Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

[Garlok]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

If taken to to the letter of the law as I understand it, Link only having equitable assignment do not have cause of action. Only in the case of absolute assignment where they own the debt in full do they have cause of action for enforcement via the courts.

But the letter of the law seems to be the last thing on the mind of this despicable industry.

However, have a good read of the Harrison v Link thread on here and then read the actual judgement provided on the links (sorry about the pun).

I think, but stand to be corrected that any chasing DCA who is only acting on behalf of the real owner of the debt is actually running on equitable assignment. Most of these types of letters are in fact just template threatograms couched in legalese to bring you into line.

regards
Garlok

[mongerer]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

In the case of Harrison v Link the claimant was the debtor and his right of action against Link (the defendant, calling MBNA as witnesses) is not in question.
In gforce2k's case Link have brought this action in their own name and cannot claim to be acting on behalf of MBNA because the N1A (Notes on filling in the claim form) says that you must state that you are "..acting as representatives of.." or at least in the case of joint claimants both claimants details should be detatailed on the claim form.
gforce2k has posted up his claim form and Link have issued it in their own name. I don't understand why nobody appears to think that their right to action should be challenged in court.

[Garlok]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

Yes mongerer, but if you read the whole thing and read pt2537's input on this you will see that Keith Harrison ( on professional advice) took pre emptive action against Link as I think they were threatening something like a Stat Demand, Charging Order or equally obnoxious threat.

regards
Garlok

[Angry Cat]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

What is important is the deed of assignment which of course if it only equitable, Link will not have.

Link also do not like to be challenged with the fact that absolute assignment also carries with the full liabilities and obligations on the part of the creditor with it. There is no get out for them.

regards
Garlok

The keywords here are:
Deed of Assignment and;
Deed of Sale!

[mongerer]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

If taken to to the letter of the law as I understand it, Link only having equitable assignment do not have cause of action. Only in the case of absolute assignment where they own the debt in full do they have cause of action for enforcement via the courts.

But the letter of the law seems to be the last thing on the mind of this despicable industry.

However, have a good read of the Harrison v Link thread on here and then read the actual judgement provided on the links (sorry about the pun).

I think, but stand to be corrected that any chasing DCA who is only acting on behalf of the real owner of the debt is actually running on equitable assignment. Most of these types of letters are in fact just template threatograms couched in legalese to bring you into line.

regards
Garlok

So shouldn't the OP challenge Link's authority to bring this action and make them prove it in court? It seems pretty fundamental.

[Garlok]

Re: Link MBNA Claim Urgent Help needed please!

No deed of assignment or no deed of sale, no cause of action.

wasted cost orders? abuse of process? and everything else that can be thrown at them. Without the OC as party to the action game over. You cannot bring court actions for debts you do not own in absolute which I have already pointed out carry with them ALL of the obligations and responsibilities of the orginal agreement unless it has been terminated correctly on the back of a fully valid DN from the OC.

Garlok.