Mbna Nightmare!!!!

[Cornucopia]

Aw, Corn, So sorry to hear about this but if anyone can beat this lot, you and Mr Corn can, sure you are very well prepared. My fight is still ongoing too, they didn't comply with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), so complaint to Information Commissioners Office and just sent off huge wad of papers to FOS, I sooo know what you mean about being buried in paper work, my poor old computer is struggling under the strain, keep us all posted.

 

OMG:o Hello stranger! How are you? Hope all is OK! I have SO wanted to get in touch but husband reformatted my computer and I lost all my contacts, which has been a complete nightmare. Even all my friends from over the road!! The reason for that is because I wanted to know that you were OK medically and to say I have just been down the same road but got the all clear (even though it took 3 months, test after test after test), but we got there in the end. It has been an extremely frightening experience.

 

I hope all OK with you and yours, if you still have my private email addy, please get in touch, if not, PM me here or over there.....

 

Big hugs,

 

Corn xxxxx:)

[Alphageek]

Stick it to them Corn! Keep us posted.

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Corn,

 

Nice to see you over here, and sorry to hear that this is still ongoing for you. Just to have one day without thinking about these matters would be nice, but unfortuneately they don't give up do they, even when they are so wrong:rolleyes:

 

I used to believe that justice would prevail, but at times I despair:( and it takes it toll.

 

At times I have to give myself a good shake, onwards and upwards as they say:-D

 

Will watch with interest the developments

 

Wishing you best wishes:-D

[Cornucopia]

Hello all, thank you for your lovely posts! I decided that I had previously been extremely frustrated when a marathon thread became a dead end and that would be unfair, so propose to keep you all updated on developments!

 

The Barrister, we shall call him JG, who is absolutely superb, has agreed to take my case on sight of my bundle.

 

So, he is working on it right now and I will keep you posted with updates.

 

What is interesting is that JG was on holiday when this all happened and because the timescales were tight between his return and the need to submit the defence, he advised me to write to the opposite side's solicitors and request an extension of seven days. I did this but have heard zilch.

 

I am flummoxed as to why a huge claim like this was not only submitted via the bulk centre but online too, no supporting docs and POC's that ran to all of around 50 words ie : our client has a genuine commercial interest, please pay or else. That was it, in a nutshell.

 

I expect they thought I would just roll over in fear and come up with some sort of proposal. Not likely.

 

So, lets see how this develops.

 

Hope, I will reply to your email, have been run off my feet with one thing or another and am STILL in sweaty gym kit (but not the one from the other day:rolleyes: ).

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

[Hopeful1]

Hope, I will reply to your email, have been run off my feet with one thing or another and am STILL in sweaty gym kit (but not the one from the other day:rolleyes: ).

 

:o

[sillysow]

Hi Guys, sorry to hi jack the post - but please could any of you guys look at and give feedback on my post "MBNA Debt - long one". You all seem to have a lot of knowledge, and I am at my wits end with how to deal with this one. Plleeeeaaaasssseee

[Cornucopia]

Sillysow, will have a look at your thread....

 

Right, just an update....

 

Firstly I must apologise to all of those who have emailed me and I haven't yet replied in full, I have had my hands full a bit with all the goings on but intend to get on reply to my emails properly this weekend (how RUDE!).

 

I thought I would let you know that the defence is in. I can't post it up at the moment but I will share all the information I have when this is all over, whichever way it goes.

 

Counsel has been worth his weight in gold and I am very glad that there are new rules for direct appointment. He pointed out things that I really didn't need to include and found a corker that hadn't even crossed my mind.

 

So, we are just waiting now.

 

I will keep updated as and when I have something to tell you!

 

Hugs to all,

 

Corn x:)

[Hopeful1]

Hi Corn. Watching and waiting

[empowered]

Hi Corn.... can't wait for the firework display!

[miss muppet]

Good luck Corn, they won't know what hit em!

[Cornucopia]

Well after a couple of years, 20,000 odd views, and more than a thousand posts, I am SO pleased to tell you all that this is over!!

 

We started last year with court papers from Arrow Global and their sols. At this time I instructed a barrister under the public access scheme, a man who really is worth his weight in gold and who has been absolutely fantastic.

 

There have been lots of issues inbetween time and I am sorry for not keeping the thread updated. As is usual during the course of litigation of this manner, we were obliged to offer a small settlement as the courts would prefer such issues are settled between parties. Of course, this wasn't accepted and we muddled on, producing witness statements, completion the pre-trial checklist etc. We were forced to make applications to the court after Arrow Global failed to follow court directions and there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

 

However, completely out of the blue, we received a communication to state that Arrow were willing to accept the settlement we had previously offered, with no order for costs, and that would be the end of it. Of course, we have accepted that and the process of discontinuance is now underway.

 

I feel completely vindicated. Whilst we didn't actually get our day in court, it was obvious fairly early on that the opposition didn't have a leg to stand on and my barrister was confident that they would pull out pre-trial. He was right! The result of this is that £16K and a possible £10K costs order has gone!

 

All that is left to do is to thank all of you for keeping me sane during all of this, the thread was my lifeline for a very long time and whilst it digressed every now and again:rolleyes:, was a huge learning curve because of the amazing amount of collective knowledge! Very special thanks must go to Stan, without whom, I would have sunk a very long time ago!

 

THANKS ALL and I think we can now close this thread!!!

 

Lots of love,

 

Corn x:)

[WormHasTurned]

Congratulations Corn. I'm so pleased for you ~ and I guess you'll get a lot more messages from other Caggers before you really will be allowed to close this post.

 

You've given me a warm feeling (on the weekend that a DCAs sols have sent me a 'without prejudice' offer).

[Cornucopia]

Congratulations Corn. I'm so pleased for you ~ and I guess you'll get a lot more messages from other Caggers before you really will be allowed to close this post.

 

You've given me a warm feeling (on the weekend that a DCAs sols have sent me a 'without prejudice' offer).

 

Thanks Worm! What do you make of your WP offer? Is is achievable?

 

I have learned so much from all of this, the main thing being that we are all going down the wrong track with the "cut and shuffle" agreements - they can cut and shuffle, as long as it means what they produce is something like the document you would have signed. Obviously, the S78 argument has also been somewhat sullied by the lovely Rankines too...so things are not easy for the hard done by consumer.

 

Also, anybody who wants to argue about the cut and shuffle issue can do so with my barrister with 35 years experience of consumer credit!!!

 

The one other thing I would say is check your default notices VERY carefully, it is easy to miss the biggest mistake a lot of creditors make.

 

Oh I'm going to get lots of questions now!!!! xxx

[underdog13]

Congrats, Corn - really pleased for you. Hope you didn't have to pay them too much for settlement.

 

You certainly are going to get lots of questions:D

 

First question; does your barrister think it's pointless then to go after creds who cut and paste agreements to make them enforceable by adding prescribed terms that were never on the original form? I am in the process of talking to a solicitor about this, so it would be really helpful to hear your views on this.

 

Could you possibly pass on your barristers details, by PM if not on the forum?

 

The Rankines have messed up the s78 argument, but not the s127 argument, have they?

 

It would help an awful lot of people if you tell us what to look out for on the DNs:)

[williamzz]

Congratulations Cornucopia.

 

Underdog, agree with you that other CAGGERS need to be enlightened about

a possible "loophole".

 

Hard to believe that the "cut and shuffle" of documents is being treated as

permissable by the courts

[Cornucopia]

Congratulations Cornucopia.

 

Underdog, agree with you that other CAGGERS need to be enlightened about

a possible "loophole".

 

Hard to believe that the "cut and shuffle" of documents is being treated as

permissable by the courts

 

Underdog and Williamzz...I am just off to bed, but will update tomorrow...I promise...I know this is a pain, but a lot to type up and I want to make sure I give you the right advice!!

 

However, I can tell you that according to my barrister, it is OK for the creditor to make up an agreement, as long as it contains the prescribed terms, the t&C's applicable and signatures of both parties. This was a punch in the stomach for me, but I can't argue with his as it's his speciality and has been for the past 34 years...I think that there is a lot more to talk about with this but I am falling asleep and have to get up for the school run in the morning...so I will be back to expand. Please PM me with questions if you wish.

 

Regards,

 

 

Corn x:)

[Cornucopia]

Also, settlement was for just over a grand....you can probably now see why this was such a result and also why your original creditor selling on is the best thing that can happen...the debts are sold for 5 to 10% or less of the original defaulting sum, so therefore, you have a much larger scope for negotiation! xx

[underdog13]

Thanks Corn - hope you get a good nights sleep:)

 

I am stunned that MBNA are allowed to recreate an agreement and just add signatures. If we did this it would be deemed fraud. I'm gutted by this tbh; I was going to speak to a solicitor about this tomorrow - guess that's a waste of time as I'm sure your barrister knows what he's talking about. Still can't comprehend how they can make what was originally an unenforceable agreement, enforceable by cutting and pasting prescribed terms that were never there when you signed!!! Must admit this has ripped the fight right out of me - if they can get away with this what chance do we have? I can't afford to offer any sort of settlement, so I'm sunk.

 

Have to pin my hopes on the DN, I guess. Seems like that's the only thing we can argue on:(

[empowered]

Thanks Corn - hope you get a good nights sleep:)

 

I am stunned that MBNA are allowed to recreate an agreement and just add signatures. If we did this it would be deemed fraud. I'm gutted by this tbh; I was going to speak to a solicitor about this tomorrow - guess that's a waste of time as I'm sure your barrister knows what he's talking about. Still can't comprehend how they can make what was originally an unenforceable agreement, enforceable by cutting and pasting prescribed terms that were never there when you signed!!! Must admit this has ripped the fight right out of me - if they can get away with this what chance do we have? I can't afford to offer any sort of settlement, so I'm sunk.

 

Have to pin my hopes on the DN, I guess. Seems like that's the only thing we can argue on:(

 

Underdog - don't lose heart just yet! IMO, if MBNA felt they had such a strong case they would have continued the claim - we all know that they do make vastly reduced offers to settle and it is up to people if they want to settle on that basis. With my OH we just ignore the letters. The DN they sent us contains an amount made up of penalty charges plus it didn't allow the full 14 days for payment. That's where the true strength of a claim would lie - I would hate to just rely on an incorrect/illegible/pasted agreement basis. Will have a quick read of your thread to see where you are now.

[almond]

Underdog - don't lose heart just yet! IMO, if MBNA felt they had such a strong case they would have continued the claim - we all know that they do make vastly reduced offers to settle and it is up to people if they want to settle on that basis. With my OH we just ignore the letters. The DN they sent us contains an amount made up of penalty charges plus it didn't allow the full 14 days for payment. That's where the true strength of a claim would lie - I would hate to just rely on an incorrect/illegible/pasted agreement basis. Will have a quick read of your thread to see where you are now.

 

just read part of this thread and if its a case mbna or any other company can cut and paste a document to form an agreement we are stuffed.

I just can't see it ? we are not putting our name to the document , somewhere on the area of the document we sign it must say we agree to the above contents and have read them, (if you get my meaning) well

we could'nt have read the contents since it was only created by them when they copied and pasted it.

[underdog13]

Thank you very much, Empowered. Appreciate you taking the time to read my thread:)

 

Almond -those were my thoughts exactly. Why are we even requesting our agreements if the creds have carte blanche to materially alter the original to make it enforceable? Look at it the other way around - if we had an enforceable agreement, scanned it into photoshop and removed the prescribed terms so we could declare it unenforceable, we'd be kicked into touch.

 

I don't doubt Corn's barrister's expertise, but wonder if some wires have got crossed?

[empowered]

Thank you very much, Empowered. Appreciate you taking the time to read my thread:)

 

Almond -those were my thoughts exactly. Why are we even requesting our agreements if the creds have carte blanche to materially alter the original to make it enforceable? Look at it the other way around - if we had an enforceable agreement, scanned it into photoshop and removed the prescribed terms so we could declare it unenforceable, we'd be kicked into touch.

 

I don't doubt Corn's barrister's expertise, but wonder if some wires have got crossed?

 

Yep I do agree Underdog. I can't honestly remember seeing anything on this site where a claim has gone to court and the judge has agreed with OC that it is OK to cut and paste. I think they just pulled out because they knew they were on a loser;) We'll have to wait for Corn to give us more info.

[redsue]

hi Corn - I'm so glad you've finally settled this to your satisfaction. MBNA are still on my wanted list. In the case of the DN unfortunately I don't have one! MBNA never sent one and when pushed further with another SAR failed to include it in that.

Instead of having a faulty DN I simply don't have one!

So they can cut and shuffle agreements and also default you with the CRA's without a DN - priceless!

[Cornucopia]

Hi all, sorry it has taken me a while to get back on here.

 

Now, I think there are a lot of misapprehensions here and I perhaps didn't explain myself very well.

 

Obviously I can only refer to my case and the advice I have received so it may not apply to other individual cases.

 

My initial argument with MBNA was that they had not produced a true copy of the executed agreement. This argument was subsequently found to be flawed because they had in fact produced everything that was required (even though some of it was questionable as, for example, there were two different sets of T&C's), but the fact remained that what they did produce was a whole agreement.

 

My case progressed from there as MBNA sold the account onto a collector. The collector then made mistakes in that it didn't respond to my CCA request, my SAR and the default notice was irredeemably flawed. These points collectively formed the basis of my defence. It was nothing to do with the agreement.

 

I feel, as everybody else does, that they shouldn't be able to put something together and call it an agreement and how this is dealt with in court is very much down to the judge on the day. Having observed a case in 2007 (again with MBNA), I saw the judge accept what MBNA said was an agreement (even though it was unbelievable as the pages were completely illegible). Also, if you have a situation where the agreement is not signed by either the debtor or the creditor, then they don't have a leg to stand on. So each invididual case must be judged on its merits.

 

I recently helped another CAG'er who is off to court and it transpired that her actual winning argument was the defective default notice NOT the agreement. This is why you have to be very careful with checking your paperwork.

 

Further, your creditor will do all they can to prevent you from seeing the assignment documentation - this is because their it shows if they actually have a right to sue you.....and often they don't!

 

I hope that this clears up some of your questions above and Underdog, I will PM you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Corn x:)

[Cornucopia]

hi Corn - I'm so glad you've finally settled this to your satisfaction. MBNA are still on my wanted list. In the case of the DN unfortunately I don't have one! MBNA never sent one and when pushed further with another SAR failed to include it in that.

Instead of having a faulty DN I simply don't have one!

So they can cut and shuffle agreements and also default you with the CRA's without a DN - priceless!

 

Hello stranger! How are you? Nice to see you!

 

Thanks for your good wishes, it is a huge relief as you can imagine!

 

Well we know they can't do anything without an effective default notice so I am not sure what they are playing at! How long has this been going on for??!!