Jump to content

dubs1967

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dubs1967

  1. Thanks.Thats where I've been caught out then.Any other reasons I may have for set aside?
  2. Is there any reference to what you say in the CCA ?
  3. So are you saying the account is not terminated before sale ? I must interpret things differently to other folks !!
  4. Sounds as though im goosed then ? I am loathe to accept that MBNA can sell a debt without first issuing a default notice. (1)Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,— (a)to terminate the agreement, or (b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or ©to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d)to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e)to enforce any security. (2)Subsection (1) does not prevent the creditor from treating the right to draw upon any credit as restricted or deferred, and taking such steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective.
  5. I will continue to post irregularities in this case to help others in their quest for justice ! I have made mistakes but will continue to fight ! The world is unjust !!
  6. Original please. It's gone off on a tangent !
  7. I feel I've been shafted. I must admit to being very poor in court. Although I tried I wasn't prepared for the solicitor/ judge relationship. I felt out of my depth and knew the probable outcome after 10 minutes . The solicitor was well versed and devious. Good cop bad cop routine.
  8. No I've mentioned it ! Has this thread being moved ?
  9. I have spoken to a solicitor on the phone. He recommended I take it on the chin and clear ASAP ! Unfortunately I was involved in a car accident in November 2014 and haven't worked since. I am peppermint at the moment.
  10. Don't know if your getting mixed up here ? Judgement was entered against me on the 6th feb 2015 . This is about my right to appeal or set aside !!
  11. Just reading the Default notice."This statutory notice is to tell you that in order to remedy this breach you must pay the full amount of your outstanding balance which is £xxxxx by 24/09/2009. But they sold it on 30/08/2009. How the hell can that be lawfull.
  12. Sorry for the confusion. The MBNA/restons is settled. This one is the one MBNA card sold to vardey and aktiv kapital took me to court using IND solicitors.
  13. Restons one was settled. Gone.This is the one handled by aktiv and IND.
  14. my defence.. 28/03/2014. I do not acknowledge any debt to this company and refute the POC. Any payments made thus far were made under duress as the account is in dispute. This account and another were the subject of a settlement offer from MBNA which they breached. No notice of assignment was recieved from MBNA and the default notice(defective not my account number)was dated 7th september 2009, with the claimants date on POC 31st august 2009. This is a clear breach of section 87/88 1a and others of the cca on default and termination notices. Action cannot proceed. The POC confirms my previous dispute with MBNA that they sold this account whilst i had a settlement offer in place untill the 25th sept 2009. This is a clear breach of section 87/88 1a and others. I have requested documents from the claimant under the CCA section 77/78 on the 2nd march. Allowed 12+2 and to date have still not recieved a reply. Most of the points raised in my defence have been heard at the previous hearing (case no xxxx) for summary judgement which MBNA failed to acheive due to irregularities and defective default notice. The summary from the judge was "The left arm doest know what the right arm is doing" I have all the original documents in place and would request any documents from the claimant are original and true on MBNA headed notepaper. xxxxxxxx
  15. Sorry this is the other account that was sold. The one handled by restons was settled in full and final for less than a 3rd of its value. I think this is where the problem lies. Because Restons caved in after failing to obtain the summary judgement ,i have been naive in thinking this account would go the same way in court. I also thought the first case would of set a precedent.
  16. I'll post the POC tmw. Printer problems. Mobile pics ok ?
×
×
  • Create New...