Solicitor bailed out on me

[stupidboy]

Sorry folks,

The pdf of the application form is hidden at the top of post 119. There is nothing else. If there is, they are not disclosing it.

sb

[Peterbard]

Hi PB,

If I had an agreement, or they argue that I had one (even though they can't produce it) I could get this case stuck out on the basis that I am not responsible for my use of the card............................

 

then I get divorced :smile:

 

sb

 

You could argue that they cannot take proceedings against you because the loan was not yours.

The second card holer on a credit agrement is not the debtor under the act anmd proceedins can only be brought against the debtor.

If this was a joint loan it woud of course be different, but if all they are depending on is an additional card holder application then threy ar up a gum tree.

Thre are so many reasons that i can think of fo this that i would need to devote an entire thread to it, but here are a few,

They do ot usually credit search a second lender so how did they know you were subtible for the credit

You would not hsve recieved sufficiant cancellation op[tions

Your signature would not(presumably) be on the main contract

There would be no reason for the court to assume that you had knowledge of the prescribed terms of bthe orriginal contract when signing the application.

i could go on

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

No I'm saying if anyone is going to use an example it should be one from the UK not one from over the pond.

First that came to mind

Sorry

[stupidboy]

what bits have your writing in and is it just your sig etc?

 

The only writing on it that is mine would be the signature. My wife filled everything else in as she filled in the main form for her card.

 

She filled in the telephone numbers, my mothers maiden name, DoB, income, employee, ticked m/card, ticked credit limit and dated it.

 

sb

[dadofholly]

The only writing on it that is mine would be the signature. My wife filled everything else in as she filled in the main form for her card.

 

She filled in the telephone numbers, my mothers maiden name, DoB, income, employee, ticked m/card, ticked credit limit and dated it.

 

sb

 

AS PB says there are many reasons on which you could base a defence - but as things stand at the moment they have not even complied with the basics.

No compliant agreement - no T&C's. Without these they are barred from enforecing this debt. They can of course use recons - but as yet they do not appear to have even done this.

[stupidboy]

You could argue that they cannot take proceedings against you because the loan was not yours.

The second card holer on a credit agrement is not the debtor under the act anmd proceedins can only be brought against the debtor.

If this was a joint loan it woud of course be different, but if all they are depending on is an additional card holder application then threy ar up a gum tree.

Thre are so many reasons that i can think of fo this that i would need to devote an entire thread to it, but here are a few,

They do ot usually credit search a second lender so how did they know you were subtible for the credit

You would not hsve recieved sufficiant cancellation op[tions

Your signature would not(presumably) be on the main contract

There would be no reason for the court to assume that you had knowledge of the prescribed terms of bthe orriginal contract when signing the application.

i could go on

 

Hi Peter,

 

This is fascinating, and not mentioned by my solicitors so presumably they are unaware of the implications.

 

Does anyone have a copy of an old MBNA application form (with the bottom part for an additional card like mine) that I could take a look at?

 

If her agreement is valid (which I doubt) then I think I'll keep quiet about this and hope to win on other grounds.

 

If her agreement is not valid, then I can get my case struck out and then see whether they try again having already lost.

 

Nice one!

 

sb

[cerberusalert]

IIRC the applicant nominates a second card holder and the second holder signs nothing other than the card when they receive it. The onus is on the principle card holder they are the one that have entered into a contract, the second card holder is just an authorised user.

[dadofholly]

IIRC the applicant nominates a second card holder and the second holder signs nothing other than the card when they receive it. The onus is on the principle card holder they are the one that have entered into a contract, the second card holder is just an authorised user.

 

Which begs the question why are they taking you to court in the first place?

You was never a creditor with them.

[PriorityOne]

Oh my! For some reason, this thread has been singled out (so it seems) to be the bearer of huge differences of interpretation of fact and hypothetical "possibilities".

 

Never mind. Back to the issue in hand...

 

SB... what exactly are these sols. meant to be doing for you?.... and surely, if they were going to bail out on you once before, this should swing both ways so that you could bail out on them now due to incompetence? All of your advice; conflicting or otherwise, is coming from these forums!

 

[Peterbard]

Oh my! For some reason, this thread has been singled out (so it seems) to be the bearer of huge differences of interpretation of fact and hypothetical "possibilities".

 

Never mind. Back to the issue in hand...

 

SB... what exactly are these sols. meant to be doing for you?.... and surely, if they were going to bail out on you once before, this should swing both ways so that you could bail out on them now due to incompetence? All of your advice; conflicting or otherwise, is coming from these forums!

 

 

Hi

 

Yes i agree everything i have stated is fact.

As for differnt advice i dont think there is dissagrement now just options

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Which begs the question why are they taking you to court in the first place?

You was never a creditor with them.

 

This is a very good question

Why did they not chase the main account holder in the fist instance?

 

Peter

[stupidboy]

SB... what exactly are these sols. meant to be doing for you?.... and surely, if they were going to bail out on you once before, this should swing both ways so that you could bail out on them now due to incompetence? All of your advice; conflicting or otherwise, is coming from these forums!

 

Hi,

At the moment they are basing my case on the lack of a default notice - even though I have no agreement and it now transpires that I cannot have one as I am an additional card holder.

 

I'd like to check out my wife's agreement first (if there is one) because I don't want to win my case on the additional card argument if it is going to make Cabot (or MBNA) look at her situation more closely and then start action against her - and possibly win both cards at the same time - that would be the ultimate disaster!

 

I've requested a copy of her agreement under the CCA so when I get home I'll check the paperwork. I am pretty confident that they have not sent anything.

 

Once I've sorted that out, presumably I can instruct my solicitors to apply to have the case struck out as I am legally unable to be a defendant in the proceedings, and if they refuse I can sack them, despite the CFA.

 

sb

[Peterbard]

Hi,

At the moment they are basing my case on the lack of a default notice - even though I have no agreement and it now transpires that I cannot have one as I am an additional card holder.

 

I'd like to check out my wife's agreement first (if there is one) because I don't want to win my case on the additional card argument if it is going to make Cabot (or MBNA) look at her situation more closely and then start action against her - and possibly win both cards at the same time - that would be the ultimate disaster!

 

I've requested a copy of her agreement under the CCA so when I get home I'll check the paperwork. I am pretty confident that they have not sent anything.

 

Once I've sorted that out, presumably I can instruct my solicitors to apply to have the case struck out as I am legally unable to be a defendant in the proceedings, and if they refuse I can sack them, despite the CFA.

 

sb

 

Did you apply for the agrement 76 in your name or your wifes?

 

If they refuse to supply because you are not the debtor on the account,it would put them in an interesting dilema i think.

 

 

Peter

[stupidboy]

Did you apply for the agrement 76 in your name or your wifes?

 

I should have made that clearer - her request was in my wife's name with her "signature".

 

I don't recall that any of our CCC's have sent anything valid to us.

 

sb

[cerberusalert]

Have a read through http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?463-Mbna-Agreements-application-Forms regarding MBNA agreements and their faults.

 

Have you sent their solicitors a CPR 31.14 Request?

[stupidboy]

Have a read through http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?463-Mbna-Agreements-application-Forms regarding MBNA agreements and their faults.

 

Have you sent their solicitors a CPR 31.14 Request?

 

Hi,

The link takes me to a page that says I'm not allowed to look at it - my account doesn't have sufficient priviliges.

 

I made a 31.16 request on my case when I received the papers, and I understand (although they refuse to tell me anything in writing) that my solicitors have also made such a request, unless their one was 31.14. I'm going to ask them again on Monday and then make a complaint to everyone I can think of if they don't tell me.

 

On my wife's card, just to be clear, we have only had DCA's chasing us thus far.

 

sb

Edited February 26, 2011 by stupidboy
bad spelling

[dadofholly]

Your Sols sound like a bit of a joke outfit.

 

In my opinion You need to complain to them about their actions - and then if you get no joy go to the Legal Ombudsman Service.

[cerberusalert]

You should make a complaint to the SRA about your solicitors; http://www.sra.org.uk/contact-us/

[Peterbard]

Hi

So I presume the DCA passed the account back to the creditor for enforcement.

It seems from reading this that the creditor was unable to come up with the original executed agreement and is making a try for the enforcement just using what paperwork they have.

I do not think they would have a chance of getting a judgement using this.

I can’t really see why they would do it unless they are trying to scare you into not contesting.

Really I think they would have had a better chance if they had sent you a recon and saying at the hearing that the original had been destroyed.

They are now going to have to base their case on the form they sent you.

Peter

[stupidboy]

You should make a complaint to the SRA about your solicitors; http://www.sra.org.uk/contact-us/

 

I will if they don't talk sense on Monday - how many other people are getting bad advice like this, I wonder?

 

sb

[stupidboy]

Hi

So I presume the DCA passed the account back to the creditor for enforcement.

It seems from reading this that the creditor was unable to come up with the original executed agreement and is making a try for the enforcement just using what paperwork they have.

I do not think they would have a chance of getting a judgement using this.

I can’t really see why they would do it unless they are trying to scare you into not contesting.

Really I think they would have had a better chance if they had sent you a recon and saying at the hearing that the original had been destroyed.

They are now going to have to base their case on the form they sent you.

Peter

 

The account went backwards and forwards for months and months. Eventually the CCC assigned the debt to CABOT and they are the ones taking me to court. The form on here is all they sent, so yes - but it now appears from comments on here that as an additional car holder I would not have been sent an agreement anyway - my wife is responsible for what I do with the card, and not me.

 

sb

[Peterbard]

The account went backwards and forwards for months and months. Eventually the CCC assigned the debt to CABOT and they are the ones taking me to court. The form on here is all they sent, so yes - but it now appears from comments on here that as an additional car holder I would not have been sent an agreement anyway - my wife is responsible for what I do with the card, and not me.

 

sb

Yes

 

The thing is if they are taking yhou to court over this then they are saying you are the other party to the contract(debtor)

By not compying with your Section78 request they are saying you are not the debtor which confirmes your defence out of their own mouths.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

The account went backwards and forwards for months and months. Eventually the CCC assigned the debt to CABOT and they are the ones taking me to court. The form on here is all they sent, so yes - but it now appears from comments on here that as an additional car holder I would not have been sent an agreement anyway - my wife is responsible for what I do with the card, and not me.

 

sb

 

Another thought

If the account was assigned . Difd you recieve a notice of assignment and to whom ws it addressed.

 

Peter

[stupidboy]

Another thought

If the account was assigned . Difd you recieve a notice of assignment and to whom ws it addressed.

 

Hi,

 

Yes, I got an assignment notice addressed to me. I can't wait for Monday -

 

sb

[Basil Fawlty]

I too, cannot access this page... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?463-Mbna-Agreements-application-Forms

It says I dont have enough privileges. Does anyone know what I need to do to access it?

 

BF