Afternoon all, I have a question about the rheumatologist who examined me for a PI claim. Quick bit o history before my question I have hypermobile ehlers-danlos syndrome (hEDS), fibromyalgia/chronic pain, OSA hypopnea, temporomandibular disorder and chronic fatigue related to my condition. I was first of all sent to a GP by the solicitor who said that because of my condition I needed to be examined by a specialist. Fast forward a year (new representative and no communication inbetween) I was sent to a rheumatologist who had no clue about my conditions but was impressed by how far I could move my joints despite me complaining of pain. Anyway, in his report he referred to out of date criteria on the hEDS and fibro, and did not take on any of the points on how I have been affected since the accident. My legal person (think she's a legal exec) told me that if I wasn't happy with his report to explain why. I literally had to comment on every paragraph. I have now just received a letter from her saying that she's taken up my comments with the dr to see if he is prepared to amend the report. Talks about duty to the court and that he is only likely to consider amending if he has made factual mistakes, and then goes on to tell me that neither her or I are medical experts? (think living with the condition for nearly 2 years makes me a bit of an expert lol) If he refuses to amend the report because he has no clue on my condition so will not know the facts my claim is shot to pieces. As the law firm sent me to the wrong expert twice do I just have to accept the drs report? Or am I entitled to ask for a specialist who has knowledge and experience in my condition? Apologies for all the yatter before the question but thought it may be relevant Many thanks

Good morning, A friend of mine has a personal injury case against a bus company after driver took wrong route and hit a bollard whilst reversing to get back on route. - Bus company have admitted liability. The solicitor (well legal executive) acting for my friend requested a rheumatologist assess my friend because she suffers from a condition called hypermobile ehlers-danlos syndrome (hEDS) which causes constant debilitating pain and can cause small injuries or trauma to last for ages Anyway, this "expert" appeared not to know too much about her condition and has referred to out of date materials when talking about the hEDS, and also fibromyalgia, calling the fibro "neuropsychiatric not rheumatic" He has focused on the childhood depression and previous work problems (bullying but not mentioned this is why she left) and my friend feels like he is focusing on irrelevant issues and wonders if she can disagree to this being put in. The whole report practically makes her look mentally unstable, even though depression and anxiety are a symptom of hEDS from a very young age. I have helped her find current criteria on both hEDS, fibro, and also widespread chronic pain, which she also dx with at same time but not mentioned once in his report. Her solicitor is harder than a slippery pig to get hold of and my friend is looking to change representation, but I think she really needs to address this report before making any decision. So, my question is this please experts, Does the medical report need to include this information about her past job and depression which she feels doesn't really have a bearing on her case because she is claiming for the pain and inconvenience she has suffered since the accident. I have said that in my opinion it would need to be added because she has since had to leave her job. But I have promised to help her so will try to find out for sure. I know the info I have written is scanty, but this is the best I can do without disclosing too much. Many thanks guys.

Does the transaction list cover the dates from the start of the card until you paid it off? Or is it just partial?

Hi Wulfen, I will try to help as much as I can, but as we're not yet sure if there is any PPI, then I don't really know what argument to use for them being unlawful (even though we all know they are), as I relied on them being wrongly applied due to the PPI and could use s.32 of the Limitation Act because they were applied by mistake. (and as I said on my thread, I think the Judge was in agreement that they were applied by mistake). Although you should follow the motions and send the letters requesting a refund, MBNA have no soul and will not see reason as some of the other banks do. You will have to sue, and they will use the LA in their flimsy defence. As mentioned in my pm the first thing to do is wait until the 40 days allowed for them to respond to your SAR is up. If you receive nothing further then send them a (partial) failed SAR letter which you can find in the CAG library. What have you actually received from them so far? Use a rate of at least 20% when calculating interest. (It was 18.9% in 2000) My account was opened in 2000, and I received the following from them, so do not them fob you off by saying that what they sent is all they have because they are lowlife liars and will break any guideline or regulation they want to avoid having to do the right thing - (sorry for the rant, but wounds still fresh) 1) Online application - This would show if you had PPI 2) Signature form 3) T&C for the card - although they kept sending wrong years until about 2 weeks ago!!! 4) Comms log, - although they only log stuff beneficial to them (This is known for certain as they logged certain letters sent to me but not the ones which breached the rules) 5) Transaction history - This listed every transaction from the start of the account, including transactions, charges, interest, payments and PPI 6) Some correspondence Try and find out for sure what date you sent your SAR and as soon as the forty (calender) days are up, send the failed letter(make sure it's sent recorded or at the very least proof of postage) and if you get no extra info after a further 7 days make a complaint to the ICO and FCA. I may be being a bit cynical, but I don't trust MBNA one little bit, and I think they tell people they don't have info because it doesn't benefit MBNA, but a lot of people have received info from day dot on accounts older than yours, and if you were in the military, and paying for PPI then straight away that's a mis-sale and potential loss for them! They told me there was certain info they didn't have and then hey presto! up it pops when they need it..... Let us know how it goes Up2

Thanks guys :hug:

Thanks DX, Although disappointing because I was hoping it would be some compensation for the way they terrorised me when I was ill, I am looking at the positive, in that other caggers may benefit from my case - That's the thing that kept my head held high yesterday when I had to walk past MBNAs smug counsel. Yes Mike, I will defo file a complaint with the FoS, despite my result, MBNA do need to be knocked off their high horse. Again thanks for all your time with this. You and the others gave me the confidence to stand up and do this, where as a couple of years ago I wouldn't have had the courage Up2

Afternoon guys, Well not a good day in court for me, although it wasn't all bad, as my hearing proves that section 32 does work in relation to charges claims because of mis-sold PPI. My claim was disallowed primarily because I have an outstanding balance, and couldn't show that I had made any payments toward the charges. My argument of them not being the owner of the claim and so not allowing them to set-off did not persuade the judge, and I see that as fair enough. The judge allowed the skeleton to be used, but I don't think he agreed with many of the points it raised that the charges were statute barred, as he said that although he is not prepared to award me any of my claim, if they tried to issue any court action in relation to my outstanding balance, the charges would form a good defence. And when he summarised, the judge said that he agrees that I didn't become diligently aware of being able to claim the charges until I received the breakdown of PPI (Last year) showing that the charges had been applied by mistake. The twelve year old counsel who I think had just won his first case judging by his excitement, sent the little lady he had with him out of the court room as the judge was finishing off his talk (most prob to spread the good news). And then pointed out the judge to the without prejudice letter I accidentally submitted with my exhibit to show that MBNA refused to provide a breakdown of its costs in relation to the charges (I totally misunderstood the meaning of WP) and he requested I pay costs for his time in court and travelling time for him and his companion, he was prepared to waive his costs preparing the skeleton (probably because it took him all of a minute at the 11th hour) He was excited that the Judge had 'The big white book' and directed him to some section about a motor company I think. The Judge explained what the counsel was doing, and why he was asking for costs - unfortunately, this bit I didn't really hear as I felt like I watching from a distance and it was a bit surreal. Anyway, The Judge told Counsel that he believed I had genuinely misunderstood what I was claiming for and that I believed I had a serious chance of winning, and that my claim wasn't made under something beginning with P I think it was (sorry been up most of the night, have a killer headache and totally forgotten) and so awarded no costs whatsoever to the other side. So although I didn't win my claim, I didn't get hit with costs, it proves that s.32 is a valid argument and that if they do try to sue for the balance, I have a very good chance of defending it because of the unlawful charges. I would just like to thank everyone who took the time in helping me with this. Especially Mike Hawk and Slick, who provided a lot for me. I'm sorry your time was wasted Anyway thanks again and if you are going after default charges good luck - and in particular if your going after MBNA, give them a kick from me Up2

Evening all, I know t is very late but I checked my email at about 9pm and found an email from MBNA timed 18:19 and attached was a skeleton argument, I assume it has been filed with the court about the same time? Slick has suggested I can ask the court to ignore it as it was submitted out of time in accordance with the courts directions and deadline. If you could let me have your thoughts please. The hearing is tomorrow afternoon. I have attached it for any advice - again sorry its late Many thanks everyone. (and thanks Slick)

Evening guys, I am getting my stuff ready for court and just after any advice of stuff I need to take that I may have forgotten. I have: Particulars of claim My witness statement and exhibit (including originals where possible) Their Defence Their witness statement and exhibit Details of the hearing Other letters not used in my exhibit - for example Links default notice My 'prompt' A list of OFT guidelines that MBNA breached OFT report on the restrictions imposed on MBNA DISP 3.9.2 Printed pages from whocallsme exampling the type of calls received by MBNA and Link Is there anything else I should be taking? Thank you Up2

Thank you Ford, I have been looking ages for that

I know this is a long shot, but on 14 Dec 2010 The Shadow blogged a report about MBNA debt collection restrictions imposed by the OFT I have tried to find the report, but can only find press stories. Harassment is also forming part of my case and MBNA have basically said in their witness statement that I'm lying, despite providing evidence in my witness statement. I am sure this will get mentioned in Court due to the severity of it and if I could get my hands on this report would help my case as what they have had their wrists slapped over is exactly what forms my complaint. If any of the site team have this archived anywhere I would be very grateful for a copy (I have tried the OFT archives, but could only go back to 2011) Many thanks everyone Up2

Yes indeed Mike, Pity I can't get a sneak of the Jackanory book they'll be reading from. Up2 Well no news is good news in the respect of the greater good, but it would have been great to pull that out of my sleeve on Friday

Yes, very true, thanks Mike. The attachment is what I am planning on going by if asked to speak about why I think s.32 would cover my case. Please let me know where I've gone wrong, if I've totally misunderstood stuff or if I need to add or omit anything as I don't want to look stupid in front of the judge. Many thanks guys for your time in helping me with this Up2

Suspected as much :sad: Oh well, if by some miracle something I can take to Court develops by Friday, please let me know - That would be soooo sweet

Also, do I need to prepare an opening statement or something of the like? Thanks Up2

Really? About time. Is there somewhere which says this? Have been looking but can't find - would be handy for court

Okay Mike, thanks. The post I deleted above was deleted because I misread one of the terms, however now you have confirmed the PPI would be a transaction I have amended it to reflect the correct term (sorry been up since 4.30 and have had about four cups of coffee) Here is the full statement regarding charges and PPI “We are confident that our PPI redress is correct; we have considered our methodology carefully and in detail. Our confidence is reinforced through external independent reviews and advice which has supported the way we approach default fees. “Fees of this nature are required to be refunded when they are “caused” by the missale of PPI. Not all credit card fees and charges are the same between issuers and there are aspects of MBNA’s fees and charges and the way they are charged (or not charged) which are highly relevant to whether MBNA might be liable to refund them. For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.” MBNA has always worked to ensure that its PPI redress calculations and the payments it makes to customers follow guidance issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and are informed by the decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Nothing has changed in relation to the way MBNA reviews, calculates and pays its redress on PPI complaints, so customers do not need to do anything following these reports. I have just been going through the terms and conditions and found the following under section 8 Debits, Credits: 8.1 We will Debit to the account the amount of: (a) any transaction after the payment system has notified us of it (b) any interest due under this agreement on the statement date: and © any other charge due under this agreement on the date that it becomes due Can this be used to show that these charges were applied by mistake and as such the LA does not apply? Thanks Up2

Previous post deleted: As PPI is a product, would it be classed as a transaction or a charge? Thanks Up2

I've not disclosed on the thread how much I'm claiming Mike, but they are offering about a 1/5 - which doesn't cover the charges and court fees

Oh dear lol, I'll look for Mr grumpy red face when I get there . If the case lasts the whole two hours he'll be even grumpier cos he'll be travelling home in rush hour traffic Oh well, thanks for answering the q Mike Up2

Okay thanks Mike, MBNA sent me an email today telling me who they have instructed to represent them and to offer me the same offer as before to settle. The chambers this guy is from is over a hundred miles away. Is that normal? Thanks Up2

Hi Mike, Does the other side usually tell you who they are instructing to represent them in court? Thanks Up2

Thanks Mike, I will have a read of that. Not sure if this will or will not be used at the hearing but formed part of my PoC so preparing for it anyway. They are denying harassment (as expected) so although I have pointed out their wrong doing in my ws and provided copies of the letters sent I am also looking for evidence of their breech here. I have already extracted the parts from the OFT debt collection guidance 2003 along with using section 40 of the Justice of Administration act, and was wondering if there is something like BCOBS that could be used (in effect around 2004) Thanks Up2

I am also hoping that once I show the court the charges were applied due to the PPI the fact that they admitted it was miss-sold (even though they are denying it now) and refunded the premiums, should re-start the SB clock ticking. Or does admittance only apply when we make an acknowledgement or payment?

Thanks Mike, A lot of their ws is about the PPI. Now claiming that their upholding of my complaint was a goodwill refund and it wasn't miss-sold because I requested it during the online application process and how after I cashed the cheque disputed the amount (disputed after MBNAs dodgy calcs had come to light) so I have been doing myself some 'flashcard' sort of notes to explain myself for example letting the judge know that the PPI was only mentioned in my PoC to explain how the charges had come about and that the PPI re-dress has nothing to do with the case except for clout that they had been applied by mistake. All they have really talked about in regards to the charges is about my original complaint and their response to them being fair yatta yatta. They have mentioned the DISP policy and said ' The defendant believes that the fees were not caused by the ppi but by the way the claimant conducted the account' - in other words when they allowed me to get into debt when I was on long term sick leave with only benefits and did not follow the guidelines set out by the OFT but instead ignored my pleas for help, and bombarded me with charges and hundreds of pounds of interest knowing I had no means of keeping up. I have also produced a spreadsheet showing the account balance (when charged) with the ppi, and how when without the ppi my account is under its credit limit on every single occasion. Your comments made about the Court believing the case has some merit or I wouldn't have a trial date, is very reassuring. I have thought this myself as I have seen many people give up on cases because the judge has mentioned 'the claimant has little chance of success' Thank you for shining a little beam of hope Once I have got my 'flashcards' in order I will post up for comments Thanks again Up2