Help needed with court claim issued by DCA regarding old MBNA credit Card

[TheDarkKnight]

I wonder if the learned amongst you can help me with the following.

 

It is regarding a credit card I took out with MBNA in August 2000.

It was assigned to a DCA and the DCA has issued a claim against me.

 

For as back as I can remember whenever I have asked MBNA for a copy of the executed agreement

they have supplied the following documents, copies of which I have attached.

 

1. 1. Signature form

2. 2. T&Cs of credit agreement

3. 3. Financial and related conditions

4. 4. Latest T&Cs

 

When I took out the card, I called MBNA, my details were taken over the phone

and a pre-populated application form was then sent to me in the post.

I signed it and returned it.

I don’t ever remember receiving the two documents (2 & 3) above - T&Cs of credit agreement and Financial and related conditions.

 

Both MBNA and the DCA have insisted they relate to the same credit card

and that the document (4) Latest T&Cs were the current ones for the same credit card.

 

A few months ago I applied to have the claim struck out on the basis that the prescribed terms were missing

and that the default notice was invalid as it made reference to a non-existent condition.

 

 

This is really obvious when the documents are checked and cross referenced.

 

I pointed out the following and mentioned Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd

(1) Condition 3 refers to non-existent condition 2.4.

(2) Condition 4B refers to non-existent conditions 2.4, 3.5 and 3.6.

(3) Condition 5 refers to non-existent condition 2.1

(4) Condition 5a refers to non-existent condition 2.1

(5) Condition 5c refers to non-existent condition 13.1

(6) Condition 8 (APR) refers to non-existent condition 1.11

(7) Condition 9 refers to non-existent condition 1.8

(4) Condition 13a refers to non-existent condition 2.1

(5) Condition 13b refers to non-existent condition 13.1

(6) Condition 15 is misleading

 

I also pointed out that in the document I signed there isn’t a term stating the credit limit

or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

 

The judge didn’t strike out the claim as she claimed I hadn’t convinced her enough!!

 

Now as the matter stands, the claim will be heard sometime next year.

 

 

In the mean time, I have successfully claimed back PPI on the account.

I am now disputing the default notice on the basis that as MBNA debited PPI premiums without my authority

the figure quoted in the default notice is incorrect and invalidates the default notice.

 

The fact that they refunded the premiums without much of a fight is confirmation of this.

For this I will be relying on the WOODCHESTER LEASE MANAGEMENT V SWAIN judgement.

 

However a couple of days ago the DCA sent me a new set of T&Cs (headed t&cs just supplied) in the attachments.

They now claim that these are the T&Cs that were applicable to my credit card when I first took it out.

 

 

As you can it is illegible but all the missing prescribed terms seem to be there.

Where do I stand with this?

If they were T&Cs should they be headed Credit Agreement regulated by the CCA 1974?

 

It just seems a little too convenient that after I raised the above points in court,

they are able to produce a document addressing all the missing prescribed terms.

 

Can anyone help me with and offer some advise as to how to challenge them on this.

Many Thanks

[citizenB]

Responding to S.O.S sent to admin

 

As there is a claim involved in this, you are now located in the Financial Legal section.

[citizenB]

Did they refund the PPI to you personally, or did they refund it to the account ?

[TheDarkKnight]

Did they refund the PPI to you personally, or did they refund it to the account ?

 

Hi, they refunded it to me personally.

However, as the default notice includes the unauthorised PPI and the claim is based on that amount, my argument is that if judgement is given it will have the effect of the DCA clawing back the PPI refund

[colin11]

Surely as it has been sold on to the dca, they would own the whole debt

 

The question of miss sold ppi has already been addressed via refund from the OC

 

If they reduced the ppi paid from the claim, surely that would have the effect of being refunded your ppi twice

Edited November 5, 2014 by colin11
spelling