MBNA

[basa48]

Re: MBNA

HI
Firstly, did you borrow the mony. That is what the judge will ask you. If you say no you had better be able to show why the credits made in your name and documented in the form of your credit card withdrawels do not correspond to you.

hopefully no one in their right mind would deny a documented debt

YOu could say yes but i do not believe i signed anagreement, this could work as long as they do not have a document with your signature on it.

'could' work? in what way do you think it would'nt work?.

You could say i signed a document but it did not have the terms and conditions required on it, this is very unlikely to work, i woud estimeat about 1 caee in 100 is successful using this.

which is probably why my use of such an argument has scared my OC off suing for two years, scared them into selling the debt on and the DCA not contacting me again for 4 months? do you think?

Regardeing the default notice, they are perfectly entitled to issue one and demand the full amount due under it if they consider the agreement is not capable of remedy.

i wasn'y aware s87 had been re-written?

You could argue that the default did not give you chance to remedy but you would have to show that they were incorrect in there assertion. How much were the arrears in comparison to the full amount of the liability how much time did you have to remedy prior to the notice.etc.

yes its called being unfair if the debtor were not even given a chance to remedy

I know this is not what you want to hear but this us the way it is.

no it isn't, its BS not 'the way it is'.

You may think that a better course of action would be to contact the creditor and arrange a repayment plan you can afford and get on with your life. Look around this site and see how many have tried under the circumstances you describe tried to argue unenforceablity and see how few have succeded.
Peter

I would prefer at least one crack of the whip. Its unlikely a judge would aware more than an arranged DMP anyway.

[Guest]

Re: MBNA

hopefully no one in their right mind would deny a documented debt

Thius is why i asked you,just to be sure.

'could' work? in what way do you think it would'nt work?.

Read the Wakesman case the bit where the judge said that it was only nesessary for the court to prove on the ballance of probability that an agreement was signed.

which is probably why my use of such an argument has scared my OC off suing for two years, scared them into selling the debt on and the DCA not contacting me again for 4 months? do you think?

THe reason they have not chased you is probably the same reason they do not chase 80% of debtors , because they know yhou have no money, that is why they employ DCAs that cannot enforce through the courts. Can you say you are happy being contiually chased and not at least trying to settle your debts

i wasn'y aware s87 had been re-written?

It hasnt you just have never been able to understand it , Unfortunately the courts do

yes its called being unfair if the debtor were not even given a chance to remedy

Section 87 says that if the agreement is not capable of remedy then...
Read it

no it isn't, its BS not 'the way it is'.

JUst read the cases on all the forums , open your eyes and you will see it is the truth , has been for a long time.

I would prefer at least one crack of the whip. Its unlikely a judge would aware more than an arranged DMP anyway.

One crack of the whip?? I thought you where full of rightous indignation at the poor treatment you recieved at the hands of the evil creditor. Is this not the case.

To the OP

THis person is very good at giving others advice that he does not have to live with. Look on here see the truth for yourself.
Start with Paul 2905s thread he is a very experianced contributer and well versed in all the legalities involved he had an excellent case and he had his case summerarily thrown out, one of many THen go over to cag and look on there.
Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: MBNA

What is the date of the MBNA application for credit?

How many payments did you miss?

Did you ask MBNA to freeze the interest?

I asked the OP some simple questions.
However, the OP has not responded, yet.

Perhaps, it would be best if you leave your arguments until the OP responds.

[Amethyst]

Re: MBNA

For information - would really help to read through these threads - they are a bit long but there is a lot of very useful information in them which might assist in your case.

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - Paul2905 thread (read last page first - then earlier on in the thread looking at the actual MBNA agreements and terms provided etc)

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - Frisp's thread - on going.

Hope that helps.

Ame
xx

[basa48]

Re: MBNA

One crack of the whip?? I thought you where full of rightous indignation at the poor treatment you recieved at the hands of the evil creditor. Is this not the case.

LOL !! No indignation here, just an even poorer person trying to save money.

I do think I deserve a bail out though !!! He, he.

THis person is very good at giving others advice that he does not have to live with.

You on the other hand always seem to rubbish all arguments and advise the debtor to pay up.

Look on here see the truth for yourself.

Yes please do.

Start with Paul 2905s thread he is a very experianced contributer and well versed in all the legalities involved he had an excellent case and he had his case summerarily thrown out, one of many THen go over to cag and look on there.
Peter

I didn't think Paul 2905 was 'an experienced contributor', he relied heavily on others advice. So I think you are disingenuous in trying to make out that even 'experienced' 'well versed' people with an 'excellent case' get screwed.

I looked at the thread and I really don't think the APR / interest rate argument was at all 'excellent', in fact I would not take that in a courtroom, and it is now almost accepted that a few days out for a DN remedy date is de minimis.

Finally his was a large debt taking it into the fast / multi track scene and well worth the creditor pursuing. Don't forget Paul had already admitted the debt by entering a DMP.

That and the fact the judge was biased from word go (as they more and more often are).

Technically and to the true letter of the Law, Paul should have won, but unfortunately the establishment do tend to stick together. Even judges might need cheap loans sometimes!!

[Garlok]

Re: MBNA

On top of which perhaps this constant quoting only bits of the "Carey" judgement should cease. If some of bivine excreta above is to be allowed to be followed then take a look at s108 and s234 (1-4) of the "Carey" judgement. Why are these of less importance than the bits that suit a certain persons arguments.

Waksman made it clear that he was only ruling on s78 requests in essence as that was what the case was about reference Case Management Conferences of 13 LEAD (NOT TEST) cases of 16th October 2009!

He did not make any change or interpretation of Statute Law as some have implied. Also on analyis he only took into account agreements which were post 2006 amendments.

What has happened is that weak defences by LIPs and poor advice such as above allowed creditors to get away with not obeying the law of the land.

In "Carey" I notice that certain posters never mention that MBNA ost one and immediately withdrew from two others on the grounds of their own dodgy paperwork and all debt was written off. The CMC involved subsequently went bust which undermined the importance of this issue.

S87 stands and has not been amended do a DN is a DN is a DN. If it ain'y compliant then it is breach of Statute Law and it sems to me an argument is being put forward here that it is perectly OK for a creditor and his cohorts to wilfully break the law.

regards
Garlok
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also I note there is NO mention at all that the OP be referred to Harrison v Link/MBNA which is also pertinent.

Garlok

[Garlok]

Re: MBNA

Also I note there is no mention of many other cases to refute some of the above BS.

like Langan's judgement in BoS v Mitchell.

Garlok

[Guest]

Re: MBNA

The remarks made by Wakesman reffered to enforceability clains unser 127.
Are you saying that my estimate of unenfirceability successes is incorrect?

It is not helpful to refer to valid points as BS. Nor is it going to aid the OP.

I think Paul would disagree with your assesment of his knowledge and ability as would I.

This was however just one example there are many more.

I was of the same opinion as you some 5 or six years ago, in fact i wrote one or the first guides to unenforceability over the road. Reproduced on here somewhere i think.

However times changed. Various rulings in the high courts and the branding of any debtor questioning enforceability as people just trying to avoid there commitments, has predudiced the courts to such an extent that such caims rarely succed in the real world.


Peter

[Guest]

Re: MBNA

On top of which perhaps this constant quoting only bits of the "Carey" judgement should cease. If some of bivine excreta above is to be allowed to be followed then take a look at s108 and s234 (1-4) of the "Carey" judgement. Why are these of less importance than the bits that suit a certain persons arguments.

Waksman made it clear that he was only ruling on s78 requests in essence as that was what the case was about reference Case Management Conferences of 13 LEAD (NOT TEST) cases of 16th October 2009!

He did not make any change or interpretation of Statute Law as some have implied. Also on analyis he only took into account agreements which were post 2006 amendments.

What has happened is that weak defences by LIPs and poor advice such as above allowed creditors to get away with not obeying the law of the land.

In "Carey" I notice that certain posters never mention that MBNA ost one and immediately withdrew from two others on the grounds of their own dodgy paperwork and all debt was written off. The CMC involved subsequently went bust which undermined the importance of this issue.

S87 stands and has not been amended do a DN is a DN is a DN. If it ain'y compliant then it is breach of Statute Law and it sems to me an argument is being put forward here that it is perectly OK for a creditor and his cohorts to wilfully break the law.

regards
Garlok
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also I note there is NO mention at all that the OP be referred to Harrison v Link/MBNA which is also pertinent.

Garlok

This is a quote from wakesman, were you readig another judjment.

229. Mrs Thompson says that such an inference can and should be made. She referred me to paragraph
2.9.4 of the OFT Draft Guidance. What this says is that often consumers and their advisers assume that if a signed copy is not provided it necessarily means that the agreement cannot be enforced either under s78 or under sl27 (3). But this overlooks the fact that there is no obligation to produce a copy of the signature and that "sl27 (3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing; the section requires that a document containing the Prescribed Terms "was" signed by the debtor...The creditor may be able to provide evidence that its practice was always to require a signature and that its agreements
always complied with section 61 (1) (a) and the debtor ...may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement." I do not see how that passage helps Mrs Thompson on this application.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: MBNA

On top of which perhaps this constant quoting only bits of the "Carey" judgement should cease. If some of bivine excreta above is to be allowed to be followed then take a look at s108 and s234 (1-4) of the "Carey" judgement. Why are these of less importance than the bits that suit a certain persons arguments.

I think yo mean Bovine could be wrong, Cant stand bad spelling
I think all the judjment is impotant. No use burying your head in the sand

Waksman made it clear that he was only ruling on s78 requests in essence as that was what the case was about reference Case Management Conferences of 13 LEAD (NOT TEST) cases of 16th October 2009!

Yes but he did comment on enforceability issuews and thes comments can be used as presceedant. As per the Default asside in Harrison for instance.
He did not make any change or interpretation of Statute Law as some have implied. Also on analyis he only took into account agreements which were post 2006 amendments.

He could not of course change statute that would take an act of parliament. He did however interpret the statute, i think that was his main function

What has happened is that weak defences by LIPs and poor advice such as above allowed creditors to get away with not obeying the law of the land.

No what happened was the law was interpretted, and preceedent was set.

In "Carey" I notice that certain posters never mention that MBNA ost one and immediately withdrew from two others on the grounds of their own dodgy paperwork and all debt was written off. The CMC involved subsequently went bust which undermined the importance of this issue.


N no one mentions this because it has no relevance to anything

S87 stands and has not been amended do a DN is a DN is a DN. If it ain'y compliant then it is breach of Statute Law and it sems to me an argument is being put forward here that it is perectly OK for a creditor and his cohorts to wilfully break the law.


Very wise a dn is a dn yes all you have to do is understand how it works and your there
regards
Garlok
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also I note there is NO mention at all that the OP be referred to Harrison v Link/MBNA which is also pertinent.

Garlok

Above

Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: MBNA

The OP has not posted since 12/06/2011.
Is all this banter going to encourage him/her to post again?

[Garlok]

Re: MBNA

I would suggest that you re-read sections 101,107,108, 138 and in particular section 234.4.

Please also note a fact you not saying here is that the claimants were the alleged debtors and the burden of proof fell to them.

And what the hell has Paul to do with this, he has left this forum because of your behaviour.

Garlok
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Of course Angry Cat, but telling him to just cough up and get on with his life will also not encourage him to come here for advice and support either.

regards
Garlok

[Guest]

Re: MBNA

The OP has not posted since 12/06/2011.
Is all this banter going to encourage him/her to post again?

Yes far better to just give one sided flawed advice

[Angry Cat]

Re: MBNA

I would suggest that you re-read sections 101,107,108, 138 and in particular section 234.4.

Please also note a fact you not saying here is that the claimants were the alleged debtors and the burden of proof fell to them.

And what the hell has Paul to do with this, he has left this forum because of your behaviour.

Garlok
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Of course Angry Cat, but telling him to just cough up and get on with his life will also not encourage him to come here for advice and support either.

regards
Garlok

Let us hope that the OP returns in order that we may assist him/her!

AC
Long time member of the MBNA Fan Club!

[Garlok]

Re: MBNA

Hear hear AC

regards
Garlok