Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

[StreetCred]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

Many thanks to Nem for your always fast and efficient response.

I've been very busy with other things and haven't been able to dedicate the time, but am now ready to continue as I'm also nearing the deadline.

From the Solicitors:

1) Aside the arrogant and patronizing tone in the letter due to my request, I received all documents requested less the DN which is very much mentioned in the POC. I'm not sure how to insist if they've responded the way they did. In other words, what can I say to make them comply?

2) So what now (other than to insist on the DN I mean)?

(Note to Nem: I've sent a PM for the agreement you requested by PM for privacy reasons, however, feel free to discuss openly your thoughts for the benefit of others).

From Link:

1) Requested a copy of the current terms and conditions encapsulating any variations; received T&C but no indication as to how current and/or any variations - is this acceptable?
2) Requested a true copy of the executed agreement; received application form plus application form - these are identical as sent by the solicitor.
3) Keep in mind that Link owns the solicitors - not an unheard of practice but you start to see a lot of duplication and perhaps a little conflict of interest, but anyway, what do I do next with Link or does it end here?

Thanks for your always valued help!

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

Hello Street Cred,

Responding to your PM,

From the information you have now provided re the " true copy " of the agreement I conclude that the document provided
does not represent a" true copy" either as a reconstituted agreement or as an actual copy.

It seems someone has attempted to botch up a bit of each.

A reconstituted agreement must have.

1. Your name and address exactly as it was when the account was open. You say this is an agreement from 1999 and the address is not the applicable one. ( agreement fails on this.)


2. There should be two distinct sets of terms and conditions 1. as at the opening of the account from what you say you have T's & C's relevant at closure.

3. There's no sign of any amendments etc.

Link has tried many times with dodgy recon agreements to " pull the wool over people eyes" I suspect the original agreement
is no longer available.
Suggestion!

send to Link and / or solicitors if any,

Ref: CC Claim No...................................:
Re: CCA /CPR 31.14 Requests.

Sir / Madam,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xx xx xxx and the enclosed documents
provided in response to my request to inspect documents under the provisions
of CPR 31. 14 or CCA 1974 ( use the applicable one).

Having now carefully examined these documents which I assume are intended
to be a reconstituted " true copy" of the agreement relevant to this claim I have
concluded that the documents do not satisfy the requirements of CCA 1974 a either
a reconstituted true copy or an actual true copy of the original agreement.

A fact that I am sure you are fully aware.

Given this information I suggest that in order to save costs and court time that
Link Financial now discontinues this claim.

Should Link continue to press this claim it will be robustly defended.

SC just edit/add as you see fit ( if you intend to use it).

Use sign for post.

nem

[StreetCred]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

Nem,

Thank you for your always fast and thorough advice which I will follow.

In terms of the DN, do you have any suggestion as to how to make them comply with the request?

Many thanks for all you do.

StreetCred

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

Nem,

Thank you for your always fast and thorough advice which I will follow.

In terms of the DN, do you have any suggestion as to how to make them comply with the request?

Many thanks for all you do.

StreetCred

If a default notice was mentioned in the statement of claim CPR 31.14 request would cover that, otherwise
if the DN is mentioned then failure to provide it can be put in defence with a request for disclosure.

nem

[StreetCred]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

In reference to the DN, yes, it was mentioned in the POC, so wanted to give them as much of a struggle as possible (as strategy to drop the claim that is), though they've already failed at least on one count, based on their inability to produce the correct agreement in the first place.

Now I know what I need to do and will report back as soon as I get new details.

Thanks Nem!

StreetCred

[StreetCred]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

Quick update and questions.

For reasons only known to the Sol., according to the tracking information, they've yet to sign receipt. I did send 1st class to save time and was well within the allotted time to reply and now nearly a week later, there's still no confirmation, based on the tracking information.

Not particularly worried and it may be their standard practice to keep letters on hold at the Post Office, due to the amount of work they must have, however, it might be coincidental and nothing to do with their not receiving my last correspondence, but I now receive a "Judgment for Claimant (in default)" for allegedly not having replied to the claim form.

Clearly I have responded to the original request and also to all parties involved, so don't understand if this is their strategy to put additional pressure for a case they'll not win, or is some misunderstanding... or maybe something I've not done.

My questions:

1) Was I supposed to log back into the CCBC and update something? I thought just responding was all I needed to do and my letters were enough.
2) Should I ignore this request for payment?
3) Otherwise, what is my reply to this "default"?

Many thanks...

StreetCred

[StreetCred]

Re: Court Claim - MBNA/Link Finance

OK, I'll partly answer my own questions, but have others which I hope I can get some feedback.

I have followed all the very helpful advice above, but (I think), failed to understand something important given in the Response Pack:

"If you file an acknowledgment of service but do not file a defence within 28 days of the date of service of the claim form, or particulars of claim if served separately, judgment may be entered against you."

I assumed that my various correspondences with both claimant and solicitor were in fact my filing a defence - but perhaps not. So now am issued with a "Judgment for Claimant (in default)".

As far as I'm aware, I've operated within the time limits allowed. The dates of events/correspondences were as follow:

1) I acknowledged 22/11/15 (through MCOL and well within the allotted time)
2) Sent CPR letter on 9/12/15,
3) Solicitor response date 13/01/16 (received letter 3 days later)
4) I replied to solicitor on 27/01/16 (1st class recorded, and still waiting response).

As I understand it, I now have only one option which is to go back to MCOL and do a " Set Aside - Order". This makes it all more complicated and also incurs an additional fee of £155.

Questions:

1) Just to confirm then, am I right to assume that the only way forward is to do a "Set Aside"?
2) Was I supposed to have given my defence details in MCOL as part of the process?
3) In the "Order requested and why" section, I know to respond with "Order to set Judgment aside", but as to the "why", do I list the same reasons I replied the solicitors in my last letter (see sample letter above), and/or can I state the length of response from the solicitor?

Thanks again for all your valuable help!

StreetCred