Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted.
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

experto/varde now PRA Group chasing old MBNA silver nomination choice card debt


firstship
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 532 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Dotty Hi.Quick History.MBNA sold the debt to Exporto and confirmed this in writing,which in turn turned out to be untrue they had sold it to Varde in Ireland,who Exporto wrote and said they represented,Varde never after repeated requests provided a Letter of Assignment or confirmation that Exporto where acting for them .Varde sold the debt on to Aktiv and I continue to pay through a DMP.

 

Realised recently that I paid MBNA PPI,claimed it back, was happy to accept their offer however their letter has a paragraph stating "if we sold the amounts due under this account we may recall this debt and reduce it by the redress amount"

 

This paragraph has started ringing alarm bells,I have read somewhere on this site the case law that was won to confirm they cannot do this,however I cannot find within FOS any confirmation of Offset of a debt that has been sold

 

Any Help with this please

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Firstship,

 

The history of my MBNA thread almost mirrored yours, except I'm not paying anyone.

 

I don't know to the test case you refer, but then I have not paid ppi so it isn't something I've looked into too much.

 

I expect someone on here will be along to assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ims thank you,

 

take your point a sale between the seller and buyer would not be a part of the Assignment letter,

 

this is perhaps understandable rather like not revealing how much the debt was sold for,

 

if we the debtor was privy to this information we would be in a position to manipulate the situation to our advantage in certain circumstances.

 

I suppose I am annoyed that MBNA sold the debt to they said Exporto and this turned out to be untrue,

 

it was sold to Varde Ireland and Varde would not communicate in any way with a letter of Assignment or confirmation that Exporto would be acting on their behalf, eventually Varde sold the debt to Aktiv,

 

I will just wait and see whether MBNA will recall the debt from Aktiv

 

Thanks for your time with this

 

Regards FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs.

 

If they do then you can always raise a complaint with fos and they may well be able to establish whether a buy back is possible under the terms of the original sale.

 

Don't take a lender's word for it if you can help it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

MBNA have sent the cheque and paid the amount in full that they indicated.

 

Because the PPI goes back to 1999 I did not want to ask them to produce the details of how they worked the PPI out just incase they decided to enforce the 6 year excuse.

 

They have stated this is the Full and Final Settlement and if I had used a 3rd party to make the claim they will send all details of how they arrived at the figure paid,to them.I did not use a 3rd party.

 

When the cheque has cleared I propose to write to them and acknowledge the part payment which I do not accept as a Full and Final Payment,

 

but I require the complete details of how they arrived at the figure.

 

How will I stand with this approach?

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PPI MBNA cheque has cleared,I now want to acknowledge receipt of the cheque and refuse to accept that this is a Full and Final Settlement as they have not indicated how they arrived at the figure paid,and I require a full detailed breakdown.

 

Am I treading on dangerous ground,the debt is owned by Aktiv and the PPI was paid to me

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you get a letter of acceptance which you had to sign and return to them agreeing the repayment?

 

You are quite entitled to a full and detailed breakdown from MBNA so no harm in asking for it.

 

Do you know by how much their offer may be incorrect?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ims21 hope you had a good christmas............No signed nothing at all.I do not have any idea of how much their offer may be incorrect by,as they have paid PPI from 1999,and not having statements from 1999 to 2007,I did not want to make them aware of this as I felt they would then enforce the 6 year excuse.

 

I want to see the full calculations from them simply based on MBNAs past performance of trying to get away with underpaying PPI in numerous cases

 

Regards

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Anybody got any idea who Silver Nomination Choice( followed by credit card number 4129 ....etc)

had a statement from PRA group with under the heading "who you owed reference"???

thanks  fs

Link to post
Share on other sites

pop the 1st 6 digits in here and it will tell you who issued the card to you.

 

https://www.bindb.com/bin-database.html

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to PRA Group chasing old MBNA silver nomination choice card debt

thread title updated and moved to the mbna forum

 

I would expect this to be your old experto one as they merged into the pra group some years ago

 

 

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

  • 2 years later...

Yes it is MBNA ..Exporto...

 

sent CCA as you suggested because I have been paying through Stepchange who I will scrap when I have had the various replies

 

.PRA return your £1 send letter they will look into my request and will not pursue until they have the required document,

 

 

However they enclose an information leaflet stating if they cannot produce the original signed document they will supply a reconstituted copy.

 

The fact this has been MBNA and then Exporto and now PRA doubt they can produce the original

 

 

Question how do I deal with a reconstituted copy agreement???

Thank you DX

 

FS

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this card precedes 2007 so not applicable.

 

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

Changes to the cca regarding recons allowed didnt come in till apr 2007 and dont apply to agreement taken out before 2007

 

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

test

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to experto/varde now PRA Group chasing old MBNA silver nomination choice card debt
  • 5 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...