Richard I really think the judges have been told to try and stop consumers claiming any further against the banks due to the frightening situation with the Euro etc. I was involved in a recent and decent case (not mine) and the judge just rolled over and allowed the bank's barrister (in a small claims court) to run the show. I also heard a story on Breakfast TV from Paul Lewis of Money box stating the people getting PPI back from banks are being hit with tax bills! It's case of a) putting people off trying and b) if they do try grabbing some tax. Do keep up your battle if you can.

Looks like they've appointed lightweights as they have no intention of meeting you in court. They have been instructed to negotiate a settlement (which it says). No way do they wnat this one going on public record.

Sorry folks Rhia's been away. You must get the full deed of assignment in order to establish if this has been assigned offshore. Mine was by no means the only one but these cases were all agreements assigned at the same time. Until you have this you can't say if this applies. BTW there is a recent case (which I don't have link to) which took MBNA apart. It was either Link-v-Harrison or MBNA/Link-v-Harrison. It would be well worth reading as Harrison won it. Looks like you'll be Fast Track which means full disclosure. You need to look at Part 18 requests for disclosure as well as a Subject Access Request.

Hang on! Just twigged that Mike Hawke has a case with the same organisation. I thought he was referring to PW's case. May the force be with you and preferably the police force.

This isn't a credit card. If I am correct this was an overdraft which was "converted" into a loan. I was wondering if such things were also securitised (not that this is much to do with PW's case).

They really are an extremely unsavoury company aren't they? BTW did any of your case involve securitisation? Surely it must have done. They'd dice and slice the cleaning lady if they could raise more money in the process. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rbs-helped-bankroll-europes-last-dictator-2345509.html

Mind blowing Paul. I showed MOH and he really couldn't take in what was being admitted to. I also wonder how widespread all this is.

Needabreak...what happened with this? Any update?

Neither do I but I really haven't read it properly.

The Irish case was O'Hagan-v-Wright and was previouslu unreported. http://www.judgmental.org.uk/judgments/NICA/2001/%5B2001%5D%20NICA%2026.html BO's case also shows how vitally important it is to challenge the asisgnment and use SAR and the CPR to gain as much information as you can.

Well this is absolutely bloody marvellous. What an incredible result. I have no doubt whatsoever it was due to the gutsy people here who refused to be battered by this grubby little company but yes DonkeyB they will probably pop up elswhere under another name - it's like having moles in your lawn.

ASk them to produce a copy of the agreement which shows definitively that you gave your full consent to your personal data being passed to third parties. If BC does not have this then you can complain to ICO. If they uphold your complaint you can take court action and I would do it in that order as the Judge will take notice of the ICO's ruling.

Excellent thread Citizen B. Only found it via newsletter - obviously hadn't dug enough. I see the banks are pleading the old poverty line again. Unfortunately I suspect they'll get away with it again. It's the way things are.

Ah indeed Siegfried. Classic displacement behaviour.

You need a history lesson too. Hitler was in no position to storm across Europe 50 years ago - he committed suicide on 30th April 1945. And I too agree with Donkey B. These debts are written off against tax by the original creditor. DCAs such as Cabot then eagerly take them off their hands for an average of 10 pence in the £ - sometimes more and sometimes even less but if we take 10p that's an average figure. They have not taken any risk they have not suffered loss yet they then go on and attempt to collect the entire amount of a previously written off debt. Most of these debts have also been securitised so the trail gets even more complex but you can bet on one thing the original creditor has made a very hefty profit on this debt. Anyway as you've so much time on your hands stop posting daft comments here and getting flamed and go and read the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer who was an outstanding war correspondent and you might just learn that Herr Hitler was (thankfully) shoving up daisies and not storming down Carnaby Street with his Panzer divisions in the Swinging Sixties.

Happy Christmas Cabot. Let's hope even more people know their rights in 2011!

And the very best to you too HIUTH! Hope you managed a nice bottle of something courtesey of Cabot. X

Happy Christmas WilChil, Big Debtor and all of you.

Haven't been around for a while as I knew you were in excellent hands with Big Debtor and others. I see things have changed again for you. Don't think of selling your house. The market is dreadful and likely to get worse. You will find you end up taking a lower price just to sell it and it's not worth it in the end. Just to add to all the sterling advice you've been given don't forget the OFT also sets down strict guidelines for debt collection http://www.debtwizard.com/debt-help/guides-and-advice/291-oft-debt-collection-guidelines

Just my two pence and I think Robin has given a good appraisal but since when do Judges make a judgement "in the public interest"? A judge is supposed to make his findings based on the facts of the case and the law. If he hasn't given you a fair hearing we then get into Humans Rights issues and there is also an EC directive which compels a hearing consider all the facts thoroughly. I also agree with Robin that you need an expert on this as it is so complex. Try the bar council for a direct access barrister if you have any money to spare (not neccessarily a lot ofmoney) or pro bono. There are also specialist solicitors who may well take your case on a No Win No Fee basis but I am not au fait with the latter.

If MBNA has sold a "live" account then it is a completely new departure for them and I don't actually believe this is what they have done. What happens with debts in arrears is they give the cosnumer three months and then have, by law, to issue a default notice as it is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act. Consumer fails or is unable to catch up with arrears and MBNA then allow it to run a few months slapping interest on all the while as this is beneficial to their securitisation operation. We won't go into this here but this is what they do and it's a very bad business. Once they have got that extra they write it off against their tax bill and sell it on to DCAs such as Link at something like 10p in the £ perhaps less. They should issue a default notice and a notice of assignment to inform you they are selling it off to Link. Link should then send what they refer to as an "hello" letter in other words saying we've bought this cough up. They then attempt to collect the full amount of the original debt plus any interest they slap on which is unethical, morally dubious but not at all unlawful. I agree with DonkeyB I think an appeal might be a costly waste of time. Why not get all the evidence together and apply to have the judgement set aside as this way you can introduce new evidence. You need to issue a SAR against MBNA and LINK to see what info that throws up and specifically ask for a copy of the deed of assignment/sales documeny which is the legal document whereby they assign the debts from one to t'other. Then you can start ripping it apart. P.S. Have to say there are a number of similar cases popping up on CAG lately and I don't know what to make of it all.

Hello. MBNA are known for their shoddy record keeping - they rarely have a properly executed agreement which is "easily legible" and which meets with the requirements of the CCA and the Regulations. This is exactly the same as numerous ones I and many on CAG have seen. If you look at the top of this "document" it has a serrated edge and is obviously a tear strip from one of their "flyers" which they have mailed to homes across the land - totally unsolicited - and the consumer ends up with a rotten MBNA deal. Is that a signature(blacked out) at the bottom? But why is the box above it for a signature empty? This seems to be the place for the customer's signature or is it the additional cardholder - it's not very legible. I see they do mention the terms and conditions but it is illegible I had to magnify it to make that out so that's non compliant but it does not have the prescribed terms within the signature document so this is unenforceable. However many judges ignore this. Otherwise I would agree with my fellow CAGers above. You need to observe the court processes and follow the actions outlined above to simplify it all. When does this date from? Also IO don't think Link can send the default - I believe this has to come from the OC but others may come along to confirm that.

The below may be of use to you - it's from the Consumer Direct website with regard to agreements: Statements You can request a statement at any time, showing the amounts owing under the agreement. For credit cards and other running-account credit, the lender must also send you regular statements – usually monthly. From 1 October 2008 you will be entitled to an annual statement on all credit agreements. This must contain certain minimum information – Click link for information. http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/Postcontractinfo Default notices If the lender wants to enforce the agreement against you – for example because you have broken the terms of the agreement – he must send you a default notice. From 1 October 2008 this must include an OFT information sheet ["]http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/CCA2006/information/]] highlighting your key rights and responsibilities and where to go for help or advice. Arrears notices If you fall behind with payments by more than a certain amount, the lender will be required to send you an arrears notice from 1 October 2008. This must include an OFT information sheet ["]http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/CCA2006/information/]. A notice will also be required if the lender imposes a default sum – for example, because you are late with a payment. If information is not provided If the lender fails to provide information when he is required to under the law, he is not entitled to enforce the agreement, or to charge interest or default sums, until the correct notice has been sent. If in doubt, speak to a Consumer Direct adviser.

Thanks BA. I have something of great interest that I have just PM'd you. They won't like it. Not one little bit. All I can say in these cases if the hearing is unfair and the points have been ignored then appeal. I think some judges (not all but some) just want a quick in and out of their court room and so dispense cases without examining the evidence and taking the trouble to appraise themselves of the CCA and all its workings. It's easy to get downhearted but if you appeal they will start getting a rap over their own knuckles higher up the legal chain. Keep up the pressure the pendulum will swing back towards the consumer.

What happened yesterday BA?