Arrow Global / Blake Morgan Court Claim

[Neal267]

'm looking for some assistance with an issue I have with MBNA / Blake Morgan.

Basically in 2009 & 2010 MBNA lost 2 payments on my account for a period of time which I raised complaints about on numerous occasions, however MBNA did very little so I eventually raised it with the Financial Ombudsman who failed to uphold my complaint. On the back of this I subsequently asked MBNA to supply all records of recorded phone calls to them I had made as well as the call recordings of said calls so that I could appeal the Financial Ombudsman decision which they never supplied.

During all this they sold my debt off to Arrow Global who started to pursue me for the outstanding debt. I always maintained to Arrow Global that the debt should never have been passed to them as the account was in dispute but between MBNA & Arrow Global nothing was ever done about it.

Arrow then passed the file to Blake Morgan (formerly Blake Lapthorn)who were basically advised the same, they again ignored this until they subsequently started court proceedings in 2014 and I filed a defence stating the the debt could not have been transferred as the account was in dispute. The proceedings were stayed and now 4 years on they are now trying to lift the stay.

I have attached the Application for Stay to be lifted and Summary Judgement which has been filled and would appreciate your thoughts on this.

From reading about your success with PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW my thoughts are -

1. Exhibit 1 - Signature Form is different to Exhibit 6 Signature Form
2. Exhibit 2 Terms & Conditions bears no relationship to exhibit 3-5 or Exhibit 7
3. Exhibit 9 - Document totally unrelated to me
4. Exhibit 11 - Reconstructed Document

I hope you can help in this matter.

[Neal267]

Application to remove stay & Summary Judgement

[Amethyst]

So

1: EXHIBIT 1 is the microfiche copy of the original

EXHIBIT 6 is 'Additional Reconstitued copies of the signature page... for legibility purposes'

The text in both is the same - the column width is slightly different.


2: It won't be the same, as it is the full terms not just the summary printed on the actual agreement (hence 1,2,3 being on the agreement and the additional terms being from 4 onwards )


3: They've included someone elses notice of assignment in error by the looks of it. So they have failed to provide the notice of assignment for your case.

4: What's wrong with 11 compared to say 25 etc ?


Did you edit this number when redacting ? ( just checking)

[Neal267]

I was querying why the likes of 11 is not on headed notepaper etc. ?

At the time of the MBNA default notification I was in the middle of a complaint which was with the FOS, they were also aware that I was appealing against it and I had asked for all records of telephone calls etc. which they failed to supply when they assigned the debt to Arrow