Link & MBNA

[arthur256]

In another thread there appears the following statement regarding CCA agreement defaults:

 

"You have not replied to this request within the statutory period and therefore, under s78(6) of the Act, you may not enforce any agreement you may suppose to exist between us. That means, you may not

 

1) request payment on the account

2) add any charges or interest to the account

3) communicate any details regarding the account to any third parties. This inludes but is not limited to Credit Reference Agencies."

 

Is item 3 really true?

 

I have a dispute with Link over an invalidly assigned MBNA debt, which has been in default for several years due to Link persistently failing to send the Consumer Credit Agreement. They eventually sent me somebody else's CCA and I have reported this to the Information Commissioner. So it remains in default.

 

They have continued to supply adverse data to Equifax and Experian, probably CallCredit too. If item 3 above is correct, how can I get the information deleted please? I already have a Notice of Dispute filed with both main CRAs, who said (when I first mentioned the situation) that they cannot remove it without Link's agreement.

 

TIA

[citizenB]

Sadly this is incorrect.

 

Even if they are in breach of their s78 obligations then they can write to you / telephone you / update credit files and even issue a claim. What they CANNOT do is obtain a judgment. I know quite bizarre but this is the way it is.

 

Is this an ex MBNA account ? When was the first default marker entered onto the account by MBNA ? Do you know when you defaulted on the account ?

[arthur256]

Thanks. I thought so!

 

MBNA - yes.

 

Account supposedly defaulted and sold on 30/01/2008.

 

However it was subject to an ongoing repayment plan by agreement with my wife on my behalf, due to health/disability issues.

 

The assignment was invalid because the account was in dispute, and also in breach of what MBNA had agreed with my wife,

namely that if I paid for 3 months they would accept 30% in full and final settlement.

 

Somebody at MBNA said it was sold because I had not paid in January 2008, obviously not aware that January has 31 days.

 

Link have sent me a statement from MBNA which clearly shows a payment on 30/01/2008.

 

I am prepared to take Link to Court for harassing us over the five and a half years, failure to comply with my request under Section 77-79 of the CCA, holding of and transmission of my data to Equifax and Experian when not entitled, and illegally sending a third party's copy agreement to me.

 

I could use my Solicitor but would find the whole business awkward, as they now consider me a HNW client!

 

(I would have been happy to pay 30% to MBNA, who were not unreasonable, just somebody got his dates in a muddle).

 

Regards

 

Arthur

Edited June 29, 2013 by arthur256
tidy up format

[dx100uk]

an mbna debt with a discount

 

that means something is WRONG!!

 

sar MBNA and find it , prob ppi/PENALTY charges.

 

I would not be rushing into court for those reasons

 

as for link/mbna you might like to read the durkin thread/judgement.

 

link are quite entitled to mark your cra file if they own the debt.

 

what is the defaulted date as per the cra summary?

 

dx

[arthur256]

Thanks.

 

There is no PPI involved.

 

I have never opted in to PPI except on one particular loan, and in that case I ended up putting in a huge claim when hospitalized for six months. I got the maximum benefit in fact and have been disabled ever since. Definitely PPI not applicable here.

 

I think the 30% discount offered was because of my disability.

 

One bank wrote off £2.5K completely due to my health.

 

I don't agree that Link own anything, as the purported assignment was invalid due to MBNA breaching the existing repayment agreement.

 

Link were told this in 2008 and have done nothing at all to prove ownership.

 

They are just relying on the fact that they had posted details with CRAs.

 

Defaulted date as per the CRA summary is 30/01/2008 as previously posted.

 

As far as I can ascertain, Durkin remains unresolved - unless this has changed. I am reluctant to rely on an earlier stage of what is, overall, still unresolved.

 

Arthur

Edited June 29, 2013 by arthur256
typo

[dx100uk]

then it'll be of your file next jan so i'd ignore them

 

dx

[arthur256]

Indeed. I have been ignoring them, but am quite keen to have them on the receiving end of some judgment about harassment and dubious practice. I took a fringe bank to court earlier this year, and got a favourable settlement, on a completely unrelated matter, but I consider Link to be a far worse setup causing many people a lot of pain.

 

Arthur

Edited June 29, 2013 by arthur256
unsigned

[dx100uk]

arther you have my support

 

anything to nail link is good

 

sadly we see but .0000001% of the 1000'000's of people they must be diddling money out of

through nefarious means, esp on old students loans sold to thesis [link] here on cag.

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sadly an account being ''in dispute'' does NOT make sale or assignment invalid, a creditor 'considers there is no valid dispute' and so can dispose of the account.

[arthur256]

But... MBNA admitted that they had made a mistake less than a month after they (purportedly) assigned it

and agreed there was no default as I had paid on time

(and Link have copied to me recently the statement showing this).

MBNA had records of the offer agreed with my wife.

They said they were going to contact Link and get it put right as the assignment was invalid,

but AFAIK never did, or more likely Link were difficult about it.

I have consistently denied the validity of the assignment,

and Link have not proved anything otherwise.

They go quiet for perhaps a year and then start phoning e.g. when we are on holiday.

 

I think I saw a post on CAG from somebody working for a solicitor.

Would that be the sort of person who could take this on for me?

I am able to pay reasonable charges even though disabled and retired.

 

Arthur

Edited June 30, 2013 by arthur256
dx

[arthur256]

This appears closed now. The CRA entries have "dropped off" last month.