.pdf

GeneralTC2.pdf

GeneralTC3.pdf

Statementofac.pdf

CreditlimitAPR1.pdf

[spiritgirl59]

Rest of scans :-

 

Thanks again, and for taking the time to read them all.

 

Love SG x

CreditlimitAPR2.pdf

CreditlimitAPR3.pdf

CreditlimitAPR5.pdf

CreditlimitAPR6.pdf

CreditlimitAPR7.pdf

[SP500]

Hi spiritgirl,

I'm sure the more knowledgeable guys and gals will be able to help you again soon.

I'd just like to add my views;

The documents they have sent aren't going to win them anything. They won't bother taking this any further so long as you enter a defence on time imho.

There's No enforceable Agreement & No Default Notice (though they could reconstruct one at a later stage - not uncommon for debt purchases, allegedly

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the SAR or having more time to defend, they probably need more time than you

I think your next action would be to send them a "part 18 request" as Undercover-Elsa mentioned previously. Have a read up and think of some questions you'd like to ask them to clarify, remembering they are required to reply with a statement of truth.

Their "Statement of Account" alone raises a few questions! A search of the forums will help with inspiration and confidence of the type of points to raise, along with the thoughts of the guys and gals who have already provided fantastic advice.

If you also want to reply to their note about their litigation costs you could reply to suggest they discontinue their claim which will help avoid further costs to themselves!

If you don't mind paying for a few stamps you could send them "little notes" of your own, get "in their face", and let them know they're whistling in the wind. These people say anything to frighten people into paying unenforceable debts.

Keep an eye on the date though, you must submit your defence before the deadline.

(p.s. I believe the "Payment Services Regulations 2009" is only quoted in the updated T&C they sent, not in the illegible originals of the 10 minute application)

[spiritgirl59]

Thanks for your advice SP500 - I'll do some reading up next, and have a look at the Part 18 request jobby.

 

Love SG x

[Jasper1965]

I can't find the application form they're calling an agreement, it would also help if you could tell us what year the account was opened please.

 

I'm using the Harrison vs Link narrative to crossreference against your t&c's.

 

IMO The T&C's you have here are nothing more than a shabby knockup job.

Most pages are dated bottom left 11/02 but page 5 has "6of8" in that place.

Suspicions aroused I've magnified them and am firmly of the opinion that there are clearly discernible differences in the font, weight etc. which prove that these t&c's do not come from a single set.

[spiritgirl59]

Hiya Jasper

 

I'm not sure how to re-attach an attachment here which I put up previously - the "manage attachments" section won't let me drag and drop the same one again for some reason - sorry about that - but the application form is back on page 1 of this thread at post number 7 - attachment called "10MinAppForm.pdf".

 

The account was opened in 2002.

 

We never ever received any terms and conditions by the way, so what you are saying about t&C is a knocked up job must be as we have never seen it before!!!

 

Hope this helps?

 

I can't find a template part 18 request by the way, and am not sure what I should put in one?

 

Many thanks

Love SG x

Edited November 1, 2011 by spiritgirl59
Omitted to add an important bit

[spiritgirl59]

Hi again everyone

 

I've had a good look around on the forums and done some research but I am still struggling to be honest.

 

I believe our Defence is likely to be based on the fact that we never received any T&Cs at all from MBNA and then Link, and the ones they have sent now is a cobbled together version which has never before seen the light of day ??.

 

However, what confuses me is how they can take us to court at all when we have never received a properly executed agreement either, and Link haven't responded adequately to my CCA request which was made back in 2007?

 

I looked at the case of Kotecha -v- Phoenix Recoveries UK Ltd (Sarl) which involved a lack of an agreement, and Harrison -v- Link which I know you are looking at Jasper which seems to relate to the lack of t&cs.

 

Can our Defence be a combination of the two? and can someone please help me with the drafting of it?

 

Also I'm still not sure about a Part 18 because I don't know what to ask for.

 

I appreciate all your help so far, but am panicking a bit again because I don't know what to do next.

 

Love SG x

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?323575-cabot-citicard-and-court-papers-its-10yrs-old-and-SB-ed

 

spiritgirl, post 14 in the link above has a draft CPR part 18.. Bear in mind that it is specifc to the above OP's situation and draft one to suit your purpose.

 

If you want to pop up what you cobble together, we can have a look and see if you are on the right track.

[Jasper1965]

Was the account opened in november or december 2002?

[spiritgirl59]

Was the account opened in november or december 2002?

 

Hi Jasper

 

December 2002.

 

My husband doesn't feel up to all the stress of preparing to fight - only to possibly end up in front of a Judge who makes him pay anyway..........so we may not now go ahead

 

Love SG x

[Jasper1965]

Sorry to hear this and I wish your husband well.

 

I think you've a good chance of succesfully defending this claim as it stands.

 

The pdf titled generaltc.pdf opens with the following statement "please refer to your credit agreement for conditions 1,2 and 3".

 

So I referred to the 10 min app they are trying to pass off as the agreement and guess what there are no conditions numbered 3 on there.

 

So either the application form is not the agreement or the "original" t &c's are provably wrong.

Section 19 of generaltc3.pdf refrers to the non extant para 3 and para 1f in respect of fees.

Back to clause 1 of the T&C's and we see there is no para 1f as clause 1 is subdivided numerically not alphabetically.

14a refers to para 1h again there is no para 1h.

 

The T&C's are not correct and this is provable.

 

lack of default notice:

 

There is a lack of default notice and Link seem to be trying very hard to sidestep this problem. Brandon vs Amex highlights the need for an accurate DN. Link/MBNA have not only failed to produce an accurate DN they have failed to produce any DN whatsoever.

The DN is a vital prerequisite to enforcement action.

 

there are several other issues eg failure to supply T&C's, executed copy or 61A(2) info etc.etc.

 

If nothing else do Link have the right to charge interest? I can't see it in the t&c's, have they supplied the statements of account required by 86C as failure prevents them charging interest.

[spiritgirl59]

Thanks Jasper! I appreciate your help very much x

 

I'll be back soon, going to gather thoughts about all this with hubby.

 

Love SG x

[arthur256]

I am under the impression that the company which was harassing me between 2008 and 2011 was Link Financial Ltd, company 03504939, but the one now harassing me is Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd, company 07059696. Do we know whether the former has assigned its debtor assets to the latter company, and whether these assignments were valid? In my case the original MBNA assignment was suspect, as well as being an error (!) and has never been substantiated, and due to failure to reply to a CCA request several years ago, is unenforceable anyway. I have also sent details to the Ombudsman, just for information at this stage, as a complaint with them was not pursued in 2008 because the matter was unenforceable.

 

They (the new company) have just written a letter saying that they are not going to forget about me!

 

--

Arthur

[diamondgirl]

Same company I get letters/statements from them with the Outsourcing name just another part of link

 

DG

[arthur256]

This is without doubt a separate company legally. What we don't know yet is whether they have any right to harass people who owe the earlier company, and even if they have been validly assigned, those which were unenforceable (e.g. due to non-compliance with CCA requests) are not in fact assignable according to one source.

 

Can anybody else shed any light?

 

I have been looking at the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 today - very helpful.

 

--

Arthur

[Demo777]

Do not engage in any telephone conversations with LINK Financial. Bar the number if necessary. Only communicate in writing. If you are already paying them what you can afford then continue to do so and ignore their threats!! They will give up as there is nothing they can do if you have acknowledged the debt.

[arthur256]

I agree and have refused to speak to them right back since 2008 when my account was invalidly assigned to Link Financial Ltd, company 03504939. As it was invalid and they ignored a CCA request, I will just ignore the new company unless and until they prove a valid claim, and then I will challenge it in Court.

 

--

Arthur

[smokejumper]

So what is the plan with this DCA? just got my first letter from link, regarding mbna.

 

however recently got a letter from mbna saying they have sold the debt to MK ltd I think.

 

now confused as to who owns the debt.

 

as I just got the first link letter, shall I ignore them for a while and then try the CCA route.

[arthur256]

My thoughts are based on my own situation, which was unusual, but may be of interest/use...

 

Firstly, the debt was being repaid under an agreement which MBNA breached, apparently simply because one of their staff didn't know that there are 31 days in January, and treated a payment as late when it wasn't. So they sold it in spite of this agreement (which my wife had made with them on my behalf). They also failed to document the assignment correctly. I told them I considered the assignment was invalid and they have done nothing to show otherwise.

 

The most recent correspondence is from what appears to be a different "Link" company, so this makes the validity of its claim even more doubtful than that of the earlier one!

 

My attitude now is "see you in Court" as I don't think they dare try going to court, because they would come up against the history of harassment which lost them another case (I think it is mentioned on the Vanquis Bank thread).

 

I would have been willing to pay them what my wife agreed with MBNA before the invalid assignment, but the history of harassment makes me want the Court to take that on board and possibly throw them out!

 

Good luck

 

--

Arthur

[arthur256]

PS: The case where Link's history of harassment caused them to lose a Court case, was Keith Harrison vs. Link Financial Limited - this link is to the Solicitors for Mr Harrison: http://www.watsonssolicitors.co.uk/harrison.html and this link is to the judgment http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html