@dx100uk Thanks for the comment. The debt is around 10 years old and I’ve been making payments monthly after verifying it was valid courtesy of some other kind folk on here many years ago. I have sent the CCA request and it was correct.

Thank you for your help

Thank you for the quick response. I am right in thinking they shouldn’t refuse payment by Postal Order aren’t I?

Hi I have a debt which has recently been transferred to Watch Portfolio to administer on behalf of TTI SPC. The original debt was with Egg for a loan. I think I received a Notice of Assignment years ago from Arrow Global but I might be mistaken but I don’t recall anything telling me it was assigned to TTI SPC. Watch Portfolio have accepted my offer of token payments but will not accept payment by Postal Order. However they will accept a cheque or BACS payment. All my other depts are paid by postal order each month. My mental health is not good and the routine of sending a postal order works for me. As far as I am aware postal orders are cashed at a bank in the same way a cheque is so I am unsure why postal orders aren’t accepted by Watch. Can they legitimately refuse to accept postal orders? Many thanks in advance!

dx - you're right, this has been going on for years and i'll be eternally grateful for the help i've had and hopefully continue to get. Unfortunately my mental health leaves me very vulnerable at the moment I wasn't aware there had been so many different threads started, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience I've caused and accept my thanks for your help. Ford - I have no idea, the letter is headed "Notice of Intended Legal Action", I've never had any correspondence from Keynes before so I just don't know - however I think I'm probably wise to take it as a genuine threat rather than ignore it - wouldn't you agree? The CCA request has been sent to day and I've replied separately to Keynes. I'll update once responses have been received. Again, thanks to all who have helped and continue to do so - I couldn't get through this without you all!

Thanks again guys for this information. When referring to the pre action protcol do i need to refer to any specific clause or paragraph number? Should I enter MDKP as the payee on the postal order? Do I need to mark it "For CCA request purposes only" so they can't try applying it as a payment against the alleged debt, especially as it is getting close to being Statute Barred?

Thanks again for your help. When replying to Keynes is it worth spelling out to them the dn is defective and MKDP's refusal to deal with the issue will be brought to the Courts attention?

DonkeyB - thanks again for your help. Sorry to be so stupid, I'm still confused about this and haven't slept for worrying about it ( I guess that's one of the reasons the letters are sent) Should I send the CCA Request to Keynes Collections (the ones who I've had this latest letter from) or MKDP?

Nationwide, after many months finally provided all the information needed to satisfy a CCA Request. However the agreement may be defective as I don't believe all the relevant information was contained within the 4 corners. I think I uploaded a copy towards the front of this thread. It also seems as if MKDP send the CCA information piecemeal as part of their response to my complaint. I don't think I have as yet submitted a CCA request to them. Is it still worthwhile doing so? Also it looks like the last payment made was around 5 and a half years ago. Is there any way I could drag this out so it becomes statute barred? Actually what is the position regarding statute barred if someone is threatening legal action? Once again, many thanks for your help.. I do appreciate it,

I haven't sent a CCA request to Keynes Collections, I did previously send one to Nationwide. Should I send a CCA request at the same time as invoking the pre action protocols? Thanks very much for your advice!

Sorry to be a pain guys but I've just spent the last couple of hours or so reading various threads and seem to have got myself into a total muddle now. Can someone please check my understanding... It seems as if the "Defective Default Notice" argument is no longer valid and that a creditor can now repeatedly serve one until he gets one right. If this is correct then am I best trying to agree a token payment to MKDP? My personal circumstances and continued ill health mean that I could only afford a token payment (as demonstrated by my monthly payments to other creditors). Again, I'd really appreciate some guidance as I really can't see the wood from the trees now.

Hi All I wonder if anyone can help on this for me... As a quick recap this relates to a Nationwide Credit Card which was terminated by them using a Defective Default Notice (the correct notice period wasn't given). I accepted their termination in writing and they have passed the account to various Collection Agencies. I've had various correspondence from MKDP and consistently written back to them explaining the dispute etc. They've finally decided to escalate matters and I've today received a letter "Notice of Intended Legal Action" May I please have some urgent advice as to how to proceed? Thanks in advance Stag Party

This is the bit that confuses me most.... how can a bank, when the have put in writing that they have terminated the account be able to keep issuing Default Notices until they get one that does comply with the Act. Surely once the account has been terminated it would need the debtors agreement to restart it so that a subsequent DN is compliant? On a separate note, I have requested a copy of the agreement under s77/78 CCA 1974 - it will be very interesting to see whether or not the one produced matches the one Nationwide provided a few years ago!

OK - thanks for the clarification I am pretty certain if NW thought they had a good case they would have pursued it or at least made lots of noise about it over the last 15 to 18 months instead of being totally quiet. There is a suggestion above to re apply for the copy of the original document - is this worth doing even though NW did provide this (am the terms weren't all in the 4 corners) Thanks again guys

Ok, can I please check my understanding here.... An account can no longer be terminated on the back of a defective default notice, even if the creditor says the account has been terminated. But they then can't go to court to have the account enforced - Is this similar in effect to the original credit account being missing prescribed terms (ie the account exists but the Court won't enforce it?) Nationwide obviously realised they had big problems and an unenforceable account here as they went absolutely silent for around 18 months before unloading the account. Am I also right in thinking that the dispute automatically transfers to the new "owner" of the account? Has anyone got a sample response to send to a creditor in this situation please? Thanks in advance again and sorry if I seem confused and rambling (that's cos I am!!)

Donkey - ironically their 2nd DN isn't correct either. I also think the original Credit Agreement is defective as the required terms aren't within the "four corners" Can they not terminate unlawfully even when they say they have terminated the account?

I accepted the termination in writing to Nationwide.

Could anyone give me some advice on this please asI've now had a letter from MKDP appointing MKRR and demanding payment.

Hi All I had a credit card account with Nationwide which they issued a defective default notice on, I accepted their termination and asked for the amount of arrears at the date of termination. They denied their initial default notice was defective (it was as they hadn't allowed time for service) and issued a second default notice. I pointed out that this was pointless and that I had already accepted their termination of the account. They said this was their final response. I heard nothing until recently when I got a letter allegedly from Nationwide saying they had assigned the debt to MKDP LLP. What's the best course of action now? Wait until MKDP contact me or should I pre-empt this and write to them? Also what the heck should I say? Thanks in advance for any help!

Hopefully this is the first page Hopefully this is the second page Thanks again in advance!

I'll scan them as soon as I can and try and post a link to Photobucket - please bear with me for a little while - I really appreciate your help!

Thanks very much for the quick response. I think the bit whereby I am getting confused is that if the agreement is improperly executed (as it is a multiple part agreement) then do Egg have the right to transfer the debt to anyone?

Hi All I've received a letter today saying that Egg are assigning the loan account I have with them to Britannica Recoveries to be serviced by Arrow Global and the transfer is to take place in about 10 days time. To date I have been making regular token payments to Egg and have not missed a payment. My original agreement appears to be a Multiple Part Agreement with both the Loan Principal and PPI payment covered by just one set of terms and conditions rather than one for each separate part of the agreement. I think this could be a s18 agreement I have tried reading the forums but have to confess to be being rather confused as to how the judgement in "Heath" might affect me. Could someone please advise me and also suggest if it would be worthwhile or not writing to Egg to put the account into dispute. If the account is in dispute am I right in thinking that the account should not be transferred to Arrow? Many thanks in advance from a very confused Cagger!

Hi Bazooka At the moment I'm responding to the first guys "decisions" and presenting why I think he is wrong. I *think* (but am not completely sure) that if he won't change his mind I can ask for a higher level person to look at the case and then if I don't like his findings I can reject the answer they give. If I've understood it correctly the bank are bound by a decision but I am not. To be honest NW have really screwed things up and it would be a brave (stupid?) lawyer who said litigate when they are in breach of a s78 CCA request and they have admitted to me and the FOS separately that they cannot find the agreement. If they miraculously "found" it just before a hearing I think the FOS and FSA would be rather interested. If they did pursue the matter then they have clearly terminated the agreement unlawfully and not in accordance with the CCA and I've accepted this termination in writing. Having said all that, with the way they have acted so far I wouldn't be at all surprised if they chose to litigate. If they do I'll be on here like shot out of a gun trying to mount a rather robust defence!

Thanks for the replies guys - this all happened over 12 months ago so I'm trying to relate events to the publications that were in place at the time - that's the reason for me referring to the Banking Code Bazooka Harrassed Senior - they have indeed terminated unlawfully, they just used set off to transfer a regulated loan to my overdraft facility without bothering to issue a DN first. When they eventually got round to issuing the DN on the current account, they did so under s87(1) and the DN didn't allow time for service. Nationwide appear not to be too concerned by such trivialities as complying with statute though. In addition they have admitted, both to myself and the FOS, that they don't have a copy of the signed agreement yet still the FOS is siding with them and rejecting my complaint! It's this complaint rejection I'm trying to deal with at the moment - I'm pretty sure that NW are stuffed if they try and sue me - would you agree?