Link (MBNA) Questionable Agreement?

[Always Struggling]

I am trying to help out a pensioner sort her debts out. She doesn't have access to internet etc so I am the middle man, this is the first of half a dozen+ debts lol.

 

This is a copy of her agreement via a CCA request.

 

Any advice on the agreement would be great.

 

It was for a credit card taken out in 1998.

There are some

financial and related conditions

copied onto the back of the agreement. They also sent some other terms and conditions but nothing that is showing a direct link to the above agreement. I can scan up if required though.

 

Link Financial Outsourcing bought the debt in 2001. Payments have been made a few months ago.

 

All help appreciated

 

AS

 

pdf in post #3

Edited September 7, 2012 by Always Struggling

[dx100uk]

pdf's only please...

 

2001!

lik have had her as a cash cow,

 

does this debt show on her CRA file?

 

do ALL her debts show?

 

dx

[Always Struggling]

Apologies dx, my bad.

Here is pdf version... better to see as well.

 

abc006.pdf

[Always Struggling]

Will have to find out about what shows on her credit file but it will be snail mail request as she doesn't have credit card to verify herself with online.

[seriously fed up]

If Link run true to form then they will allege the prescribed terms were on the back of this form, despite the fact there is no reference to them on the page you have reproduced. As was helpfully suggested to me (by Citizen 1), try Harrison v Link - they have already had one burning on this issue, so it may be tha they dont fancy another. Their problem is that MBNA, like most of them, photocopied only the first page and left out the legals. This means their only defence is of the "would have" variety - or since I assume your acquaintance is unlikely to take out an action against Link, their only attack is of the "would have" variety - MBNA "would have" etc (eg had the T&Cs on the back). The interesting thing with Harrison - who was the claimant - is not only could MBNA (and Link) NOT prove that the T&Cs WERE given to Mr Harrison, they couldnt disprove his assertion that the T&Cs were NOT given to him.

Of course they will huff and they will puff and threaten to blow down her house, but that, if they are met with a robust response (eg indicating that you know all about Harrison v Link) then they might just slink away.