MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

[jackreacher]

I am having great difficulties in two on going claims. I have a strong case in both and they have both been adjourned. A lloyds one has been adjourned twice now , despite them having 3 different agreements within the same case and being in Breach of Judges orders.. lol. No doubt they will have their case in better order next time.


I can not afford solicitors, barristers etc otherwise I would.


My problem is with an MBNA/Idem case. in the POC they have put an agreement between MBNA Europe Bank LTD and the cardholder.


The actual agreement they are relying on is MBNA International Bank LTD. (on the very bottom).


My question is "can they rely on the POC as it wrongly particularised."


I do have other strong points but do not want to take to much of your time. Prescribed terms, wrong date on the NOD ( non authentic letter)


Regards Jack

[Amethyst]

Do you have copies of all three of the agreements Lloyds have submitted in the case to date?

Other relevant threads :-http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?45989-in-court-on-Friday-17th-please-Help

[Amethyst]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

Sorry, MBNA is the one in court on the 31st ....(can you update your Lloyds thread with the adjournments pls for help with that one)

My problem is with an MBNA/Idem case. in the POC they have put an agreement between MBNA Europe Bank LTD and the cardholder.


The actual agreement they are relying on is MBNA International Bank LTD. (on the very bottom).


My question is "can they rely on the POC as it wrongly particularised."


I do have other strong points but do not want to take to much of your time. Prescribed terms, wrong date on the NOD ( non authentic letter)


Regards Jack

The MBNA agreement you have received wouldn't be compliant - did you receive anything else along with it - like the full terms and conditions of the account ? The post it note covers most of it up so hard to tell properly but it seems rather ineligible anyway.

I think the POC inaccuracy is an amendable point so I wouldn't get too caught up in that.

Do we have another thread with your defence etc on this case on ? Can you do a quick summary of dates/events where you are up to with it, what letters have been sent (CPR/CCA/allocation/directions etc).

[mystery1]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

They have a problem as the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action if they are saying the claimant obtained the debt from someone other than the person who was the creditor at the time.

I have already referred you to Mitchell and Lloyd to try and educate you with regards to adjournments.

M1

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

Hi Amethyst, I am sorry if I have another MBNA thread open. My apologies. I will also update my lloyds thread.

I will attach what they have sent me here and see if you can make any sense of it. It seems very similar to the Harrison case and the date is about the same.
PLease note the clear conditions showing 8&9 are mine, I have not declared them to the other side as I am unsure how this will look to the Judge.

I have an embarrassed Defence in and crap witness statement. I was concentrating more on my Lloyds one. I am in the small claims court, I had a hearing in January that got adjourned. The claimant was given directions to do bring original documents. Give a detailed history of the claim and how it tied together.
i took a card out in 1998 and signed this for.
There were no conditions on signing. I do not even remember the ones on the back, they would have been returned anyway. This was account ending 003. September 1999 I was asked to sign another agreement and this was a MBNA Europe 735 account. I have the original booklet. This runs until 2011 when I agreed a repayment plan and paid in line with that for some 18 months.
During that time I now know the claim was charged off 30/07/2011, and a NoD was sent for account 735. 09/05/2011. (or 06/06/2011 see NOD attachments ). It was terminated on the 11/08/2011.

Put to Arden and now Now in court against Idem.





The Defence is now:
1. The particulars of claim are wrong as the agreement is MBNA Innternational. Not MBNA Europe.
2. They are relying on the wrong agreement as I signed a new one in 1999 and have the original booklet with my name and account number on.
3. The documents are Illegible. (section).
4. The agreement does not contain the prescribed terms.
5. The Agreement is not true and accurate ( para 15 of the full conditions mentions para 8.8, but there is no para 8.8 in the full conditions... the core conditions cross reference to the full conditions para 8.11, 9.1 and 9.4. but they do not exist either.)

6. The Default notice letter is not authentic as the correct sent date is the 09/05/2011,
and not 06/06/2011.
7. No default notice was ever sent.
8. The default notice did not contain the stand alone OFT letter, I have now been sent 3 copies, so has the judge.
9. The s78 is not a true and accurate copy as the paragraphs 8 &9 are missing, however this mirrors the s61 copy. So maybe it helps that way as they can not wriggle out of the s61 copy.
10. The s78 agreement is reconstituted and does not contain a signed agreement.
11. The s78 agreement does not contain my address.
12. The s78 agreement does not contain a have a right to cancel notice.



I will upload the terms and conditions underneath. Remember the clear para 8&9 are mine and show what should be included in para 8&9 in the illegible document.

Regards Jack

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

Uploaded the core agreements here plus the Default notice problem..
In the last hearing the judge asked them to supply clear Agreement. YEH! right..lol

The default notice letter supplied by them is dated 6 june 2011. Yet on the comms log it is sent 09/05/2011. Bizarre? But this is then backed up by a statement which says NOD expired available to phone. That is just over the 14 days later. Not sure how to play this.

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

Thanks Mystery 1, I have read through. I do understand but I fear I will not be able to get this through in court.
Your point about the particulars of claim is interesting.

Amethyst, Why don't you think the Agreement is compliant?? I can post clear.

[mystery1]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/722.html

M1

[mystery1]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/c.../mitchellmania

M1

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/c.../mitchellmania

M1

good stuff M1

I am within my witness statement stating the Claimant is relying on the wrong agreement as in fact I did sign a MBNA Europe agreement in 1999. So if the Judge allowed them to change to MBNA International and I Have the original MBNA Europe book, that would still leave them in a difficult position.

I am interested in what the time limitations are. I have informed them in the last hearing that the Particulars of claim are wrong, as well as my witness statement two weeks before the hearing. It would seem very unfair if they change things in the POC in court on the day. Mmmm

There would also be a question of costs?

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

I am trying to find the case and paragraph the following excerpt comes from. my agreement contains " I have received a copy of.."

regards Jack10.

These observations as to ‘substance and not form’ as contended for by Judge Waksman are that the signature page and its terms and conditions do not have to take the ‘form’ of one piece of paper (the so called ‘four corners rule’), but that in ‘substance’ should be one homogenous document. I would refine that further by observing that a document that is signed as an agreement that refers to terms on the ‘reverse’ or ‘attached’ or display contiguous page numbering or in any way implying the terms were unarguably present at the point of signature would be regarded as one document containing those terms. On the other hand, a signed document that states the terms were ‘supplied separately’ or contains phrases such as ‘I have received…’ and ‘I have read …’ would suggest the terms were in another document separate from and not contained within the signed document at the time of signing.

Looks like this could be automatic 127 (3) ??

[Amethyst]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

Could be Harrison , will have a look xx

[Amethyst]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

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

Possibly around para 15

[jackreacher]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

NOO can't find it. lol xx

[mystery1]

Re: MBNA / Idem... in court Friday 31 March 2014.. help needed.

I don't think it's from a case

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...433#post256433

M1