Jump to content

Link (MBNA) Questionable Agreement?

Always Struggling

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3548 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

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.

MBNA agreement.jpg


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




pdf in post #3

agreement link financial.jpg

Edited by Always Struggling
Link to post
Share on other sites

pdf's only please...



lik have had her as a cash cow,


does this debt show on her CRA file?


do ALL her debts show?



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...