AK Claimform - MBNA card 'debt'

[MeeBroke]

I think I must be having a blonde moment. What would they gain by issuing a second default notice? Unless of course the argument for the account being in dispute was soley based upon a defective default notice.

 

For me my Defence had two main planks:

 

Invalid CCA (no TCs contained within the document)

 

Unlawful Rescission based on faulty DN

 

Solicitor says the faulty DN can be rectified by issue of a new, compliant one.

 

Solicitor also says that the TC issue largely depends on what Judge you get and my case is filed with the worst of the sort in the country.

 

For what it's worth, my solicitor says that I do have a case but it's a long way from a sure thing-more 50/50. It's just not a gamble i'm willing to take.

 

For me the issue has always been about the wrongful recording of the Default on my previously (and since) perfect credit score. Even now, AK is trying to get their cake and eat it too- they are receiving an 80% settlement and steadfastly refuse to remove the Default.

[MeeBroke]

I think I must be having a blonde moment. What would they gain by issuing a second default notice? Unless of course the argument for the account being in dispute was soley based upon a defective default notice.

 

I believe what they will do is simply issue a new DN with today's date, giving the correct amount of time etc to allow for compliance. Then you will have your 14 days to pay up or rectify= they get their money.

 

If you fail, they now have a valid DN in place= they get their money.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

re a non compliant dn, they cant (or shldn't be able to) do what they want to do (Harrison case for eg). so, their aim cld be to 'try' issue a 'correct' dn so that they can then do what they want to do (as was 'mentioned', but not actually decided on). but, imo, cld be too late. but if a J accepts a reissued correct one, then there shld be some sort of recompense/redress, in whatever form, re what has followed the incorrect one (which in itself is a breach of statute and contract) which they weren't allowed to do, perhaps re the law of Mistake (as mooted by sweet & max for eg).

 

 

It is just simply that " a mistake may be rectified" and it's within the judges remit to allow order for a correct DN to be issued.

[Ford]

I believe what they will do is simply issue a new DN with today's date, giving the correct amount of time etc to allow for compliance. Then you will have your 14 days to pay up or rectify= they get their money.

 

If you fail, they now have a valid DN in place= they get their money.

 

and, i suppose, that if a new dn isnt issued, or allowed, a J cld still end up allowing a non compliant one under their 'de minimis' approach depending on the nature of the non compliance. as seen in that recent Arrow cty ct case for eg. cf. also that HFO Burney case.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

and, i suppose, that if a new dn isnt issued, or allowed, a J cld still end up allowing a non compliant one under their 'de minimis' approach depending on the nature of the non compliance. as seen in that recent Arrow cty ct case for eg. cf. also that HFO Burney case.

All a judge in the County Court can do is make a judgement that is reasonable and in the balance of probabilities fair.

[Ford]

on balance, ie the civil standard of proof.

and wonder for eg, if reversed, if a debtor paid a def notice amount a couple or three days after the deemed 14 days (or within the perceived 14 days, but actually was outside). wld a creditor accept that, or wld they refuse and go on to default etc. then, wld a J say that it was 'de minimis' and that the payment shld be accepted outside of the 14 and the default etc reversed?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

on balance, yes re the civil standard of proof.

and wonder for eg, if reversed, if a debtor paid a def notice amount a couple or three days after the deemed 14 days (or within the perceived 14 days, but actually was outside). wld a creditor accept that, or wld they refuse and go on to default etc. then, wld a J say that it was 'de minimis' and that the payment shld be accepted?

If the payment is outside the time scale it is the creditors decision to default or not.

I've known this to go both ways with the same creditor, it is I guess based on the consumers "record " with the creditor.

 

 

A judge can only act upon the actuality if a DN time scale is not met.

[Dotty50]

Any update on this Meebroke?

[MeeBroke]

Any update on this Meebroke?

 

Settled out of court in the end for about 80% on the promise that creditor would remove any trace of Default from my credit file. I'd paid up and Creditor then reneged on removing Default.

 

Been pursuing them with solicitor for about a year trying to get them to honour the deal they agreed to in the court order.

 

If I could live all of this over again, I would have just paid in full at the very beginning. You just can't beat these guys.

 

MB

[Dotty50]

It's a pity you ended up having to pay such a high percentage

and it was widely read on here in the past about creditors not keeping their word after agreeing a settlement!

 

 

But if it was agreed in court, then surely your solicitor should have sorted it by now?

 

I still believe they can be beaten and am still fighting on with mine,

 

 

some will become statute barred this year so some of the DCA's get a bit heavier but with the right help it can be done.

 

All the best

[Ford]

cheers for update meebroke.

unsurprising that a crud is not sticking to what they say.

was it all done via a tomlin/consent order?

[MeeBroke]

cheers for update meebroke.

unsurprising that a crud is not sticking to what they say.

was it all done via a tomlin/consent order?

 

Yes, Tomlin sealed by the Court

[MeeBroke]

It's a pity you ended up having to pay such a high percentage

and it was widely read on here in the past about creditors not keeping their word after agreeing a settlement!

 

 

But if it was agreed in court, then surely your solicitor should have sorted it by now?

 

All the best

 

I only paid such a high amount on the promise that the default would be removed. I've been had.

 

I am going to have to chase them back into Court as they refuse to budge. They claim they have a 'legal obligation' to report it to credit agencies-which of course they do not. We have also obtained a document from the ICA stating that there is no such obligation.

[Ford]

......... They claim they have a 'legal obligation' to report it to credit agencies-which of course they do not. We have also obtained a document from the ICA stating that there is no such obligation.

 

ditto. afaik, there is no law that says a default must be reported. is just the 'policy'. a crud can remove something from a credit file if they choose/agree to? and, in yr case they have Tomlin agreed to!

[Andyorch]

ditto. afaik, there is no law that says a default must be recorded. is just their 'policy'. a crud can remove something from a credit file if they choose/agree to. and, in yr case they have Tomlin agreed to!

 

All creditors must comply with the ICO guidelines on data reporting...there may not be law but there are hefty fines.