Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

I'm a little lost now folks, where does this leave me? I think I know - I think it's unenforceable, but it would be nice to be sure.

Regards.

Fred

S.127 kicks in. Your s.78 request WAS complied with as you have an agreement. They fail to provide terms thus in line with s.127 it cannot be enforced.

If they remedy it and send terms BEFORE any action then that changes things but for now it's unenforceable as per the reason above.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

ps mayhew only failed as the judge bottled it. It failed - trust me

[Fred Bassett]

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 a little lost now folks, where does this leave me? I think I know - I think it's unenforceable, but it would be nice to be sure.

Regards.

Fred

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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

S.127 supersedes and thus this is UE.

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

I Would send this back------> Threat by Creditor - Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action

Send the above ASAP!

[Fred Bassett]

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

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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)

[oscar]

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.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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.

[MrsD]

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.

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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

[Fred Bassett]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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?

[mystery1]

Re: Fred Bassett v Arrow Global

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