Virgin MBNA card, now Moorgate - 2 Defaults For The Same Debt

[nosnibor]

I had a credit card with Virgin (MBNA) I got into financial difficulties and had to agree reduced payments, these have been made religiously by standing order and never missed for over 2 years, in fact I have increased the monthly payment myself without any prompting from them.

 

For reasons best known to themselves MBNA have now assigned the debt to Moorgate Britannia,

MBNA have marked their default as satisfied and Moorgate have registered another, albeit with the same dates.

 

So having stuck to my agreed payment plan and in fact increased the payments off my own bat to try an clear the debt as quickly as possible, I now have 2 defaults for the same debt, is this allowed and if not what can I do about it?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It has no more effect than one entry write to the Data Controller at MBNA and request the removal of the original entry.

[nosnibor]

Is it ever worth making a CCA request for a post April 2007 credit card?

 

had a credit card with Virgin (MBNA) balance around £7k

 

 

got into difficulty and negotiated a reduced payment of £40 per month,

 

 

have to say given their reputation I was shocked how easily MBNA accepted this.

 

 

I carried on with this arrangement without any missed or late payments for almost 2 years.

 

Then out of the blue in January 2013 account sold to Britannica:-x

this prompted me to review my financial situation and reduced payments to £1 per month:smile:

 

Since which time I have heard nothing:???:

 

Their behaviour seems out of character and would seem to suggest they don’t fancy their chances of enforcing this,

but as the account is post April 2007 I was under the impression they would require little or no documentation.

 

I would just like people’s opinion on whether it is worth making a CCA request or possibly a SAR?

 

I should add this account was opened on line

 

Many thanks

Nosnibor

[Old Cogger]

deleted

[jackreacher]

Basically had a credit card with Virgin (MBNAicon) balance around £7k got into difficulty and negotiated a reduced payment of £40 per month, have to say given their reputation I was shocked how easily MBNA accepted this. I carried on with this arrangement without any missed or late payments for almost 2 years.

 

 

Then out of the blue in January 2013 account sold to Britannica this prompted me to review my financial situation and reduced payments to £1 per month

 

Hi Mike I have just won a case on this exact point.

 

The judge found that ; Originally I had signed a unilateral agreement (ie; they gave me the terms and I signed) at a later date in 2011 a new bilateral agreement was created( this is creating estoppels). I would pay a lower amount and as long as I paid the lower amount MBNA promised they would run my account unaffected. They were estopped from passing it to a DCA , terminated , or defaulted.

 

In my case they did terminate and default although I had not missed a payment. I did stop paying completely when I found out that my account was terminated. The Judge said this was fine as MBNA had clearly breached first and given up their right to enforce the debt. As a later breach could not wipe out MBNA's first breach of the new bilateral agreement.

 

Equally importantly It was also a breach of cobs/bcobs as they had misled me..this over rules anything else.

 

do some investigation into estoppel and cobs /bcobs to form your own understanding.

 

here to help

 

Jack

Edited November 6, 2014 by citizenB
added quote box

[nosnibor]

MIKE770 and jackreacher thanks for the replies unfortunately MIKE770’s seems to have been deleted, leaving me a bit confused:confused: (it doesn’t take much)

[jackreacher]

MIKE770 and jackreacher thanks for the replies unfortunately MIKE770’s seems to have been deleted, leaving me a bit confused:confused: (it doesn’t take much)

 

sorry nosnibor my reply was meant for you. It doesn't take much to confuse me either. Certainly MBNA have broken their new agreement first if events have happened as described.

 

Try to find some evidence of this new lower payment agreement.

 

I Don't know what happened to Mike770

 

Jack

[Old Cogger]

sorry duplicate posting - wrong thread

[Peterbard]

Hi Mike I have just won a case on this exact point.

 

The judge found that ; Originally I had signed a unilateral agreement (ie; they gave me the terms and I signed) at a later date in 2011 a new bilateral agreement was created( this is creating estoppels). I would pay a lower amount and as long as I paid the lower amount MBNA promised they would run my account unaffected. They were estopped from passing it to a DCA , terminated , or defaulted.

 

In my case they did terminate and default although I had not missed a payment. I did stop paying completely when I found out that my account was terminated. The Judge said this was fine as MBNA had clearly breached first and given up their right to enforce the debt. As a later breach could not wipe out MBNA's first breach of the new bilateral agreement.

 

Equally importantly It was also a breach of cobs/bcobs as they had misled me..this over rules anything else.

 

do some investigation into estoppel and cobs /bcobs to form your own understanding.

 

here to help

 

Jack

 

yes creditors are behaving more reasonably of late, this is not because of any attack of conscience on there part but rather the governmental pressure to go easy on the ever increasing number of people who are finding themselves in debt or face the consequences of stricter regulation.

 

I do not think we should seek to sanction creditors for acting reasonably and freezing interest, accepting reduced prepayment schedules etc., personally I would rather concentrate my efforts on those who do not.

 

I would like to see evidence of the success of any of the measures you state here as most is contrary to my understanding of the law or regulations in this area.

[jackreacher]

yes creditors are behaving more reasonable of late,this is not because of any attack of conscience on there part but rather the governmental pressure to go easy on the ever increasing number of people who are finding themselves in debt or face the consequences of stricter regulation.

 

I do not think we should seek to sanction creditors for acting reasonably and freezing interest, accepting reduced prepayment schedules, personally I would rather concentrate my efforts on those who do not.

 

I would like to see evidence of the success of any of the measures you state here as most is contrary to my understanding of the law or regulations in this area.

 

Dodgeball...

 

Here is my thread for this. The DCA are thinking of coming back in. The judge took two months to deliberate and gave a two hour narrative judgement. Unfortunately I can not afford the fees to get a transcription.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420659-MBNA-Idem...-in-court-Friday-31-March-2014.

 

Probably only worth reading the last few pages. DonkeyB and Andyorch both helped me with it and have commented on the result.

 

I appreciate this has not been done before and I am only a novice but I put the argument in my own way and the Judge found I was exactly right in his opinion.

 

If you are still in doubt I can post my Case dismissed letter.. lol

[Peterbard]

Yes it was some of your terminology which I was concerned with, all consumer credit agreements are bilateral, for instance(if there is consideration).

 

In any case I would be interested to read the judges summing up on this, i am aware of various FMOTL websites pushing estoppel by acquiescence defense which invariably fail, which is why a am skeptical, however in your case if there was a written agreement which supplanted the earlier one there may be a case.

 

Also the op situation regards the inception of a temporary repayment plan estoppel would not be applicable in this instance.

[nosnibor]

Many thanks to you both for the replies.

 

 

Congratulations on your success Jack, unfortunately I don’t think I am in the same position as having checked the correspondence from MBNA it clearly states that whilst they will accept the reduced payments they WILL still default the account and the debt MAY be referred to a third party.

 

 

Nosnibor