• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

MBNA, HBOS and the FOS

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MBNA, HBOS and the FOS

    Hi All,

    Firstly, I used my MBNA credit card to pay £500 for two landbanking plots back in 2004. The plots were bought from two separate companies, which now no longer exist. One was closed by the FSA for unauthorised collective investment, and there was misrepresentation. Another party successfully got his claim accepted by the HBOS (£approx £22,000 paid out), and the other company was investigated, and factual evidence presented to the court to wind the company up on grounds of multiple misrepresentation.

    I started my claim with MBNA back in September 2009, and the FOS final decision took place on the 12th May 2011, after I received a letter dated 3rd of May saying my file was in the queue for the FOS decision, which had numerous factual errors in it.


    I need to know how the other party had a credit card company who interpreted the national law differently than MBNA and the FOS, as I cannot give up. If the other person was paid out so should i have been if the terms and conditions were identical. Different companies should not interpret the law the way they want to, and MBNA, from research, doesn't appear to be a very good 'customer care' company.

    Any advice on what to do now, as the plots were purchased in 2004...is it too late to go to court and if so can anyone suggest what route to take now?

    Thanks for reading this...I feel very boring due to going on about this!

    Regards,

    Gillybobs
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: MBNA, HBOS and the FOS

    Sue the credit provider and the defunct company as, under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link they are jointly and severally liable with the provider of goods or services for any breach of contract.

    Mafia Bank of North America would doubtless try to assert that the claim was statute barred by section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 - link; however, in cases where there has been concealment or misrepresentation, section 32 - link - provides an extension of the limitation period by starting the limitation period when the concealment (etc.) had become known or would have been discovered.

    Comment

    View our Terms and Conditions

    LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

    If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


    If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
    Working...
    X