Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

[Susie]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Whoever you send it to cannot use it as a payment against the account as the template is carefully worded to not acknowledge that the account is yours and says something to the point that this money is to be used for the purpose of the CCA and for no other purpose. If they did use it to pay against the account they would have to remove it immediately.

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

That is stated in the CCA template letter.

I'd have thought so, but neither they nor i have read it

M1

[swanfan]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Include a note to say that it must only be used for the S78 request and nothibng else. They could obviously ignore it but you'd have proof you didn't make payment later on if needed.

M1

That is stated in the CCA template letter.

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Include a note to say that it must only be used for the S78 request and nothibng else. They could obviously ignore it but you'd have proof you didn't make payment later on if needed.

M1

[Deepie]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Just a quickie. I understand that if I make a CCA request it should go to Moorcroft as they are dealing with this account, but who should I make the postal order payable to - Moorcroft or Arrow Global. I am very wary of making any payments to Arrow Global as I don't want them to claim that this is a payment against the account.

Regards.

Fred

CCA request it should go to Moorcroft as they are dealing with this account & PO for £ 1.00

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Just a quickie. I understand that if I make a CCA request it should go to Moorcroft as they are dealing with this account, but who should I make the postal order payable to - Moorcroft or Arrow Global. I am very wary of making any payments to Arrow Global as I don't want them to claim that this is a payment against the account.

Regards.

Fred

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Are they still ringing you after all these years???

Years ago, I changed the number they had for me to an 0700 number through dmclub.co.uk. This is a voicemail service so they can't get through to me even if they tried - which nobody does nowadays.

I have no doubt Moorcroft would try it if they had my number, but they won't get very far.

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

A quick check on Who Calls Me says that this is MBNA/Debt Clear Recoveries (MBNA company I think). In the days before I told them to go forth, half the calls I got from this lot were from Ireland. Even back in 2005, they knew they had a huge problem with these accounts.

Sometimes these companies work in mysterious way. Especially this one. For a telephone bank they had an impressive array of threatograms (the array was impressive, not the message they conveyed) and as has already been stated, they didn't seem to care one jot about UK law.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Another odd detail about that letter is that the 'phone number given - 0161 819 2288 - is not in Chester but in Manchester.

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

However you're still worrying and going over old ground unnecessarily. It's ue - end of.

They won't take action. If they did then great. Bloody marvellous - but they won't.

Just relax. It's ue and will stay that way

OK, cheers. I'll send of the letter as advised and see what happens.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

However you're still worrying and going over old ground unnecessarily. It's ue - end of.

They won't take action. If they did then great. Bloody marvellous - but they won't.

Just relax. It's ue and will stay that way

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

If it's in your agreement they can sell then they can. The state of the account is not relevant.

M1

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

Incidentally, does the defective default notice have any other effect, like on the sale of this account to Arrow Global? Were MBNA legally entitled to do that?

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

The default amount was about 10% of the current balance. It's nice to have that up my sleeve if this gets too heavy, but I'm not sure that it will do.

Cheers.

Fred

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

1. Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7
This states:-

"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

2. Practice Direction
Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail
"With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1.

Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2.

To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-


(a)

in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;


(b)

in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.


"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any band holiday.

3.

Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4.

This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

8 March 1985
J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master
Queen's Bench Division



M1