PRA Claimform - old MBNA Credit card debt ***Claim Dismissed no DN***

[Betty55]

Thanks dx I get it now.

 

I know on the POC they say the ‘debt’ was assigned from MBNA to PRA May 2013.

Their WS says assigned form MBNA to Activ kapital May 2013.

 

The DOA says it was assigned to AK in October 2012.

The NOA is from May 2013.

 

Their WS says the assignment form MBNA to AK took place under a 9 month forward flow whatever that means.

that is the explanation for the 7 months between the DOA being made and the date they say they sent the NOA.

[shamrocker]

Is this case of any use to you in terms of challenging the application form as being unenforceable:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/299.html

[Betty55]

Yes thank you shamrock. The application form/Agreement they provided does not have all the T&Cs present. I’m not even sure they are the right ones for that year!

[Betty55]

Hi I am working on my WS and will post up tomorrow if anyone would be kind enough to check I would be grateful.

 

Before I include this info in it I wanted some advice to see if relevant.

 

The claimant says I was sent a DN by MBNA and I dispute this.

The DN the claimant sent is dated February 2013.

 

At the bottom footer it’s says that MBNA is regulated and authorised by the Financial conduct Authority but I may be wrong but having checked the FCA was not formed until 1st April 2013.

 

us they did not take over responsibility for regulating the consumer credit industry from the OFT until April 2014.

How then can a DN from feb 2013 refer to the FCA?

[jon8214]

just means the have went over to the filing cabinet and pulled a DN out of it - basically toilet paper

[AndyOrch]

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was a quasi-judicial body responsible for the regulation of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2013. It was founded as the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) in 1985. Its board was appointed by the Treasury, although it operated independently of government. It was structured as a company limited by guarantee and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.

 

Due to perceived regulatory failure of the banks during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the UK government decided to restructure financial regulation and abolish the FSA. On 19 December 2012, the Financial Services Act 2012 received royal assent, abolishing the FSA with effect from 1 April 2013. Its responsibilities were then split between two new agencies: the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority of the Bank of England.

[Betty55]

Thank you for your replies.

on that basis would it be enough to prove the DN provided by the claimant cannot be a valid document?

 

I already thought it was dodgy as it refers to breaches of clauses 1 & 8 of the CA and while the CA they sent me is missing the first 2 conditions so I don’t know what clause 1 is. It does have a condition 8

 

. Apparently I am alleged to have breached MBNA from debiting the account of any transactions and interest the payment system notified them of or of adding any refunds to the account. I’d be interested to see what clause 1 is

[AndyOrch]

Which post have you uploaded it to ?

[Betty55]

Post 143 / 65 has their WS DN and CA kindly upload by dx

[AndyOrch]

There is no Default Notice ...witness statement T&Cs and NoAs yes.

[Betty55]

dn

dn.pdf

[dx100uk]

there was no DN in the claimant WS scans I got

though it lists it was there

 

the one above is from earlier in the thread

[Betty55]

Thanks dx

[AndyOrch]

They have FCA on all the letters pre dated April 13.....so thats nothing of use...with regards to the T&Cs I cant find 1 or 8 ...it gets to 7 .6 c and then jumps to 11.5 ?

[Betty55]

Oh no I have spent all day on WS an have harped on about the FCA thing as I have stuff predating April 13 an all of it is footed FSA and OFT.

They are definitely not copies of the original.

The DN is definitely a made up one

 

The t& c have no clause 1 or 2. They begin at 3

 

The WS has to be posted tomorrow an I'm in work all day so will have to finish tonight.

I'm doing it on my phone too as internet not working.

 

I'm worried I've messed it up now.

Can I post it up for help please

 

I'm panicking plus directions say no more than 5 sides 12 font double lines.

[AndyOrch]

It could be that they were aware of the changes coming into force and for whatever reason used new stationary pre 1 April 2013...the court wont want to know when there is an alleged debt of 18K in the balance.

 

Your WS can be as long or short as required to argue your points...Im sure you cant fill 5 sides.

[Betty55]

But the FCA did not take over the regulation of consumer credit until April 2014 an all prior was OFT which is on all 2013 stuff I have. I was trying to prove that the DN not only refers to clause 1that doesn’t exist in the ca and clause 8 that is irrelevant but that it has been put together much later than feb 13 an more like 2014. I think the DCA made the DN from its cabinet

 

I’ve put my WS but think I’ve messed it up and focused on wrong things

In the Xxxx County Court.pdf

 

Can anyone please check my WS to see if Any of it is ok.

 

I fear I've been sidetracked clutching at straws that aren't even there and have ended up making a pigs ear of my WS that I have to post tomorrow and will end up getting ripped a new one by the DJ

[shamrocker]

Sorry - crossed posts.

 

Will get back to you later.

 

Betty - is the agreement "properly executed"??

 

Have you read the content in the link I posted previously? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/299.html

 

See Point 9 in that link. In your case, an improperly executed agreement is irredeemably unenforceable by virtue of s.127(3) of the CCA.

 

See the famous case of Carey v HSBC here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

 

Take note of the paragraphs referring to s.61(1) and also the "prescribed terms

 

 

This case focuses primarily on s.77/78 requests, and really only agrees what creditors need to do so as to fulfill their obligations to the debtor when a request is made under s.77/78.

 

 

Be careful, as the likes of PRA/Aktiv Kapital and their ilk will twist the findings of this case, but in essence you need to make "positive assertions" as to the breaches of the CCA that make the agreement improperly executed.

 

You have a strong case in asserting that the agreement is not properly executed, so I think you need to get some content into your WS.

right, some of the stuff in your WS will come across as straw-clutching, but at this stage you need to load it with as many compelling arguments as you can.

 

 

Try to state why your points are fatal to the claim - don't rely on the judge to interpret the points for you, because it's very unlikely that they will give you much help in that respect.

[Betty55]

Thank you Shamrock.

 

think I will need to start again with it really as most of it now seems irrelevant.

Would the court allow me to submit late or is the deadline set in stone?

[shamrocker]

No, don't start again. Just add in a new p.10 to argue that the agreement is not properly executed in accordance with s.61(1). The consequences of such breach are contained in s.65(1), but the court is prevented from enforcing an improperly executed agreement due to s.127(3).

 

s.127(3) was repealed in April 2007, so agreements entered into after this date don't benefit from it. Your agreement is pre-2007, so it applies to you.

 

I'm really busy so am struggling to help too much, but the above points should offer you something quite strong if you can put it into words.

 

If you have any questions, please post them up as quickly as you can so that Andy and DX can have a chance to offer input before it is too late. Time is of the essence.

 

P.S. Obviously, you have to state why the agreement does not comply.

[Betty55]

Thank you Shamrock I really appreciate your help and know you are all busy

It’s my own fault I’m in this position as I wasted my time on the wrong things.

 

I will fix it the best I can and either way will have to post the thing tomorrow otherwise it’s over anyway.

I’ve come this far might as well carry on

[shamrocker]

What date is your hearing Betty?

[Betty55]

Sometime in early August, date TBC.

 

I just have to get my WS in the post tomorrow to arrive by Monday.

Hopefully by August my obsession with footnotes in documents will have passed

[shamrocker]

Is Monday the deadline for serving your WS?

There'll be postal collections on Saturday too, so 'should' still get there by Monday if you post on Saturday morning.

[Betty55]

Yes due Monday but I'm not sure that there is guaranteed next day delivery if you post on Saturdays.

The directions were very clear that the WS had to be provided to the court an the other party by 4pm Monday.