GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script Fred Bassett v Arrow Global - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 template Next
  • #1

    Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Long story short:

    This one has been going on since 2008 when I stopped paying MBNA after they sent me this in response to a CCA request:



    There has been a lot of correspondence since then and various DCA's - Iqor, AIG, Aegis & Wescot have tried to get me to cough up. This is now with Arrow Global and they have appointed Moorcroft to deal with it. Here is Moorcroft's first letter which I received today:



    Now this is clearly unenforceable - no prescribed terms, barely legible etc. etc., but I'm intrigued by one thing. My understanding is that once MBNA sent me this in response to a CCA request, then that was all they could rely on should they take it to court. Is this the case? and also, if it is the case, is this all Arrow Global can rely on too?

    Regards to all.

    Fred
    Last edited by Fred Bassett; 24 March 2012, 17:41. Reason: Typo. I hate typos.
    Tags: accounts, action, arrow, arrow global, breach, cca, cca request, church, claim, class, cold, con, cons, consumer, court, creditor, dca, dca's, debt, debtor, default, default notice, documents, failed, fee, law, legal, letter, lost, mbna, money, moorcroft, niddy, parliament, pay, prescribed terms, safe, sar, signature, stay, stop, template, templates, thank you, threat, unenforceability, unenforceable, unfair
  • #2
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    I Would send this back------> Threat by Creditor - Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action
    I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

    If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

      They really do need to change their templates..... that one's been going for at least 6 years...
      Remember the mantra:
      NEVER communicate by 'phone.
      Send EVERYTHING by Recorded/Special Delivery
      Keep a copy of EVERYTHING sent
      Keep hold of EVERYTHING received
      PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

      I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

      If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

        Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
        Long story short:

        My understanding is that once MBNA sent me this in response to a CCA request, then that was all they could rely on should they take it to court. Is this the case?
        It is curable.

        http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

        "I agree that this is a dilemma in the sense that the debtor is faced with gambling or playing safe. But it hardly follows that an unfair relationship has thereby arisen. His "dilemma" arises partly as a result of the fact that Parliament has decreed that a s78 breach is curable"

        M1

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

          Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
          It is curable.

          http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

          "I agree that this is a dilemma in the sense that the debtor is faced with gambling or playing safe. But it hardly follows that an unfair relationship has thereby arisen. His "dilemma" arises partly as a result of the fact that Parliament has decreed that a s78 breach is curable"

          M1
          Isn't the other side of the 'Carey coin' the fact that, whilst they can essentially make something up to comply with a S78 request, they must have the original documentation if they wish to proceed to court?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

            Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
            It is curable.

            http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

            "I agree that this is a dilemma in the sense that the debtor is faced with gambling or playing safe. But it hardly follows that an unfair relationship has thereby arisen. His "dilemma" arises partly as a result of the fact that Parliament has decreed that a s78 breach is curable"

            M1
            But does this 'cure' it? I had a response from MBNA and that was it. It was my understanding that as this response was made because of my S78 request, once they'd responded, that was all they could rely on. I can understand that if the creditor doesn't even have what MBNA sent me, that they could 'make something up', but MBNA did respond and did send me what they had.

            Does this mean that Arrow Global can now have another go and if so, what difference will it make? This is all they have, so nothing they construct now is enforceable, or is it?

            Regards.

            Fred

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

              Hi Fred

              Have you kept all the correspondence from the various DCAs?
              Have you replied to MBNA to tell them it is unenforceable?

              While this is clearly UE, MBNA very often admit in a letter to you, can you check everything to see if there is one among your correpondence, it's sometimes not immediately obvious because although they admit its UE they always tell you that you still must pay.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
                Isn't the other side of the 'Carey coin' the fact that, whilst they can essentially make something up to comply with a S78 request, they must have the original documentation if they wish to proceed to court?
                Paras 108 and 234, if memory serves me right. UE is easier to argue with pre-2007 accounts but post-2007 accounts have not been argued in terms of UE here (or elsewhere, to me knowledge) using Carey.

                I have seen Moorcroft with CPUTR three times re. different accounts but all of these have been pre-2007.
                Remember the mantra:
                NEVER communicate by 'phone.
                Send EVERYTHING by Recorded/Special Delivery
                Keep a copy of EVERYTHING sent
                Keep hold of EVERYTHING received
                PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

                I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                  The fact it has been sold to Arrow should tell you one thing. You have more chance of finding a snowball in hell than this ending up in court.

                  I too have seen Moorcroft off - without using CPUTR - just the normal templates that MBNA have failed to adequately respond.
                  I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                  If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                    Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
                    It is curable.

                    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

                    "I agree that this is a dilemma in the sense that the debtor is faced with gambling or playing safe. But it hardly follows that an unfair relationship has thereby arisen. His "dilemma" arises partly as a result of the fact that Parliament has decreed that a s78 breach is curable"

                    M1
                    New case law since that mate. Even as recent (not case law but deffo something to consider) as the mayhem (sp) case that Paul recently dealt with. If they litigate on the back of a s.78 failure then it should be kicked out.

                    That's the cold fact of the matter. And as above; due to mbna being in default of the lawful s.78 by not sending the correct documents (where's the PT's?) it'll be unenforceable (s.127)
                    I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

                    If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                      Thanks to all for the various responses. I have kept all of the correspondence relating to this, but I don't yhink there is anything from MBNA admitting that it is UE, quite the opposite in fact.

                      However, whilst they argued otherwise, they never took me to court and at one point I was offered a 60% discount by Aegis to settle this. MBNA clearly thought they didn't have a chance, but that doesn't mean that Arrow Global won't give it a go. It's over 10K so they might consider it worth their while.

                      Regards.

                      Fred

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                        Originally posted by in 2 deep View Post
                        I Would send this back------> Threat by Creditor - Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action
                        Send the above ASAP!
                        I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

                        If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                          Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
                          Send the above ASAP!
                          I'll do that. I'll have to modify it a bit or it won't quite make sense, but I'll get it off to them soonish.

                          I've already emailed them to say I don't know what they are talking about and could they please send me some more details, so as soon as I get their response, I'll send that one off.

                          There are probably quite a few of these ex-MBNA accounts about at the moment.

                          Regards.

                          Fred

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                            Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
                            New case law since that mate. Even as recent (not case law but deffo something to consider) as the mayhem (sp) case that Paul recently dealt with. If they litigate on the back of a s.78 failure then it should be kicked out.

                            That's the cold fact of the matter. And as above; due to mbna being in default of the lawful s.78 by not sending the correct documents (where's the PT's?) it'll be unenforceable (s.127)

                            What case law ?

                            S127 has no bearing on s78 hence s78 non compliance is catered for in s78 itself. Non compliance means unenforceable as we all know. Also s78 requires no signature etc. Mayhew failed on s78 but won on s127. The s78 case was not an issue for the judges and the judge said s78 had been complied with. (para 14)

                            Non compliance with s127 is permanent. S78 isn't.

                            M1

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

                              Agreed s.78 is temporary but look at the agreement...

                              S.127 supersedes and thus this is UE.
                              I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

                              If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 template Next
                              Working...
                              X