Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

my MBNA debt been through every DCA in the book - now link chasing


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2653 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello there. What constitutes as acknwoledgement is abased around the facts of the particular situation, there isn't a hard or fast rule. I would probably argue that the above would count as acknowledgement. What's important is that the other party would need to raise it as a bar to your limitations argument - are they aware of the letter?

 

best wishes,

 

Seq.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi ncm-000,

 

I think it probably does unfortunately unless you made a statement somewhere in your letter along the lines that you didn't acknowledge the debt and were in effect only offering a repayment plan for a quiet life!

 

However, if you were led to believe that the agreement was enforceable when it wasn't you might be able to come up with some kind of argument.

 

Who was the card with?

 

Are you suddenly being chased by the DCA or a new DCA when it's been quiet for some time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Credit card was issued by MBNA and the DCA I have been sparring with since 2008 are known to read this forum so I will not name them.

 

I have never received anything from the DCA to demonstrate enforceability just around 20 threatogrammes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever asked for a copy of the alleged agreement? Or checked the likelihood of its enforceability by comparing it to those from around the same date on other MBNA threads?

 

If the threats are just using words like 'may' or 'could' it doesn't sound as though they are pushing too hard. Do you know if the DCA is a debt-chaser or a debt buyer? If it's the former they won't take action on their own although they could pass it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello there. What constitutes as acknwoledgement is abased around the facts of the particular situation, there isn't a hard or fast rule. I would probably argue that the above would count as acknowledgement. What's important is that the other party would need to raise it as a bar to your limitations argument - are they aware of the letter?

 

best wishes,

 

Seq.

 

They reminded me of the contents of the letter after I wrote in a number of interchanges earlier this year

As I have said before many times, I do not, and never have, acknowledged any alleged debt to you or MBNA.

This is after receiving an unsolicited offer to write off the debt on health grounds, which I replied to with all relevant info.

They acknowledged my medical condition but instead of writing the debt off they asked for a nominal £1 per month

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £1 a month was to keep the debt alive in case your circumstances change and they can get more money.

 

If they were prepared to consider a write-off on medical grounds and your circumstances haven't changed, then I think they may just stick at threats as they'll know they have no realistic chance of getting huge sums from you.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever asked for a copy of the alleged agreement? Or checked the likelihood of its enforceability by comparing it to those from around the same date on other MBNA threads?

 

If the threats are just using words like 'may' or 'could' it doesn't sound as though they are pushing too hard. Do you know if the DCA is a debt-chaser or a debt buyer? If it's the former they won't take action on their own although they could pass it on.

 

I have never asked for any proof just stated I do not acknowledge the debt. Left it up to them to send any proof to refute the statement.

I do not believe the paperwork to be valid as it goes way back to 1995/6 time, as a similar situation has gone quiet with a different DCA after they sent some paperwork which I picked a number of holes in, also for a MBNA account of the same vintage

Link to post
Share on other sites
The £1 a month was to keep the debt alive in case your circumstances change and they can get more money.

 

If they were prepared to consider a write-off on medical grounds and your circumstances haven't changed, then I think they may just stick at threats as they'll know they have no realistic chance of getting huge sums from you.

 

My Medical circumstances are not going to change for the better and my financial ones should improve in 4/5 years time long after SB.

I also think they will not push the matter but I would like to have the threat lifted and only replied to them regarding the medical condition after they made the offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 threads on same debt merged for history of advise

 

dx

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
Like I said the DCA is known to LURK here.

 

A lot of DCAs lurk here, but usually they flood to threads where they are mentioned in the thread title so I was curious as to why they were all on this particular thread. You seem to have an audience of 24. Mind you, it is their lunchtime ....... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
My Medical circumstances are not going to change for the better and my financial ones should improve in 4/5 years time long after SB.

I also think they will not push the matter but I would like to have the threat lifted and only replied to them regarding the medical condition after they made the offer.

 

Unfortunately you may just have to live with the threats because they refused the complete write-off. I've scrolled up a bit and see that Fred's were involved about six months ago. Presumably you still haven't heard from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd be checking you CRA file & getting am sar off to MBNA

 

that's will tell you all the info you need

esp on the SB fronts on both cards.

 

dx

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
8 threads on same debt merged for history of advise

 

dx

 

I am a wee bit surprised that you have concatenated these threads as they refer to at least 3 different debts and 2 generic questions.

 

Have I done something to offend you DX?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately you may just have to live with the threats because they refused the complete write-off. I've scrolled up a bit and see that Fred's were involved about six months ago. Presumably you still haven't heard from them?

 

Freds =different debt, they have gone dark for many months after calling their bluff and suggesting Put up or Shut up.

 

Thinking of sending a similar letter to this DCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'd be checking you CRA file & getting am sar off to MBNA

 

that's will tell you all the info you need

esp on the SB fronts on both cards.

 

dx

 

I can think of plenty of good reasons why NOT to do this and all of them have come as suggestions from this forum

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I was confused.

 

You could certainly send a similar letter to this DCA.

 

 

I can understand your confusion. I await a reply from DX regarding the concatenation of these threads

 

As to the letter I am contemplating which type of letter to send.

 

Short pithy anglo saxon equivalent of go away with vigour.

A bit longer pointing out their foolishness in pursuing this matter

Extremely insulting and sarcastic regarding the IQ and linage of the companies owners and to some extent the employees.

A long an detailed letter explaining in excruciating detail why they will be on a hiding to nothing as win or lose they will get nothing but a big bill.

And last but not least a simple 'Put up or Shut up' - go away or see you in court.

 

I have used all of the above with varying degrees of success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello there. What constitutes as acknwoledgement is abased around the facts of the particular situation, there isn't a hard or fast rule. I would probably argue that the above would count as acknowledgement. What's important is that the other party would need to raise it as a bar to your limitations argument - are they aware of the letter?

 

best wishes,

 

Seq.

 

Definition of Acknowledgment of a debt (appendix B) Section B7.: OFT Guidance on Debt Collection 2003/2006 updated Nov. 2012. The updates should be read in conjunction with the 2003/2006 document.

 

A relevant acknowledgment will normally be made by performance of the debtor (or his representative. For example, by making pay7ments or by making an unequivocal written admission clearly acknowledging that the obligation still subsists.

 

As to what constitutes 'contact' with a debtor, General Debt Collection Letters are not considered relevant contact with a debtor. Contact that is relevant is contained in B6.

 

A relevant claim, will normally take the form of the creditor raising an action for payment in court, simply sending a default notice or a letter demanding payment will not constitute a relevant claim. (claim can be taken as also mean relevant contact with a debtor).

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can think of plenty of good reasons why NOT to do this and all of them have come as suggestions from this forum

 

you'll be whistling in the wind forever till you get facts not supposition on all three of the cards.

 

and know you certainly done offend me

 

just a wee bit diff to untangle what debt you are going on about sometimes dear boy.

 

bout time you stopped all letter tennis on all 3

that'll sort the lot.

 

dx

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
Definition of Acknowledgment of a debt (appendix B) Section B7.: OFT Guidance on Debt Collection 2003/2006 updated Nov. 2012. The updates should be read in conjunction with the 2003/2006 document.

 

A relevant acknowledgment will normally be made by performance of the debtor (or his representative. For example, by making pay7ments or by making an unequivocal written admission clearly acknowledging that the obligation still subsists.

 

As to what constitutes 'contact' with a debtor, General Debt Collection Letters are not considered relevant contact with a debtor. Contact that is relevant is contained in B6.

 

A relevant claim, will normally take the form of the creditor raising an action for payment in court, simply sending a default notice or a letter demanding payment will not constitute a relevant claim. (claim can be taken as also mean relevant contact with a debtor).

 

Not being a Lawyer nor having legal training please can you confirm that the above means that as we (myself and the DCA) who have only played letter tennis and the only words written by me that could possibly be construed to be such an admission are as detailed in an earlier reply to this thread, this does not fall within the meaning of the above.

 

Hence no acknowledgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
you'll be whistling in the wind forever till you get facts not supposition on all three of the cards.

 

and know you certainly done offend me

 

just a wee bit diff to untangle what debt you are going on about sometimes dear boy.

 

bout time you stopped all letter tennis on all 3

that'll sort the lot.

 

dx

 

I am trying to play these DCAs out to SB as although, from previous advice (both to me and others) I have concluded they do not have sufficient to go to court.

 

However, to be on the safe side I have not simply ignored them, but tried to keep up a dialogue.

 

I am aware that one cannot predict the outcome of court action so although I am reasonably certain of the outcome, I would rather not test it in court unless I absolutely need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds reasonable

 

though AK are the only ones that try on mbna usually

 

dx

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
sounds reasonable

 

though AK are the only ones that try on mbna usually

 

dx

 

I exchanged a couple of letters with them - they disappeared over 18 months ago, perhaps they did not like something I said.

e.g. "I am at a loss to decide if you are stupid, incompetent or just illiterate! "

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...