What a lot of twaddle! It looks as if it is trying to look reasonable and business like whereas it is just obstructive. It also misses the point. An organisation less reputable than 1st Credit might use the opportunity to lift the signature from any proof provided by an unwary non-Cagger and cut and paste it into a reconstruction. However, I'm sure that 1st Credit wouldn't do that.

What a lot of twaddle! It looks as if it is trying to look reasonable and business like whereas it is just obstructive. It also misses the point. An organisation less reputable than 1st Credit might use the opportunity to lift the signature from any proof provided by an unwary non-Cagger and cut and paste it into a reconstruction. However, I'm sure that 1st Credit wouldn't do that.

By any ordinary definition, that is a dispute. However, as we all know all too well, ordinary definitions don't apply to creditors! Perhaps you can have a further dispute about whether or not there is a dispute!!!

Well done indeed!

Some creditors do put the balance in the heading (and that is a grey area) but MBNA's DNs don't put it anywhere.

It's a tricky little point and I've been thinking it through for a while, which means that I probably didn't explain it properly. How to get it across to a DJ is another matter again! But, as I said in the first place, I wouldn't be so sure that the DN was valid. MBNA have tightened up their DNs but I still don't think they've got them right.

Yes but in order to do that they need to do so under a DN.

How I read para 8 is as follows: 8(a) If a sum is being claimed under a DN (and I explain the difference between the remedy amount and the earlier payment amount in my previous post), then that sum must be specified in the DN. That must be specified whether or not a rebate is due. 8(b) If a rebate is due (which would indeed only apply where it is fixed sum credit), then that must be specified and also the "net" figure.

No, that is the remedy amount, which satisfies para 3©. But, the DN states that the whole balance will become due if the DN is not remedied. That is "earlier payment" and, if the whole balance is to be claimed under the DN, that amount must be specified in the DN to satisfy para 8(a). They may also have a problem in relation to lack of the post-judgment interest wording required by para 9A. I assume MBNA's ts and cs provide for post-judgment interest and, if so, they should have included the para 9A wording. I don't know whether the effect of this on its own would be to invalidate the DN or simply to disqualify MBNA from claiming post-judgment interest.

I know that it is running account, which is why I referred to para 8(a) and not to para 8(b). A sum of money is being claimed under a DN, so that sum should have been specified in the DN. (Had it been fixed sum, then 8(b) would have applied and the gross sum, the rebate and the net sum would have had to have been specified instead.) Here is the full version of para 8: Requiring earlier payment of any sum 8 Where a sum of money is required to be paid under the notice, (a) the amount of the sum before deducting the amount of any rebate on early settlement; (b) where any rebate on early settlement is allowable under the agreement or by virtue of section 95 of the Act-- (i) the amount of the rebate allowable calculated on the assumption that early settlement takes place on the date specified in the notice for earlier payment of the sum; and (ii) the total amount to be paid after taking into account the amount of any rebate on early settlement, namely the difference between the amount shown in paragraph (a) above and the amount shown in sub-paragraph (i).

I'm not so sure that the DN is valid: where is the amount of the full balance, as required by paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 2 to the Notices Regs. Requiring earlier payment of any sum 8 Where a sum of money is required to be paid under the notice, (a) the amount of the sum before deducting the amount of any rebate on early settlement;

Right paragraph but not right sub-paragraph: 8(a) - there is no rebate on a credit card. But they do need to specify the total amount payable as well as just the arrears.

Surely that only applies after judgment, not before. I think this has been covered before by someone else. The question is whether they are claiming both contractual interest and statutory interest. Having not included the relevant wording in the DN they are trying to rely on, they can't claim post judgment contractual interest even if they do win.

I think there is. Look at Schedule 2 of the DN Regs - I think it is para 9 (but don't have the opportunity to double check at the mo) that requires the total amount payable to be specified in a DN.

Sadly, I think their strategy is still likely to work for them in enough cases (against non-Caggers) to make it worth their while.

I wouldn't call it easily legible but after peering at it hard it does seem to contain prescribed terms. Sorry.

Very well done indeed. You'd have thought that they'd have got the hint that a 102 paragraph statement indicated that you did have an arguable defence and that SJ wasn't appropriate at all but they chose to dig their own grave.

Good luck.

In terms of morality, the Vice Chancellor would have regarded the goods as presents. The balance of morality is also tilted by what has happened since.

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

HL Legal are not Capquest's in house monkeys. They are an online operation run in association with a firm of solicitors that professional courtesy prevents me from describing. An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

One thought that occurs to me is that the point about not needing to a rely on a DN is tauroscatalogical. Yes, they are entitled to claim arrears without a DN but only those prior to the repudiation that took place when they brought proceedings or terminated the agreement or demanded earlier payment of any sum.

It was indeed on Money Box on Saturday (Rpt Sunday) - there was a CAG contribution to the Yes Loans item but, funnily, not to the rather slanted item "covering" the Chester stay.

There is also a group licence for solicitors when acting as solicitors but only when acting as solicitors and not when they stray beyond that remit.

Do get back to them but don't hold your breath . Gail Powell told me that they had fulfilled their obligations completely, so that's all right then. Remember to reserve the right of set off against Apex for a harassment claim against MBNA - you would be pushing your luck to get set-off for a harassment claim against an assignee but it gives you the option (and a bargaining chip). Just because MBNA will no longer be harassing you does not mean they had not been harassing you before.