HI. Just thought I would keep this thread updated. I have not sent my complaint to the legal ombudsman yet as I wanted to ensure I gave the solicitors every opportunity to respond to me. I received an email from the Solicitors, again in a format that I find it hard to read because of my disability. Having had it explained to me , the Solicitors are basically saying that the Insurers have put payment on hold indefinably because of my complaint and so the solicitors are going to keep my £10,000. In a separate email from the solicitors which I missed before Christmas they have written to my Insurers asking for around £5.000. So it looks like they are keeping £10,000 because an invoice for £5000 has not been paid? The solicitors have still not given me any details of how they arrived at their costs and have not given me any visibility of their final invoice to my Insurers. In addition I can now see that there is communication between the Solicitors and my Insurers that I am not copied into and have no visibility of. I could get a solicitor to act on my behalf with this case but it would cost me a considerable percentage of the my money i.e. I have been quoted 25% if they are successful in recovering my £10,000. They would of coarse get their costs from the other Solicitors. Bothe parties would lose out so I don't understand why I am being pushed towards this. I can see that Doyle Clayton Solicitors have no Intention of respecting my disability or of treating me with the same respect as a non disabled person. They are also not concerned about being reported to the Legal Ombudsman and my personal experience is I could never Trust Them again. As a final attempt to settle this without all the difficulty and stress that it will cause me to take the matter to LO I am going to offer them a without prejudice offer of settling for £8000 and allow them to carry on their costs claim with my Legal Insurer. This means they could get up to £8000 for writing three letters as that is all they did in my case before I settled with my employer. I think they are more Mad than I am for carrying on in this way. They are clearly just trying it on and exploiting the fact that it will be difficult for me to reclaim money owed to me because of my disability. I am left wondering what happened to fair and equal treatment for people with disabilities in the UK? I settled with my employer of disability discrimination only to find that the solicitors I engaged to support me decided to discriminate against me in the same way as my employers. Over all I have lost at least £7000 in other costs and so I gained nothing from my case but instead lost money trying to exercise my right to be treated equally. I just feel the way I have been treated is disgraceful, it lets down all solicitors and makes a mockery of the UK Justice system.

Thank you all for your response. I have been putting to gather the paperwork for LO with some support. Its been pointed out to me that I should clarify a few points here. 1. the last conversation I had with my legal insurers is that the solicitors were holding up review of the costs because they had not provided further details that had been requested. So my legal insurers were at the time in a similar position to me. The solicitors appear just not to care about their legal obligations, the extreme hardship they are causing and I also wonder how many other clients they may have done this too. 2. I talked to a solicitor at the firm and my legal insurers at least four times before moving to them from another firm of solicitors. My reason to change was that the other firm appeared to have difficulty in making adjustments for my disability and I was not able to meet them face to face. My disability was made clear to these solicitors and they were given my disability reports prior to instructing them. 3. I carried out with support as much due diligence as I could prior to instructing the firm I took what they said at face value and I had no reason to dispute what they said prior to engaging them. Based on what they told me I genuinely believed that all my costs would be covered by my legal insurers and they would liaise directly with my legal insurers to recover ALL of their costs. 4. In several phone calls and confirmed in at least one email the solicitors agreed to work within the terms of my legal Insurers standard terms of business. These had already been set out for my previous solicitor. They were standard terms and so these are the original terms the solicitor accepted engagement on. This included a fixed fee of £180 an hour and all reasonable costs would be re-in burst. The solicitors told me that their normal fees were £360 an hour but in my case they had made an exception and would take the case on at £180 an hour. This is not in dispute. I believe they tried to make this up by inflating their Invoice to my legal insurers. 5. About a month after I engaged the solicitors they sent me an invoice of £3500. At this point I had not received any estimated costs and was not expecting this Invoice. When I quarried it with the solicitor I was told that I would be able to claim this back from my former employers if I was successful at the tribunal or from my Legal Insurers if my case was unsuccessful. This concerned the people who were helping me. I quarried this again and was told that because the agreement between the solicitor and my legal insurers was not in place I would have to pay all accumulated costs until the agreement was in place, I could then claim the money back from my legal insurers after completion of the case. I do not believe this to be true. 6. When I investigated this with my Legal Insurers they told me that the agreement was not in place because the solicitors would not agree to the standard terms of business and were requesting several changes. 7. When I quarried these changes with the solicitor they advised me this was normal practice negotiate with my legal insurers. It was at this point that I started to be included in emails between the solicitors and my legal insurers. There were several changes they made which left me disadvantaged the main one being the ability to charge me for any deficit following a review of their costs. 8. Having now been forced to go through all the trauma and hardship especially over the Christmas period I know believe that I should not even have been charged the £3500. The costs had been incurred because of the changes the solicitor requested to my legal insurers standard terms of business. The solicitors new what these were prior to taking on the case and had told me they would work within those terms, they changed their minds only after I engaged the and both ACAS and my former employers had been told I had changed solicitor. 9. Originally I was willing to compromise with the solicitors without prejudice and pay them the £3500. I received an email from the solicitors which I thought amounted to this. They Informed me they would be paying my compensation - £3500. (£12,400) 10. I was in hospital at the time but about two weeks later I received an email invoice indicating a £5700 refund. It was only when I quarried it that I became aware they were keeping the whole of the remaining £10,000. 11. Throughout this they have never talked to me about the breakdown of their costs or sent me any details / invoices suitable for me to read and understand because of my disability. 12. Bearing in mind they agreed to charge me £180 per hour this is what I recall they did for me: 13. Forward my medical reports and my disability reports to the defendants. This were already prepared by the previous solicitor so just a case of sending them on. 14. Forward further and better details to the defendant. I wrote these out with my own support and I had one approximately 20-minute phone call with the solicitor to talk through the details before they were forwarded. 15. I had approximately four more twenty minute calls with the solicitor around the offers and counter offers that were being made. There were approximately four rounds of offers and counter offers all very straight forward I.e. the company offered to settle for £10,000, I asked for £20,000 we settled at £15,700. 16. Personally I cannot see how a senior experienced solicitor could make up a bill to over £13,500 + whatever has been invoiced to my legal insurers which must be substantial for it to be audited @ £180 an hour for this work. At a guess I say they have invoiced about 7 Days without sleep working 24 X7 when in fact it was a straight forward case that any normally abled person could have done themselves. I am inclined to view this as theft. It’s a shame there isn’t a PPI type ruling about solicitor costs so that everyone being put through a similar situation can get their money back.

Thank you all for your Information. I understand there are two sides to the story and this only tells mine. The situation has moved on a little. I have contacted the Legal Ombudsman and have a reference number. I was told that 14 Days should be sufficient for the Solicitors to respond to my case. This has lapsed and I have had no response. I am sure the Solicitors know what they are doing and there is a reason for holding my money. The only reason I am aware of is that they are waiting for my Legal Insurers to complete an assessment of their fees to see how much my legal Insurers will pay and any deficit will be made up from the money they are holding. I still believe holding on to £10,000 is excessive and causing unnecessary hardship. My legal Insurers say they will pay all reasonable amounts and so any amount not paid that I will then become liable for would have been considered 'unreasonable, by my legal Insurers independent review of the costs. I have not received any invoices or been copied in on any invoices to my legal Insurers and neither party will tell me how much has been claimed by my solicitors. According to the Legal Ombudsman this is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that I was not given any estimate of possible costs at the start of the engagement or that I was not Informed of costs that could amount to £10,000 during the case or even after the settlement had been reached with my employers. My first knowledge that the solicitors were going to hold on to £10,000 is when they sent me an email advising me they were going to 'Refund £5,700) to me which I read as I had over paid there fees by £5700 even though they had not invoiced me at the time and I had paid them nothing. When I enquired about this I was verbally told that the £5700 was not in fact a refund but part of my settlement. I have the emails and I say that this is deceiving in its self. I also wonder if by treating it as a refund the solicitors may have made any tax benefit from this? Of coarse they will say this was just a mistake but its a pretty major mistake for a large firm of solicitors specialising in employment Law. It is also unacceptable that my solicitors did not provide me with details of their complaints procedure in compliance with reasonable adjustments for my disability and they did not advice me of my right to complain to the legal ombudsman. I have also had some initial advice from a solicitor and barrister who suggest that what ever the reason the solicitors have to hold on to my money they have been in breach of process and have knowingly entered a clause in the contract between us that amounts to an unfair term in the contract. i.e. They should not have altered the standard terms of business with my legal insurers in a way that would allow them to charge me amounts of money that would otherwise be unreasonable. While I was copied in on several emails when the solicitors negotiated this with my legal insurers none of the emails were addressed to me and I was never asked to confirm in writing that I understood and accepted the revised terms. Given the solicitors new my disability and on some occasions made reasonable adjustments there is reason I can think of why they did not make those reasonable adjustments in terms of the revised clause I.e. they never talked verbally to me about the implications of the change or sent me anything in writing to my home address in a suitable format that I could read. To this extent I am waiting a further 14 Days for the solicitors to provide me with a prorate invoice ( which they should have done at the completion of the case) which I will then challenge through a judicial review of the costs. If the costs are found to be reasonable my legal Insurers will be challenged for refusal to pay. If the costs are found unreasonable the solicitors will be subject to further action including compensation and loss of earnings. Over and above this there is still a high chance that the solicitors have been negligent , there advice was negligent and that their negligence has led to financial loss and caused unnecessary hurt to feeling. I am perusing this as a separate matter. This may not be the right thing to do but all I want is the remainder of the compensation I was awarded (£10,000) and for the solicitors to honour the written and implied terms that we agreed to when I first moved my case to them. Because the solicitors appeared to have gone silent on me and are dragging this out I feel I have no option but to seek compensation and charge back any additional legal costs that I may now incur. Bear in mind that they received the Money in October 2015 and we are now speeding through January 2016. In terms of the Legal Ombudsman. I get the feeling that the solicitors are confident that the LO will favour them and that it will be difficult for me to put forward a persuasive case . I am always a little suspicious of ombudsman and my past experience is they have normally favoured with Banks and big business and so I am holding on to this option while I see if I can make a case for negligence and breach of the written and implied terms of the contract between us on a contingency fee basis. All comments are welcome. K

Hi. Can any one offer some comments please. I suffer from a disability and the solicitors in question new about this how ever they still failed to make reasonable adjustments as indicated in my medical reports. In short the solicitors have kept £10,700 from a settlement of around £15,000 and neither the solicitors or my legal insurers will tell me why? I engaged a firm of solicitors last year ( Doyle Clayton) to assist in a dispute for disability discrimination. I had originally instructed a different law firm and the bulk of my case up to completion of the ET1 and disclosure to the other party had already been completed. I changed solicitors because I needed a local solicitor who I could talk to face to face because of my disability. The solicitors were fully aware I have difficulty reading and writing. In the eventuality I never met the solicitors face to face because the company reached a settlement with me shortly after engaging the solicitor. There were about four letters of offer of settlement before the company and I agreed to the amount of settlement. The solicitors drafted the compromise agreement. In total I estimate that the solicitors probably did less then 10 hours work as the whole case was already set out and I had already had a pre tribunal hearing with the previous solicitors. During the short time I engaged the solicitors they never sent me any estimate of costs, agreed to work within the terms of my legal insurers and never mentioned to me until after the event that I would be liable for any money or that they would recover that money from my settlement. I have now found out that they negotiated with my legal insurers to change the standard terms of engagement so that I would be liable for any charges my insurers found unreasonable. My insurers say they have had the companies final bill independently assessed and will not pay any amount the assers feel is unreasonable. Till today I have not had any details from the solicitors of what their final bill was, how it was made up or any details from my legal insurers on what they are willing to pay or how the solicitor charges were assessed. The solicitors have not responded to my complaint through their complaints procedure and have not provided me with any of the information I have requested. Thanks

Avoid getting any credit card from Vanquis. My experience is they are unethical and do not care about UK credit regulations. I have had nothing but un substainated charges applied to the card up to £1000. They claimed mistakes and errors and keep saying they will refund but instead keep adding charges. I had to make one claim when I paid a deposit for flights to Spain but the agency I paid to went bust, ATOL advised me Vanquis should refund the costs. I applied to Vanquis who said they would freeze interest and charges. Instead they charged double interest for going over limit + fixed charge of £51 for going over limit and then claim they did not receive my application for a refund and say it is too late to dispute it now even though the transaction is less then 30 Days old. The staff on the phone have been extremely rude, they keep you holding on and pass you department to department at premium rate calls. It has cost me another £100 just trying to talk to them. I have raised a complaint with financial regulatory body and provided details of my case. I would avoid them at all cost.

I have become so disappointed with my conversion with DOC that I have decided to lobby my mp. I hope others with a similar experience Will do the same. Summary of what I have been told I don'r want to investigate MBNA have acted legally DOS do not regulae solicitors even if they have baught debt and are dealing with consumer credit We did not feel your complaint was worth investig MBNA can not be held responsible for it hardship (despite adding 4000 pounds to a debt of 3000 in less then 6 months

Intresting responce. As mentioned in previous posts I will put a structured argument to the courts and ask them to consider the 'letter' of the Law and its centiment. This is a valid legal argument. The Banks would of course like to suggest that it's 'cluthching' at straws but this was also the case when ther first few cases went to court for a wrongfully executed contract. The supply og goods and services has been used by the FSA so how you make a bold statement that it does not apply is simply ammusing. Should the Judge chose not to pay acrefull attention to the detail of the asrgument he or she could be concived as makeing an error in law. The Card may not physically belong to me but it was sold to me at a cost and since the contract terms refer to the fact that I own the card and agree to use it within the defined terms suggests that at the time of dispute the goods had been supplied to me by the Bank. Questions Q Did the bank supply me with anything? A Yes a plastic card Q Did the Bank charge me for this? A Yes Q In return for my Money what did the bank agree to supply? Q Did the bank supply what they promised A No Q Where their any contractual written terms ? A Yes Q Did the Bank operate my account within the agreed terms A No Q Did the bank agree a basic level of service i would be entitled to? A Yes Q Did they provide that service A No Q Is it reasonable to suggest that I did not get what I paid for? A Yes Q Is it therefore reasonable to infer that i was miss sold the product? A Yes It would be intresting to see what FOS and the Judge have to say about this. I have contacted FOS but they have made no comment so far. Any exclusions would need to be specifically stated in the relevant law. Their is no such exclusion the Godds and Services act and so even if it is mentioned in the credit act that does not exclude it from SOGS act. Nothing about this is clutching at straws. If anything it is requesting clarification of the Law as it stands today.

Thanks. I suggest may want to read my post again. Yes a Credit card is a credit token but that does not necessarily mean that it is not also a 'good' and in either case the service part remains the same. I would suggest that where the card ceases to be a credit token it should be considered a 'good'. I feel you may be getting confused between the 'Sale of Goods act' and the 'Supply of Goods and Services act". Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Key Facts: • The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires a supplier of a service acting in the course of business in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to carry out that service with reasonable care and skill and, unless agreed to the contrary, within a reasonable time and make no more than a reasonable charge. I am arguing the "reasonable care and skill" part where as most people try and argue the " no more than a reasonable charge." It is a little bit concerning that many people on this forum attempt to use this legislation yet it would appear they have not quite got the grasp of it. Further more the act states: 1 The contracts concerned (1)In this Act [F1in its application to England and Wales and Northern Ireland]a “contract for the transfer of goods” means a contract under which one person transfers or agrees to transfer to another the property in goods, other than an excepted contract. (2)For the purposes of this section an excepted contract means any of the following:— (a)a contract of sale of goods; (b)a hire-purchase agreement; ©a contract under which the property in goods is (or is to be) transferred in exchange for trading stamps on their redemption; (d)a transfer or agreement to transfer which is made by deed and for which there is no consideration other than the presumed consideration imported by the deed; (e)a contract intended to operate by way of mortgage, pledge, charge or other security A credit card operates by way of charge and i would argue security since it was only issued to me because i was a home owner. Their is nothing in the act that specifically excludes credit cards or credit tokens. It is not for me to decide the legality. I will rely on the 'letter of the law' and request that the Judge makes a decision. Any positive or useful comments will be most welcome. Thanks

To clarify some points The information I post on this blog is not legal advice I am not able to post or reply on a regular basis Some individuals would be better of using the pointers I give to explore further advice on the internet rather then waist their time with stupid responses. The law as it stands relating specifically to credit cards is complex and not fully tested in court. Hence you will find few if any case to rely on. Case law is not the end or final judgment. Success depends on how you put your case. Laws passed by acts of parliament can not be changed without further acts of parliament. The laws while designed to be ‘tight’ still contain parts that are open to ‘interpretation’ Any law should be viewed with its constituent parts that is to say there is ‘letter of the law’ and there is the ‘reasonably inferred implied terms of the Law” It looks like my case against MBNA is going to court. My arguments are as follows: I say that when I signed up to the contract with Abby National (AKA MBNA for the purposes of this action) it was on the condition that both parties agreed to terms that collectively constituted a set of services provided by the Bank to me. The services were not limited to financial transactions and should therefore not be considered excluded from the provision of goods and services act. I say that on entering the agreement the Bank provided me with a card that could be used for financial transactions as well as for obtaining non financial goods. Issuing of the card amounts to providing me with ‘Goods’ .Since it is not limited to financial transactions the contract should not be exempt from the provision of goods and services act. I say that in accepting the contract the Bank agreed to provide me with a basic level of service and that this service implied a sub contract equivalent to a Service Level Agreement ( SLA) and that the SLA was an implicit part of the contract and that the main contract could not ‘survive’ without it. I say that the contract was entered into in ‘good will’ on the premise advertised that suggested a guaranteed SLA. ( i.e. confirms to FSO and Good Banking Practice, Sympathetic to debt, timely response to complaints) I say that on theses grounds the Bank failed to make good on its written and implied terms within the contract. I go further to say that the bank advertised a level of service that they knew or aught to have known that they could not provide and on those grounds I say that I was miss sold the credit card. There is more I suggest that their breach of the SLA between us has caused hardship and anxiety amounting to mental torture and so I seek compensation for that. Etc……

Hi all, Just a quick note. It appears that most people are focusing mainly on unenforceable credit agreements due to breaches of the consumer credit act. Do not forget that you have other legal rights that protect you from unfair treatment. These include : Breach of the direct and implied terms of a contract Breakdown of trust within the contractual relationship The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) Breach of due process A loan or credit card is a form of goods. Any letter or leaflet referring directly or implied to how you can expect your account to be treated even when in debt is a valid contractual obligation by the Banks to you. Breach of this amounts to breach of contract. If you are told that the goods ( credit card or loan) are sold to you on the basis that they comply with relevant guidelines and legislation but you then find that they do not then the goods are 'not fit for purpose' You must first understand what your rights are then evaluate them against the way in which you have been personally treated to establish weather in your case the loan or credit card was fit for purpose as described at the time you took it out. Best Luck

I am being taken to court by MBNA / Reston's solicitors on behalf of MBNA bank for a credit card i took out with Abbey National. I have previous experience of going to court to defend similar action brought against me by the same solicitor at Reston's. I also know that the tactics used by Reston's are unethical and i really do not understand how they have still managed to retain their consumer credit leicence. Any way I have proof that the Banks and Restons have breached the direct and indirect terms of the contract between us and so I should not have to pay back any of the money owed to them. In simplistic terms this is what I say: I wanted a credit card so looked round the market to see who would offer me the best product and service. Abbey National advertised to me that they were a 'Reasonable' lender who operated within constraints set out in the consumer Credit Act 1974. They claimed the contract we had would be operated within guidelines set out by the FSA and the Banking Code Standards at the time. They claimed and have continued to send me leaflets claiming that they will help me reach an affordable repayment plan if i fall into financial difficulty. I was impressed by Abby's sales literature and promises and so based on that i entered into an agreement with them to provide me with credit facilities. The agreement had direct terms set out at the time and indirect terms relating to how they would treat me and my account if i fell into financial difficulty. We enjoyed a good 4 years service with no complaint until i lost my job. Well I lost my job and fell into financial difficulty. The Bank ignored all of the above promises they made to me in their litterateur, so simply speaking they miss sold me the product and are in breach of the direct and implied terms of the contract between us. Since the bank failed to keep to their side of the contract I should not be forced to pay them back any amounts relating to the contract. This is my response to them: RESTON’S SOLICTORS Trinity Chambers 800 Mandrin Court Warrington Cheshire WA1 1GG 05 February 2010 Ref MBNA AC.:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Your Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Mr. R XXXXXXXXX I will address the concerns you raised in your letter to me dated XX February 2010 later in this correspondence. As you are aware XXXX Citizens advice bureau have been engaged in reaching an affordable repayment term on my behalf with all of my creditors. This demonstrates that there is an active attempt to pay back all of the credit I owe to all of my creditors. I include their contact details and the latest income and expenses form from them and advice you that they are in the process of reevaluating the form and are actively engaged with all of my creditors to reach an amicable solution to the current difficulties I face. Due to reasons beyond my control and driven by account managers at MBNA it became necessary for me to request a true copy of my original contract together with the original terms and conditions from the company at the start of November 2009 (around the 05 November 2010). The law regulating these requests is clear and hence since MBNA had not provided the contract and original terms by 01 January 2010 they had defaulted on the account. A default notice was sent to them. Since they have not provided any ‘justifiable’ reason for the delay in responding to me I must assume that the default stands. Given the situation as it stands I can not at this moment in time accept liability for any of the amount you have stated in your claim to the courts.(Court order claim number XXXXXXXX). Your records will show that Abby National provided me with an initial response on XX/XX/2010. How ever the response was incomplete and inaccurate as it did not include a ‘true’ copy of the agreement between us. In particular the terms and conditions they purport to apply to the agreement are not part of the original contract. Regardless of any subsequent alterations to these terms (which are likely to favor MBNA) my request was clearly for the original documentation. I would further need to view statements on my account from August 2006 to current to asses how the debt has risen from some £4.5K to over £7K whilst I was on a reduced payment terms with the Bank and the Bank have been fully aware of my financial circumstances. Having been presented with your demand for £7254.43 I have once again been forced to write to MBNA requesting copies of my financial statements from August 2006 so that I can establish how much if any of the amounts being requested are legitimate. Unfortunately I can not accept any responsibility for the delays being caused my MBNA bank. The direct and implied terms of my agreement with MBNA (through Abby National at the time) stated that: They would provide me service in accordance with the Banking Standards Code available at the time of the agreement ( replaced by the Lending Code) My account would be operated within guidelines set out by the financial services regulator the FSA. The bank would be sympathetic to my situation and provide every assistance to me should I fall into financial difficulty. Unfortunately it is my experience that the bank has failed to act within the direct and / or implied terms of the contract relating to the above .There for it would be correct and just to infer that the account was ‘miss sold’ to me contrary to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. These concerns have been put forward to both Abby National and MBNA in writing as early as November 2009. Since I have had no acceptable response to the specific concerns raised it would be correct to assume they have no defense for their actions. Given the events and time lines in this case, it is clear that from around October 2009 their existed a clear dispute regarding this account between the bank and me. At the time the bank had been unable to justify their position, respond to requests for information or demonstrate that they were acting as a ‘reasonable’ lender within the constraints of the consumer Credit Act 1974. Should all the information above be proven to be true, then at the time of making their application to the courts, MBNA bank would have presented information to the courts that they knew or aught to have known was inaccurate, in dispute and/ or possibly false. I now draw your attention to the confusion that has been caused by these banks. My original application for the credit card was with Abby National. Up until around March 2009 all my communications were with Abby National. Since around August 2009 I have received various correspondence from Abby National, MBNA bank and yourself all relating to the same account even though the account number from when it was Abby National to when it became MBNA banks has changed.(i.e. two different account numbers and three organizations chasing the debt). This does not equate to a ‘responsible’ business practice. It is their fore the entire responsibility of the banks that the matter in this case have become complicated and confused. I have received three default notices for the same account, one from Abby National, one from MBNA bank and one from you. I have had to write to and deal with three separate organizations simply to establish the facts and the protection offered to me by the consumer credit act. I now bring to your attention the offer made to me by Abby National bank for a partial repayment of £2,323.00 with no further action on the outstanding amount .The offer was accepted by both parties. I repaid Abby National £1823. The final payment of £500 was to be made by my brother in law. I now know that that payment did not go through. At the time neither Abby National, MBNA Bank nor Reston solicitors made any attempt to advice me that the payment did not go through. It was correct for me to assume that the agreement between us (for the bank not to pursue any further collection on the account) was in force. It was first brought to my attention around August 2009 that the final payment had not been processed. As soon as I was made aware I offered to make a payment of £600 directly my self on the same day to complete the agreed transaction. Unfortunately my request was denied by MBNA bank. I advised the bank that I would be seeking further advice from Heathland CAB to deal with this matter. Subsequently MBNA bank informed CAB that they were unable to accept £600 as a final settlement figure. They failed to mention £1823 that had already been paid meaning that the true figure for settlement would have been £2423 and not £600 as they were purporting it to be, from a debt which at the time was still only around £5000. A further offer was made to pay an additional £1000 to clear the debt which would have brought the total repayment figure to £2823 which was also rejected. It would now appear that at some time in 2009 MBNA have started to add charges to the account that have taken an initial debt of around £5000 to over £7200. In order to draw up an accurate time line of events please could you confirm to me: The date you were first given notice to administer this account The date you were first provided with a true copy of the original agreement relating to this account The date you were first made aware of the disputes relating to this account Please can you confirm weather you were aware of any dispute with the account prior to issuing your first default notice to me and the dates relevant to this event. Best Regards

I am being taken to court by Reston's solicitors on behalf of MBNA bank for a credit card i took out with Abbey National. I have previous experience of going to court to defend similar action brought against me by the same solicitor at Reston's. I also know that the tactics used by Reston's are unethical and i really do not understand how they have still managed to retain their consumer credit leicence. Any way I have proof that the Banks and Restons have breached the direct and indirect terms of the contract between us and so I should not have to pay back any of the money owed to them. In simplistic terms this is what I say: I wanted a credit card so looked round the market to see who would offer me the best product and service. Abbey National advertised to me that they were a 'Reasonable' lender who operated within constraints set out in the consumer Credit Act 1974. They claimed the contract we had would be operated within guidelines set out by the FSA and the Banking Code Standards at the time. They claimed and have continued to send me leaflets claiming that they will help me reach an affordable repayment plan if i fall into financial difficulty. I was impressed by Abby's sales literature and promises and so based on that i entered into an agreement with them to provide me with credit facilities. The agreement had direct terms set out at the time and indirect terms relating to how they would treat me and my account if i fell into financial difficulty. We enjoyed a good 4 years service with no complaint until i lost my job. Well I lost my job and fell into financial difficulty. The Bank ignored all of the above promises they made to me in their litterateur, so simply speaking they miss sold me the product and are in breach of the direct and implied terms of the contract between us. Since the bank failed to keep to their side of the contract I should not be forced to pay them back any amounts relating to the contract. This is my response to them: RESTON’S SOLICTORS Trinity Chambers 800 Mandrin Court Warrington Cheshire WA1 1GG 05 February 2010 Ref MBNA AC.:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Your Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Mr. R XXXXXXXXX I will address the concerns you raised in your letter to me dated XX February 2010 later in this correspondence. As you are aware XXXX Citizens advice bureau have been engaged in reaching an affordable repayment term on my behalf with all of my creditors. This demonstrates that there is an active attempt to pay back all of the credit I owe to all of my creditors. I include their contact details and the latest income and expenses form from them and advice you that they are in the process of reevaluating the form and are actively engaged with all of my creditors to reach an amicable solution to the current difficulties I face. Due to reasons beyond my control and driven by account managers at MBNA it became necessary for me to request a true copy of my original contract together with the original terms and conditions from the company at the start of November 2009 (around the 05 November 2010). The law regulating these requests is clear and hence since MBNA had not provided the contract and original terms by 01 January 2010 they had defaulted on the account. A default notice was sent to them. Since they have not provided any ‘justifiable’ reason for the delay in responding to me I must assume that the default stands. Given the situation as it stands I can not at this moment in time accept liability for any of the amount you have stated in your claim to the courts.(Court order claim number XXXXXXXX). Your records will show that Abby National provided me with an initial response on XX/XX/2010. How ever the response was incomplete and inaccurate as it did not include a ‘true’ copy of the agreement between us. In particular the terms and conditions they purport to apply to the agreement are not part of the original contract. Regardless of any subsequent alterations to these terms (which are likely to favor MBNA) my request was clearly for the original documentation. I would further need to view statements on my account from August 2006 to current to asses how the debt has risen from some £4.5K to over £7K whilst I was on a reduced payment terms with the Bank and the Bank have been fully aware of my financial circumstances. Having been presented with your demand for £7254.43 I have once again been forced to write to MBNA requesting copies of my financial statements from August 2006 so that I can establish how much if any of the amounts being requested are legitimate. Unfortunately I can not accept any responsibility for the delays being caused my MBNA bank. The direct and implied terms of my agreement with MBNA (through Abby National at the time) stated that: They would provide me service in accordance with the Banking Standards Code available at the time of the agreement ( replaced by the Lending Code) My account would be operated within guidelines set out by the financial services regulator the FSA. The bank would be sympathetic to my situation and provide every assistance to me should I fall into financial difficulty. Unfortunately it is my experience that the bank has failed to act within the direct and / or implied terms of the contract relating to the above .There for it would be correct and just to infer that the account was ‘miss sold’ to me contrary to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. These concerns have been put forward to both Abby National and MBNA in writing as early as November 2009. Since I have had no acceptable response to the specific concerns raised it would be correct to assume they have no defense for their actions. Given the events and time lines in this case, it is clear that from around October 2009 their existed a clear dispute regarding this account between the bank and me. At the time the bank had been unable to justify their position, respond to requests for information or demonstrate that they were acting as a ‘reasonable’ lender within the constraints of the consumer Credit Act 1974. Should all the information above be proven to be true, then at the time of making their application to the courts, MBNA bank would have presented information to the courts that they knew or aught to have known was inaccurate, in dispute and/ or possibly false. I now draw your attention to the confusion that has been caused by these banks. My original application for the credit card was with Abby National. Up until around March 2009 all my communications were with Abby National. Since around August 2009 I have received various correspondence from Abby National, MBNA bank and yourself all relating to the same account even though the account number from when it was Abby National to when it became MBNA banks has changed.(i.e. two different account numbers and three organizations chasing the debt). This does not equate to a ‘responsible’ business practice. It is their fore the entire responsibility of the banks that the matter in this case have become complicated and confused. I have received three default notices for the same account, one from Abby National, one from MBNA bank and one from you. I have had to write to and deal with three separate organizations simply to establish the facts and the protection offered to me by the consumer credit act. I now bring to your attention the offer made to me by Abby National bank for a partial repayment of £2,323.00 with no further action on the outstanding amount .The offer was accepted by both parties. I repaid Abby National £1823. The final payment of £500 was to be made by my brother in law. I now know that that payment did not go through. At the time neither Abby National, MBNA Bank nor Reston solicitors made any attempt to advice me that the payment did not go through. It was correct for me to assume that the agreement between us (for the bank not to pursue any further collection on the account) was in force. It was first brought to my attention around August 2009 that the final payment had not been processed. As soon as I was made aware I offered to make a payment of £600 directly my self on the same day to complete the agreed transaction. Unfortunately my request was denied by MBNA bank. I advised the bank that I would be seeking further advice from Heathland CAB to deal with this matter. Subsequently MBNA bank informed CAB that they were unable to accept £600 as a final settlement figure. They failed to mention £1823 that had already been paid meaning that the true figure for settlement would have been £2423 and not £600 as they were purporting it to be, from a debt which at the time was still only around £5000. A further offer was made to pay an additional £1000 to clear the debt which would have brought the total repayment figure to £2823 which was also rejected. It would now appear that at some time in 2009 MBNA have started to add charges to the account that have taken an initial debt of around £5000 to over £7200. In order to draw up an accurate time line of events please could you confirm to me: The date you were first given notice to administer this account The date you were first provided with a true copy of the original agreement relating to this account The date you were first made aware of the disputes relating to this account Please can you confirm weather you were aware of any dispute with the account prior to issuing your first default notice to me and the dates relevant to this event. Best Regards

I have a question. When i took out my credit card with Abbey National it was because they boasted they operated within the Banking Code of Practice and that they would treat my account sympathetically if i was to run into difficulty. I ran into difficulty ( lost my job) and rang Abbey national expecting them to honor their promise. Instead they sold my account to Reston Solicitors and within weeks sent me a court order. They ignored all offers of reduced payment and refused to deal with CAB on my behalf. Yet they still send me letters suggesting they operate within the Banking Standards Code. I believe that they are in breach of their contract and that the card was miss sold to me since they have neither treated my account sympathetically or followed the Banking Code. I further believe that their breaches have caused me a financial loss and emotional torment. Further more they have refused to comply with the Consumer Credit Act in that they have not provided me with a true copy of my original terms and conditions. Surely I should now be able to sue them for my losses? Any thoughts on this would be welcome as i am considering a small claims court action against them.

Also known as Financial Ombudsman Service. Why do we pay tax payers money to these people. Here is my thoughts, if you buy goods or services in the UK that are deemed not to be fit for purpose then you can get your money back. So why don't we all bring a class action claim against the FOS because clearly the service they provide is not fit for purpose. My experience is that the FOS are their to help the Banks not the public so may be they should be funded by the banks out of their bonus kitty. My run-ins with FOS are too numerous to mention but here are a few: Reston Solicitors applied to court before even informing me i had a debt of just £184. FOS found in their favor I had to pay them £1800 Barclay Card sent beliefs to my door without any warning or court order FOS found in their favor. I was miss sold PPI insurance. I complained at the time but FOS found in their favor. Subsequently and only because a member of the public took the case to court miss old PPI can be claimed back. Their was an excellent case for unenforceable credit agreements. FOS took the case to the high court and mysteriously lost it setting a precedence that favors the Bankers. So exactly what have they done for the people that pay their wages??

I hope this post is in the correct forum. I have had no luck even trying to get MBNA to act under the current OFT, FOS or the consumer credit act rules. My account fell into areas when i first lost my job around 2006. With CAB we came to an agreement to pay a minimum amount. I kept up the payments until February 2009 when they offered me a full and final settlement. I paid them £1900 and thought that was the end of it. Then in October 2009 they send me a default notice out of the blue. I went to see CAB who contacted them but they refused CABs offers of payment. On 05 November 2009 I asked for an original copy of my credit agreement. The bank did not respond to me then on 01 December they sold my debt to Reston solicitors. I wrote to MBNA around 10 January 2010 copying in Reston's solicitors advising them of their DEFAULT UNDER THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 FAILURE TO PRODUCE AGREEMENT yet on 27 January 2010 Reston’s applied to the courts for payment of my full debt. Their was no discussion no options and no discussing minimum payments. No mention of the £1900 they had already falsely taken from me as full and final settlement. They are not bothered about any debt help groups such as CAB not even bothered that there is no contract between us. I can not see the difference between how they have behaved and how loan sharks operate other then these banks seems to get a lot of sympathy from UK courts. The worst part, In February 2009 my debt with the bank was just £4000. I paid them £1900 apparently for full and final settlement and now my debt has gone up to £7300. in just 10 Months. That’s an amazing £510 per month !!! Surly this can not be legal!!