• 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.
  • LegalBeagles® is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.
  • A free service which provides vulnerable consumers the ability to record their personal circumstances at a given point in time when they are looking to protect themselves against further debt or related financial problems. This is done either by self-exclusion from credit and financial promotions or to slow down the credit application process.
    Vulnerable consumers can register for FREE

    REGISTER

    Check if the Debt Collection Agency/Debt Purchaser contacting you is using the VRS register.

    CHECK NOW
    .

Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

Collapse
Important !
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pt2537
    started a topic Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Here it is

    The judgment which was handed down in open Court today before HHJ Chambers QC
    Tags: None

  • Angry Cat
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Please see the following:

    by Credit Today:
    Correction to Harrison v Link Financial Article - 12/04/2011


    Credit Today would like to issue a correction to an article published in the April issue of the magazine on the judgment Harrison v Link Financial.
    I was simply just pointing out their correction...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ihaterbs
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Well done Mr spin doctor.

    PW

    Leave a comment:


  • Garlok
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Hi AC

    The ususal deviance from the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth so help me God from the wise sages of Credit Today.

    regards
    Garlok

    Leave a comment:


  • Angry Cat
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/ne....cfm?news=2253

    Leave a comment:


  • EXC
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    The other piece referred to in the previous article.

    Looks like there's big money in misery.

    Leave a comment:


  • EXC
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    From today's Private Eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garlok
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Hi all,

    undoubtedly you will all have seen one of the lead stories on BTYahoo today by Robert Powell of Lovemoney.com and some of the ridiculous comments What a piece of biased ignorant and unresearched pro bank journalism of the very worst kind.

    The man obviously can barely read and most of those who posted comments clearly work in the finance industries in "NON JOBS"

    regards
    Garlok.

    Leave a comment:


  • diddydicky
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    well the judge clearly stated that the DN was bad- and as they did not correct it- it did not permit termination and all that followed............so the counterclaim was dismissed!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Garlok
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Hi mids,

    I am not sufficiently legal minded to give a definitive answer to your question. However I did re-read the judgement yesterday (in fact I downloaded it and printed it off as I find it easier to study that way). If I were to put any analysis to it I would say that it was the cumulative effect of several points, which on their own would not have been fatal. I believe certainly that the (bad) conduct of MBNA/Link was a key factor in their demise. But as many of know from bitter experience this is normal in this disgusting industry. But normal only up till now and it is impossible to change history.

    Of course a full transcript would probably throw additional light but we are not party to that. From pt's comments it would seem more was actually said in court.

    However it does reinforce my own humble long held opinion that any defence we as mere mortals put together must be as comprehensive as possible and not rely totally on one point of law. The really remarkable thing about this judgement is that Keith Harrison was the claimant. Not usually a recommended course of action plus of course you will note that not much has been made of it (it went against the banks/creditors) yet it is the same ranking as the "Carey v HSBC" case I believe in the courts pecking order.

    Just a few personal thoughts, hoping someone else will be along to comment.

    regards
    Garlok.

    Leave a comment:


  • mids
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Could someone with a legal understanding please highlight for me the part of the judgement that killed MBNA/Link. I cant tell wether or not its s78 non-compliance/ DCA hassle/ or s61 failures. What parts of the judgment are the most important to us?

    I note that the bank were defendants too, so presumably a made up recon should have been ok???

    Leave a comment:


  • Garlok
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    This reinforces much of what some of us have been saying about "Carey" i.e. the guff about reconstituted documents, only needing T & Cs is just that guff. Waksman said originals would be required for a court order which is exactly as the Act requires and now bless his little cotton socks, HHJ Chambers has effectively outlawed most of the tactics used by DCAs to bully people into submission.

    We have a log of over 800 threatening telephone calls, over 100 in one weekend from barclaycard, 80 or so the next weekend and much in between. Not a shred of a proper document either.

    "there is a prima facie for a reaction from the court"

    regards
    Garlok

    Leave a comment:


  • diddydicky
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Originally posted by cymruambyth View Post
    Hi pt thanks for posting this.
    Now the questions start! If you have had a recent CCJ when there were insufficient days for the remedy of the DN, would this judgement be grounds to apply for a set aside?
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am ever the optimist!
    Thank you

    (at first blush i would say no- it wasnt sufficient) but......

    .how long ago was the ccj?

    did you defend it?

    how far out was the DN?

    Leave a comment:


  • Amethyst
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...e/2011/B3.html

    Leave a comment:


  • paulb2905
    replied
    Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011

    Eerily similar to my whole case, loving it!

    Leave a 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.

Announcement

Collapse

MONEY & DEBT

Help and support with all issues related to finances. If you’d like information on sources of free, regulated, debt help and advice you can visit the Money Advice Service. It's an independent service, set up by the government to help people make the most of their money.
See more
See less

Court Claim ?

Guides and Letters



Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

Find a Law Firm


Loading...
Working...
X