MBNA/Restons Claimform - old MBNA Card DEbt *** WON ***

[Jesteruk]

cancel that - didnt read ya defence LOL

 

Good luck!

[bobogosing]

good luck supa;)x

[supasnooper]

Just to update.

 

Defence sent earlier by Special Delivery, so it's time to wait and see where this one goes.

 

I will update the thread as it goes along.

 

A Big Thank You to everyone who has offered advice, support and to those who have put together the brilliant defence letters.

[supasnooper]

Hi everyone,

 

Still no reply from my CPR 18 request but received the following letter :-

 

 

 

 

 

The "cca", t & c's and default notice are in the thread earlier.

 

 

Any comments, opinions or advice ?

[Perdita]

subbing - i got a letter the same on friday so i have cca'd them for now

 

Good luck with yours, i'll be watching with interest

[SteveH2508]

"...is both inappropriate and effective..."

 

Well that is nice to know!

[supasnooper]

"...is both inappropriate and effective..."

 

Still makes me laugh after reading it so many times.

Edited April 5, 2010 by supasnooper

[supasnooper]

subbing - i got a letter the same on friday so i have cca'd them for now

 

Good luck with yours, i'll be watching with interest

 

Do you have thread for this ?

[Perdita]

no i havent started a thread as yet - exact same letter as yourself though mine relates to HFC, was waiting to see what they produce and then will post it up here - took the cc out in 1999 so will be interesting to see if they produce a cca.

[surfaceagentx20]

How about this for a reply:

 

Dear Sir,

 

The Defence has indeed been produced with the benefit of assistance available via a consumer advice website, though I would contend that fact would only be clear to someone such as yourself who makes it their business to patrol such websites. Further, I take exception to your remarks that it is inappropriate of me to avail myself of the assistance afforded by a consumer advice website, albeit effective as you say, and I likewise take exception to your claim that the delivery of the Defence is intended to frustrate the legal process. On the contrary, the Defence serves to highlight the defficiencies in your client’s case and I note you do not embellish your suggestion that the Defence lacks any basis in law.

 

If it is your intention to maintain this suggestion I should be pleased if you would kindly explain what aspects of your claim have not been met with an arguable Defence and why. Subject to receipt of your reasoned argument I will give consideration to your suggestion I should withdraw. Meantime, if in light of what I say your client believes it would be in their interests to make a proposal to me for the settlement of the claim I should be very interested to receive it.

 

yours etc

 

x20

[supasnooper]

Thanks x20,

 

Will send the letter........but they've probably read it by now !

[car2403]

Who cares where your defence comes from - this just says that they know it is right and they are wrong.

 

If you're interested in seeing just how far Restons are willing (or are not willing!) to take these things, check this one out;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/110146-car2403-hfc-bank-default.html

[citizenB]

"...is both inappropriate and effective..."

 

Well that is nice to know!

 

 

Oh dear, how funny is that, pure classic. Nice response X20:)

[supasnooper]

Who cares where your defence comes from - this just says that they know it is right and they are wrong.

 

If you're interested in seeing just how far Restons are willing (or are not willing!) to take these things, check this one out;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/110146-car2403-hfc-bank-default.html

 

 

Hi car,

 

Just spent the last hour reading your escapades and very well done to get the result.

 

Probably the reason Restons drag it out so long is they still get paid whether they win or not.

[car2403]

Hi car,

 

Just spent the last hour reading your escapades and very well done to get the result.

 

Probably the reason Restons drag it out so long is they still get paid whether they win or not.

 

My thinking on the Restons ethic is this;

 

They don't intend on actually fighting to bring you to Court - they hope you are in the 1% of the population that doesn't know their legal rights and the obligations of their clients to comply with the Law. They hope they will get a CCJ by Default as you don't know any better than ignoring the claim form and they hope you will fold and either agree an unacceptable payment arrangement, or worse through the Court. As you can see from my thread, they can't even respond to proper legal arguments without "spitting the dummy" - as they have done here with the comments about where your defence has come from.

 

Fortunately for you and I, CAG exists and educates those that are in need of education just at the point they need to become empowered enough to put up a fight. Once you've done that, there's no stopping you.

 

Unfortunately for you and I, also, Restons (and other DCA's that "act" in the same way) still manage to achieve what they want in 99% of the cases they deal with. It's quite obvious they don't know how to deal with sound challenges.

 

The moral of the story is that you need to know your case inside out - if you don't, spend enough time on it until you get there as they won't do the same.

 

Once you've done all that, come back to CAG and share your experiences with others in the same situation and offer advice to help them through the same process, avoiding the pitfalls and taking the right turns in the forks in the road that makes life easier. Welcome to my ethic for being on this site - I have never made a donation to the sites upkeep, but I have posted over 3000 posts that help others, which probably results in donations. (By the way, I did most of my research on my own and started most of my cases without even having a thread, until I really needed it, which is why I haven't donated. My time on the site is probably worth more than a one-off donation, IMHO)

[supasnooper]

Hi car,

 

Certainly agree with you about Restons modus operandi - got the general idea about that from the lack of response to the CPR 18 letter I sent them.

 

Also, reading through the threads featuring Restons, they have made the comment about the defence being obtained from Consumer advice sites several times.

Am I missing something here ?

How do most students do their course work, homework and research these days.........hmmmmmm.

 

As you've done previously, I have updated my thread as it happens, so others will see that is not so daunting and hopefully learn from it.

[citizenB]

My time on the site is probably worth more than a one-off donation, IMHO)[/quote]

 

It certainly is.

[fedup74]

Subbing:) Any news?

[shakespeare62]

"...is both inappropriate and effective..." quote]

 

Still makes me laugh after reading it so many times.

 

Shouldn't someone consider reporting "Restons" to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for MISREPRESENTATION ?

 

They seem to be crossing the line at some points in the various threads appearing about them on this site...they could be struck off ...

 

OFT Rules and regulations , credit licences, may not bother a solicitors, the SRA ....though is a different matter

[shakespeare62]

 

Shouldn't someone consider reporting "Restons" to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for MISREPRESENTATION ?

 

They seem to be crossing the line at some points in the various threads appearing about them on this site...they could be struck off ...

 

OFT Rules and regulations , credit licences, may not bother a solicitors, the SRA ....though is a different matter

 

 

With a view to the above, if "Restons" are sending anonymous "PP'd letters signed with a squiggle, correspondence should be addressed to an identifiable person within the firm who can take responsibility e.g. Senior Partner. That person has a name and a solicitors ID.

 

You can get this information from the Law Society website.

 

It's about time someone stuffed "Restons" Turkey.

 

There should be good opportunity on these forums to collate evidence and share information about this firm. Failure to reply to correspondence, Misrepresentation, failing to follow Civil Procedure Rules, deliberately misleading that agreements exist when they don't etc. etc.

[car2403]

 

 

With a view to the above, if "Restons" are sending anonymous "PP'd letters signed with a squiggle, correspondence should be addressed to an identifiable person within the firm who can take responsibility e.g. Senior Partner. That person has a name and a solicitors ID.

 

You can get this information from the Law Society website.

 

It's about time someone stuffed "Restons" Turkey.

 

There should be good opportunity on these forums to collate evidence and share information about this firm. Failure to reply to correspondence, Misrepresentation, failing to follow Civil Procedure Rules, deliberately misleading that agreements exist when they don't etc. etc.

 

I agree that the incidental evidence is very damning, but the problem is that individual complaints are dealt with individually, without recourse to one another.

 

What we need is something along the lines of the OFT raids that took place on a well known high street bank, only that will give me satisfaction.

[shakespeare62]

 

I agree that the incidental evidence is very damning, but the problem is that individual complaints are dealt with individually, without recourse to one another.

 

What we need is something along the lines of the OFT raids that took place on a well known high street bank, only that will give me satisfaction.

 

 

I imagine if the Senior Partner found himself the subject of a well founded complaint to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) he wouldn't want to be the subject of another.

 

When you're dealing with muppets - go for the 'head shed'. He'll then have to delegate. Refer it back to him. He's responsible for overseeing the actions of his department.

 

Solicitors do get 'struck off' the Law Society Register for serious wrong doing.

 

Milking the cow (I refer to the famous punch cartoon of a lawsuit) in the manner "Restons" do, may no longer be such an attractive proposition ...

[shakespeare62]

Heres Rule 11 of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority code of conduct and snippets from 12 :-

Rule

 

11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court

 

 

• (1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.
  
• (2) You must draw to the court's attention:
  
  • (a) relevant cases and statutory provisions;
    
  • (b) the contents of any document that has been filed in the proceedings where failure to draw it to the court's attention might result in the court being misled; and
    
  • © any procedural irregularity.
    

   

  [*](3) You must not construct facts supporting your client's case or draft any documents relating to any proceedings containing:

  • (a) any contention which you do not consider to be properly arguable; or
    
  • (b) any allegation of fraud unless you are instructed to do so and you have material which you reasonably believe establishes, on the face of it, a case of fraud.
    

   

12. (more examples of misleading...._

 

You might deceive or mislead the court by, for example:

 

• (a) submitting inaccurate information or allowing another person to do so;
  

...........

 

• (e) not immediately disclosing a document you have become aware of during the course of a case, which should have been, but was not, disclosed;
  

[supasnooper]

Some interesting points raised above and I'll take a more in depth look at them later.

 

However, my AQ needs to be filed later this week.

 

The question is - Can I get a copy of their AQ if they don't send me one before I submit mine ?

[supasnooper]

bump