County Court Claim - Hillbillies (prev MBNA)

[AndyOrch]

Presumably the application is a knee jerk reaction to either not being able to comply with an order or being unable to comply with disclosure?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[citizenB]

I cant see anywhere the date the agreement was entered into.

[DonkeyB]

The evidence re UK Mail being delivered in two days has been debunked in many places. It simply is not the case. Get googling!

[Old Cogger]

May give you an idea:-

PRACTICE DIRECTION MASTER OF THE ROLLS BICKFORD-SMITH POSTING TIMES.doc

[DonkeyB]

Second working day after posting would have been Tuesday 8 December 2009 (posted on Friday 4 December). For some unfathomable reason, they are claiming it would have been delivered on 7th. Even their own diagram shows it only entered the Royal Mail system the day AFTER UK Mail got it – which is when the clock starts.

 

Also, in their screen shot, ‘account creation date’ simply means the date they started a data record of their own. It must have been acquired PRIOR to this date, and to all intents and purposes is meaningless.

 

They are clearly desperate – to the point of possible fabrication – trying to get round the fact that the account was sold ‘live’, and that the DN was defective by a couple of days. They clearly believe they bought a terminated account – they did not, and a defective DN means it effectively still has not been terminated.

 

Also, any recon agreement MUST abide by the rules decided in Carey v HSBC – those T&Cs are a reprint of some kind. Your name and address are nowhere to be seen. There is also NO EVIDENCE supplied that these T&Cs were present at the time of signing, as required by Carey.

[DonkeyB]

Funny how the witness posts the Interpretations Act as evidence, but conveniently omits the bit that stuffs him. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, IMHO.

[mystery1]

Mbna, a dca and UK mail you say ? Wonder where i heard that before !

 

Oh yeah it was in a court case where they lost on this very point ! http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

 

On 3 October 2008 MBNA sent a default notice (TB4/1502). Paragraph 12 of Mrs Worden's statement dated 26 July 2010 reads as follows:

Exhibited to this Witness Statement at "NW3" is a copy of the default notice which was served by MBNA on the Claimant ("the Default Notice"). The Default Notice was dated 3 October 2008 and, in accordance with MBNA's standard procedure was despatched to the Claimant on 3 October 2008 by way of UK Mail's Business Class service which guarantees delivery within two days of despatch, including Saturdays. It is not, and was not in October 2008, the standard practice of MBNA to send default notices to customers by second class post. There is no reason why the Default Notice sent to the Claimant in this case would have been sent by second class post contrary to MBNA's standard procedures.

 

Investigation by the Claimant who knows about such things revealed that the notice was sent by second class post. Mrs Worden's own investigations revealed that it was "possible" that this was so. Her manner indicated that this was an elegant way of conceding the point as in my view she had to. Thus subsequent investigation contradicted a hitherto firmly held position of the Defendant that the notice had gone by a suitable post and was served in time. It was not. It was issued and sent by second class post on 3 October 2008 arriving (as was to be expected) on 9 October 2008 and was stated to expire on 21 October 2008. Given the date of delivery, the expiry date should have been 23 October 2008. The notice was bad.

 

 

 

Naughty naughty.

 

M1

[DonkeyB]

Oh yes, Harrison v Link, where the judge just stopped short of saying the evidence was, er,...

[DonkeyB]

That is going to be a lovely refutation of their ‘valid DN’ claim. That stuffs their case if they want to rely on it – that was a High Court ruling. If MBNA have provided that evidence to the claimant, then they have provided that evidence KNOWING it to be false. However, the witness does not actually claim the evidence came from MBNA, which is a bit of a shame.

 

That statement of ‘fact’ about UK Mail is a pretty stupid – seriously stupid – thing to do, given it was MBNA’s evidence in the Harrison case, which they gave on behalf of Link Financial.

 

Oh dear. Oh dear, dear.

 

Oh dear.

 

We can rip the rest of their WS apart as well...

[Battlescars]

Wow, thanks very much for the response today, it's been very much appreciated and filled me with a lot more confidence. I'm having troubvle with the multi quotes to answer everyone on 1 post, so i will have to do it one at a time, please bear with me.

 

Thanks

BS

[Battlescars]

BS, I have found it easier/quicker to save to my desk top and read it from there. Will have a good read and see if I can help.

 

Hi CB, thanks for the PM (first one) . I will read it (second one) and digest when i get a chance to get to it (probably a bit later this evening).

[Battlescars]

Presumably the application is a knee jerk reaction to either not being able to comply with an order or being unable to comply with disclosure?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy, I have no idea what it's in response to. I have only acknowledged and submitted my defence on 02.07.12 at this stage. I've not requested any orders or further disclosures. they just decided to apply for SJ against me on 6th August (see post 73 - which I found out when I received the docs).

[Battlescars]

I cant see anywhere the date the agreement was entered into.

 

Hi CB, what agreement or pdf are we talking about here?

thanks

[Battlescars]

The evidence re UK Mail being delivered in two days has been debunked in many places. It simply is not the case. Get googling!

 

Phew, I've worked out multi quote for 1 page.

 

thanks DB, yes, tried googling it a bit in work today but couldn't see anything regarding business services for this by UK Mail so was unsure.

 

 

May give you an idea:-

 

Thanks Mike will read that with great interest very soon.

 

Second working day after posting would have been Tuesday 8 December 2009 (posted on Friday 4 December). For some unfathomable reason, they are claiming it would have been delivered on 7th. Even their own diagram shows it only entered the Royal Mail system the day AFTER UK Mail got it – which is when the clock starts.

 

Also, in their screen shot, ‘account creation date’ simply means the date they started a data record of their own. It must have been acquired PRIOR to this date, and to all intents and purposes is meaningless.

 

They are clearly desperate – to the point of possible fabrication – trying to get round the fact that the account was sold ‘live’, and that the DN was defective by a couple of days. They clearly believe they bought a terminated account – they did not, and a defective DN means it effectively still has not been terminated.

 

Also, any recon agreement MUST abide by the rules decided in Carey v HSBC – those T&Cs are a reprint of some kind. Your name and address are nowhere to be seen. There is also NO EVIDENCE supplied that these T&Cs were present at the time of signing, as required by Carey.

 

yes again. they have been clever in their wording on this bit i think where they say they use UK Mail but also they provide a service which includes saturdays, but not that they used this service. As it was a DN aren't they supposed to provide Proof of delivery too?

[Battlescars]

Funny how the witness posts the Interpretations Act as evidence, but conveniently omits the bit that stuffs him. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, IMHO.

 

Ok, DB. I'll be researching the Interpretation Act (amongst other things) soon. Could you enlighten me on the bit of it that they have omitted and would stuff them? Ta

 

Mbna, a dca and UK mail you say ? Wonder where i heard that before !

 

Oh yeah it was in a court case where they lost on this very point ! http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

 

On 3 October 2008 MBNA sent a default notice (TB4/1502). Paragraph 12 of Mrs Worden's statement dated 26 July 2010 reads as follows:

Exhibited to this Witness Statement at "NW3" is a copy of the default notice which was served by MBNA on the Claimant ("the Default Notice"). The Default Notice was dated 3 October 2008 and, in accordance with MBNA's standard procedure was despatched to the Claimant on 3 October 2008 by way of UK Mail's Business Class service which guarantees delivery within two days of despatch, including Saturdays. It is not, and was not in October 2008, the standard practice of MBNA to send default notices to customers by second class post. There is no reason why the Default Notice sent to the Claimant in this case would have been sent by second class post contrary to MBNA's standard procedures.

 

Investigation by the Claimant who knows about such things revealed that the notice was sent by second class post. Mrs Worden's own investigations revealed that it was "possible" that this was so. Her manner indicated that this was an elegant way of conceding the point as in my view she had to. Thus subsequent investigation contradicted a hitherto firmly held position of the Defendant that the notice had gone by a suitable post and was served in time. It was not. It was issued and sent by second class post on 3 October 2008 arriving (as was to be expected) on 9 October 2008 and was stated to expire on 21 October 2008. Given the date of delivery, the expiry date should have been 23 October 2008. The notice was bad.

 

 

 

Naughty naughty.

 

M1

 

thanks Mystery, will reread and digest with interest...and sounds good to me.

 

Oh yes, Harrison v Link, where the judge just stopped short of saying the evidence was, er,...

 

Again will reread this and redigest. ta. I have it saved somewhere.

[citizenB]

The date you entered into the agreement with MBNA !

[Battlescars]

That is going to be a lovely refutation of their ‘valid DN’ claim. That stuffs their case if they want to rely on it – that was a High Court ruling. If MBNA have provided that evidence to the claimant, then they have provided that evidence KNOWING it to be false. However, the witness does not actually claim the evidence came from MBNA, which is a bit of a shame.

 

That statement of ‘fact’ about UK Mail is a pretty stupid – seriously stupid – thing to do, given it was MBNA’s evidence in the Harrison case, which they gave on behalf of Link Financial.

 

Oh dear. Oh dear, dear.

 

Oh dear.

 

We can rip the rest of their WS apart as well...

 

Loving you more and more DB.

 

For all:

 

I know I still have a lot of reading & work to do, getting ready for the court date, docs in time and everything, but I was wondering how I go about rebutting their WS and evidence? Do I just do my own WS and not mention their stuff/docs/evidence etc.. or do I just base my WS solely on rebutting each piece of their WS, with my own evidence and case law (wstill don't know if I have to add case law as evidence???).

 

just gonna have my tea and will respond again later. No more from me right now.

 

PS: CB will look at you PM, thanks

 

Thanks

BS

[Battlescars]

The date you entered into the agreement with MBNA !

 

unsure of actual date but on sig form says 11 May 2001.

[dx100uk]

i have now shrunk the org 22mb doc so its ok now you lot

 

dx

[citizenB]

unsure of actual date but on sig form says 11 May 2001.

 

Great that is all I needed to know.

 

BTW, they do not have send Default Notices by recorded delivery.

[Battlescars]

Great that is all I needed to know.

 

BTW, they do not have send Default Notices by recorded delivery.

 

Ok

 

Yes, I know they don't need to send recorded but I just thought I read somewhere that they needed to have proof they delivered it...must just be me.

[Battlescars]

i have now shrunk the org 22mb doc so its ok now you lot

 

dx

 

Thanks DX