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
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fred Bassett
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by oscar View Post
    Its deemed to be served (delivered) two (working??) days after it was written. Knowing MBNA, was probably sent second class and wouldnt have arrived until the tuesday or wednesday
    Thanks for that Oscar.

    Regards.

    Fred
    Last edited by Fred Bassett; 25 March 2012, 19:25. Reason: Whoops - thanked the wrong person!

    Leave a comment:


  • oscar
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
    Thanks M1. How does the Monday bit come about?

    Regards.

    Fred
    Its deemed to be served (delivered) two (working??) days after it was written. Knowing MBNA, was probably sent second class and wouldnt have arrived until the tuesday or wednesday

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bassett
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
    4th September 2008 is a Thursday so it's not deemed served until Monday 8th. So although your sentiment is correct it's actually more in your favour than you think.

    M1
    Thanks M1. How does the Monday bit come about?

    Regards.

    Fred

    Leave a comment:


  • mystery1
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
    Here's the default they issued:


    This gives 15 days between the date of the letter and the date by which I need to remedy it, but that doesn't allow for posting. I didn't keep the envelope it came in.

    If 2 days is allowed for posting then my understanding is that this is defective. Is this correct?

    Regards.

    Fred
    4th September 2008 is a Thursday so it's not deemed served until Monday 8th. So although your sentiment is correct it's actually more in your favour than you think.

    M1

    Leave a comment:


  • oscar
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
    I have long believed that the Moron Bank of North America liked to do things their own way, but I had never before seen that they had expressed in writing their utter contempt for the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

    Had they never read section 87 - link - which states why a default notice is necessary?
    Do you not know that they consider themselves exempt from many UK laws and practices because they are "an American Bank"

    Their staff have even been trained to state as such in certain departments!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bassett
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Here's the default they issued:


    This gives 15 days between the date of the letter and the date by which I need to remedy it, but that doesn't allow for posting. I didn't keep the envelope it came in.

    If 2 days is allowed for posting then my understanding is that this is defective. Is this correct?

    Regards.

    Fred

    Leave a comment:


  • CleverClogs (RIP)
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by alangee View Post
    The reason I ask is that following my Subject Access Request, I asked MBNA for a copy of the DN, or proof that one was sent. I got the following answer:

    "MBNA did not issue, or were required to issue a notice of default and/or termination and therefore do not hold a copy of any such notice on our system."

    I never received one, nor could I find any reference to it in the documentation they sent me.
    I have long believed that the Moron Bank of North America liked to do things their own way, but I had never before seen that they had expressed in writing their utter contempt for the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

    Had they never read section 87 - link - which states why a default notice is necessary?

    Leave a comment:


  • oscar
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by alangee View Post
    Fred

    The reason I ask is that following my Subject Access Request, I asked MBNA for a copy of the DN, or proof that one was sent. I got the following answer:

    "MBNA did not issue, or were required to issue a notice of default and/or termination and therefore do not hold a copy of any such notice on our system."

    I never received one, nor could I find any reference to it in the documentation they sent me.

    Alan
    Thats strange. As far as I am aware, MBNA have always been pretty good at sending such items out ...... whether they are compliant or not is a different issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • alangee
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Fred

    The reason I ask is that following my Subject Access Request, I asked MBNA for a copy of the DN, or proof that one was sent. I got the following answer:

    "MBNA did not issue, or were required to issue a notice of default and/or termination and therefore do not hold a copy of any such notice on our system."

    I never received one, nor could I find any reference to it in the documentation they sent me.

    Alan
    Last edited by alangee; 25 March 2012, 17:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bassett
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by alangee View Post
    Fred

    Did MBNA ever send you a Default Notice?

    Alan
    Hi Alan,

    I was looking for that last night - I can't remember. I'll come back to you on that one.

    Regards.

    Fred

    Leave a comment:


  • CleverClogs (RIP)
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by PlanB View Post
    Her lawyers have advised that the DJ was wrong to accept compliance with s.78 since the recon Ts & Cs were blatantly inaccurate when cross-referenced with other evidence (such as account statement details). This wrong decision would justify an appeal to the High Court; however since the DJ had already ruled in favour of the Defendant on three other legal arguments there was no need to appeal because the claim was dismissed anyway. One can only guess why the DJ got it wrong, but the evidence was staring her in the face.
    Perhaps that was the mayhem to which Niddy alluded?

    Leave a comment:


  • CleverClogs (RIP)
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
    Does that mean that they can send any old crap as terms and claim it to be enforceable?
    Of course they can, but that does not mean they'd win were they sufficiently unwise to take such a case to court.

    Members of the Moron Church aver that Joseph Smith was given his stodgy scripture on sheets of burnished copper or of gold, but they cannot prove that because the metal sheets mysteriously disappeared shortly after Smith had transcribed them.

    Members of the Papist Church claim that, at the height of the mass, the communion wafers are miraculously changed into the body of Christ, yet a DNA analysis would suggest that Christ's body was made from flour and water.

    Leave a comment:


  • alangee
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Fred

    Did MBNA ever send you a Default Notice?

    Alan

    Leave a comment:


  • oscar
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    Originally posted by Fred Bassett View Post
    Yes, it's been going on since then, but what's changed is that Arrow Global now have it.
    Arrow have mine - they wrote to me, as did MBNA to confirm the assignment. That was 4 months ago and I have heard nothing since!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrsD
    replied
    Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

    thank you Plan B!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X