Mrs G's MMF Problem

[Mrs Grumpy]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Hi Celestine no the house i live in is rented from the local Council.

[teaboy2]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Hi, sorry but i do not agree at all.

First point of order, it is only unenforceable when a County Court rules such. Until then, an open mind must be maintained.

Secondly, while an agreement must be "easily legible" when provided under the CCA 1974 ( see Regulation 2 Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983) so to comply say with s77(1) CCA 1974 an easily legible doc should be provided, given the age of the agreement it is unlikely this creditor will have any problems in reconstituting to discharge any s77 burden. I assume there is not an argument that the agreement wasnt easily legible when it was signed? if there is, then thats a dodo from the start as you would be a mcmuffin to sign something you cant read.

Turning to the argument about two separate agreements? on what basis could this be the case?

S141(5) CCA is clear on the requirement of "ALL" parties to a regulated agreement to be made parties to proceedings, on that basis, it would be absurd if a person could not jointly sign a credit agreement. Unless i have missed the point of course.

It is clear to me that this is a single agreement with two debtors entering into credit under a hire purchase agreement.

One must also ask what if the agreement is UE? well the car never becomes your property under HP, so title to the vehicle never passes, but the car would need to be returned at the end of the contract none the less.

I do not want to give false hopes here, and in my view, the agreement would be enforced by the Court if the Claimant were to overcome the legibility issues

Sorry PT, just reread what i put and noticed i put it was two agreements 1 signed by Mrs G and 1 by MR G - In fact both were agreements were signed by Both Mr and MRs G so in effect 2 agreements for 1 car - Though one maybe customer copy. though its not marked as such.

Also, just to clarify, there's also no terms and conditions attached, just key information. The first page is clearly marked P04/12 indicating it is is page 4 of 12, the rest are there (page 5-12), but they are not terms and conditions at all, just demands and needs checklist and data protection act information and another 7 pages containing prove of ID such as photo copies of statements, utility bills, credit cards and driving license, so they clearly are not the messing 4 pages. So 4 pages of the agreement missing, likely to be terms and conditions or other vital information.

Yes you maybe right that they may be able to prove its was legible at the time of signing - But no terms and conditions (which i accept i forgot to mention)?

[pt2537]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Sorry PT, just reread what i put and noticed i put it was two agreements 1 signed by Mrs G and 1 by MR G - In fact both were agreements were signed by Both Mr and MRs G so in effect 2 agreements for 1 car - Though one maybe customer copy. though its not marked as such.

Also, just to clarify, there's also no terms and conditions attached, just key information. The first page is clearly marked P04/12 indicating it is is page 4 of 12, the rest are there (page 5-12), but they are not terms and conditions at all, just demands and needs checklist and data protection act information and another 7 pages containing prove of ID such as photo copies of statements, utility bills, credit cards and driving license, so they clearly are not the messing 4 pages. So 4 pages of the agreement missing, likely to be terms and conditions or other vital information.

Yes you maybe right that they may be able to prove its was legible at the time of signing - But no terms and conditions (which i accept i forgot to mention)?

Well, if you sign something sooo illegible that you dont know what youre signing, then its not a lawyer you need, its the men in white coats.

The terms and conditions may well be a valid point if the creditor has been served with a valid s77 (1) CCA request, if no request has been made, then the creditor need merely to prove that there was an agreement which contained the prescribed terms signed by the debtors.

[teaboy2]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Well, if you sign something sooo illegible that you dont know what youre signing, then its not a lawyer you need, its the men in white coats.

The terms and conditions may well be a valid point if the creditor has been served with a valid s77 (1) CCA request, if no request has been made, then the creditor need merely to prove that there was an agreement which contained the prescribed terms signed by the debtors.

I believe it was sent to Mrs G as a result of a CCA request if i remember correctly - Haven't time to reread the thread to check, so hopefully Mrs G can confirm either way.

[Mrs Grumpy]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

It was a copy of the credit agreement sent by email.

[Celestine]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Hi Mrs G.

Sorry for the delay coming back to you. In this situation it is very good that you don't own property and are on low income, because basically, they can't get blood out of a stone.

IF, and that is extremely unlikely, they take you to Court, the Court will ask for a full income expenditure form from you; which will reveal that you are in no position to make large payments.

Personally, I think your agreement is enforceable and if they did take it to Court a Judge would enforce it, but would ask you to pay a very low amount per month towards the debt.

The main problem is the letters, emails and phone calls you will receive from MMF. They cannot visit your property, you can revoke their common law right to visit your address. You can write saying you have virtually no income and can only afford £1 per month. This will make it very difficult for them ever to say you avoided your debt.

Although by making payments towards the debt, you are admitting liability for it. Which in your situation I am not entirely convinced is the best course of action.

Whatever path you choose to take, please don't worry, because there is very little they can actually do.

[Mrs Grumpy]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

When my husband was paying Red Castle for the debt it was £20 a month , but MMF insist they will not accept anything less than £40 a month and i haven't got that to pay.

[Celestine]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Well then they can't have it. Simple as that.

They can refuse all they like but it isn't going to make £40 materialise

[ODC]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

After almost 5 weeks of silence from these a$$holes I get a threat text telling me to ring their threat centre to avoid County Court Action.

Merry Christmas Barnaby Ho Ho Ho

[Midge1968]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Has anyone had an update on this Barry guy MMF? I too have been receiving daily email threats from this company regarding a payday loan debt a few years ago. I contacted the payday company as they had written to me over a year ago stating that my debt was ''written off''and therefore did not need to be paid . They since have told me this was ''in error'' and apologised, However they had in the meantime added ridiculous amounts of interest on the original debt which was minimal. I of course was not informed that the original letter telling me it had been written off which lead me to believe the debt was clear. MMF are choosing to ignore my numerous attempts at communication to explain the above and to explain that I am investigating the payday loan, instead I am bombarded daily with threats of county court action, doorstep collection etc etc...I was just wondering whether anyone has actually ever had doorstep collection from this company actually turn up or whether they received correspondence from Barry himself? I am retaining all emails received from MMF just in case I need to take legal action. Thanks in advance of any information or advice.

[teaboy2]

Re: Mrs G's MMF Problem

Has anyone had an update on this Barry guy MMF? I too have been receiving daily email threats from this company regarding a payday loan debt a few years ago. I contacted the payday company as they had written to me over a year ago stating that my debt was ''written off''and therefore did not need to be paid . They since have told me this was ''in error'' and apologised, However they had in the meantime added ridiculous amounts of interest on the original debt which was minimal. I of course was not informed that the original letter telling me it had been written off which lead me to believe the debt was clear. MMF are choosing to ignore my numerous attempts at communication to explain the above and to explain that I am investigating the payday loan, instead I am bombarded daily with threats of county court action, doorstep collection etc etc...I was just wondering whether anyone has actually ever had doorstep collection from this company actually turn up or whether they received correspondence from Barry himself? I am retaining all emails received from MMF just in case I need to take legal action. Thanks in advance of any information or advice.

Hi Midge

Do you still have copy of the letter claiming the debt was written off? or a copy of the one saying you were mistakenly told this?

I think you will find that the law of estoppel prevents them from now claiming the debt, after they had originally informed you that they had written off the debt under contract. They simply can not claim the debt was written off and then change their minds and say you still owe it months after telling you it was written off. Reason for this is due to the incurred interest/charges causing you a financial detriment, because if they had not told you the debt was written off you could have repaid it earlier and would not have incurred said interest or additional charges that were added/icurred between the date they said it was written off and the date they then change their minds.

Heres the email address for Barnaby Page, the MD of MMF - barnaby@mmile.com i think hes still using this one. Email him and tell him if they do not cease and desist their constant telephone calls, demands for payment via email or text messages, then you will deem their actions to be in breach of the protection from harassment act 1998. Explain the situation without acknowledging that you took out the loan and by making it clear that you do not acknowledge any debt that they claim is owed by you. Whilst also pointing out the the originally creditor had originally told you the debt was written off, and the law of estoppel prevents them from now claiming otherwise - Though as i myself had to explain the law regarding default notices, credit agreements and unenforceability etc. To Barnaby, then i doubt he has a clue as to what estoppel is, but that's his problem not yours, ignorance is no excuse for him or his company to harass you after you have informed them of estoppel.

Estoppel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel - Look at example 2 in the overview section, you couldn't have a better example for your situation if you asked for one!