MBNA and Arden

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

hi I've now managed to get my scanner working and have sent the agreement and the terms and conditions to Niddy for his opinion.
I have read through the UE threads and I think the CCA is enforceable, can't spot any obvious holes - and the PPI terms seem also to be clearly set out. My point is that I did not agree to the PPI and did not sign the CCA for this bit so the overall amount owing contains an element that I did not agree to. Now I can try to get the PPI back and I can't see how they could refuse, but I just wondered whether it affected the enforceability of the whole agreement?

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Please accept my apologies Flowerpower, I have been slow to get my head around this. The PPI does not contain separate terms - it just says what the interest figure and the total will be. I'll wait for Niddy's opinion but this does look UE.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA and Arden

s.18 is compliant as the PPI terms are clear under the loan terms (ie PT's).

However that said the terms are sketchy plus there should be a separate copy for the PPI, as right now there is nothing identifying the PT's. This is currently

However easy to remedy if they go get some clear terms and recon it, which I doubt they'll do at this stage. That said, I would be sending this off as things stand --> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

Also, in your email you stated you've requested a PPI refund, why? This could change things - you never do a reclaim on an UE account unless they turn nasty, after all you're not going to get any of the cash - the exception would be where you know the refund would clear any loan balance - is this the case here or what? Please elaborate on what, exactly, you've done regards a reclaim....

Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Please accept my apologies Flowerpower, I have been slow to get my head around this. The PPI does not contain separate terms - it just says what the interest figure and the total will be. I'll wait for Niddy's opinion but this does look UE.

It does, under the main loan PT's (top left of page 1) - directly underneath it shows the PPI element, with APR and the figure of £5k odd..... Only flaw with that, is the fact it does not list a separate monthly repayment for the PPI element, yea it's easy for you to deduct the loan from the monthly payment to work it out but the agreement should spell it out to you, hence that is another reason for unenforceability in this instance.

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

niddy say CCA is OK.

however, there is a twist in my case. The CCA needed two signatures for the two parts of the multiple agreement, the loan and the PPI. I signed only for the loan, once I had seen how much the PPI was going to cost and that it was front-loaded. However, MBNA charged me for the PPI anyway and it is easy to see why because the agreement was not broken down into the component parts required by the regulations on multiple agreements so their brain-dead account junkies could not or would not make a recalculation to remove the PPI. In effect, this was making the PPI compulsory since there was no way of getting the PPI off other than by refusing the whole loan - though I did not know this at the time.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA and Arden

niddy say CCA is OK.

however, there is a twist in my case. The CCA needed two signatures for the two parts of the multiple agreement, the loan and the PPI. I signed only for the loan, once I had seen how much the PPI was going to cost and that it was front-loaded. However, MBNA charged me for the PPI anyway and it is easy to see why because the agreement was not broken down into the component parts required by the regulations on multiple agreements so their brain-dead account junkies could not or would not make a recalculation to remove the PPI. In effect, this was making the PPI compulsory since there was no way of getting the PPI off other than by refusing the whole loan - though I did not know this at the time.

see my above 2 posts - me thinks you're getting confused somewhat

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

I am confused! I have started a complaint to MBNA about putting on PPI without my consent. I did this to get Arden off my back, who are currently threatening to send bailiffs in. If I get messed around by MBNA I can take the case to the FOS and this will tie things up for at least a year. I am not expecting to get PPI back. I will now send a UE - missing prescribed terms letter - but can I ask to whom? MBNA or to Moorcroft who currently own the debt? I am not sending anything to Arden other than a "account in dispute" (and a "cease harassment" if it becomes necessary) I asked them to "prove it" - they ignored that.

Thank you for your help and advice - I feel I have made a lot of progress today, and I think I am last getting the hang of all this.

Cheers

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Arden vanished very smartly once I wrote and told them it was unenforceable and sent it back to Moorcroft. Moorcroft did nothing for ages and then appointed Fredricksons. (Rather scared of Fredricksons to be truthful)
I ignored the initial letters- contact us or we will trash your credit rating - bit late for that guys - then I wrote and told them it was unenforceable and sent them a copy of the CCA. Their response was that if I "required documentation" I was to request it from Moorcroft, they gave the address and spelt out the law, quoting sections 77-79 CCA 1974. It looks like a measured and helpful letter except it was in response to mine which said I already had it, enclosing a copy. I wrote again in sterner terms and told them that I would apply for a copy from Moorcroft but they were not to think of reconstituting a CCA compliant document because I already had a copy of the original.

I had three responses to this:- a gigantic yellow postcard not in an envelope saying I was a CONFIRMED RESIDENT and that I had not contacted them and they were going to take legal action. The second were day-time telephone calls which I was not in to receive. The third response, which was a tetchy one, that if I "required documentation" I was to write to Moorcroft. This was clearly not a template letter. At the end of the letter they said that they "advised me" not to send any further correspondence to them, that they would wait fourteen days and then MAY resume debt collection activity.

I have written back saying that if they write to me then I will respond and if they want me to cease writing to them then they can tell me they have ceased activities on the account.

Is this typical behaviour from them? What will they do next?

[SA Gold]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Is this typical behaviour from them?

hi.
If i understand correctly, things are going around in Circles - which is about the norm for these clowns.

What will they do next?

That depends on how near the top of the pile your stuff is! Take a look at the diaries and you will note some people have peace and quiet for sometime, others aren't so lucky.

Really depends on the creditor, DCA involved, balance and how straight forward it is.

Fingers crossed you have a bit of peace from these jokers.

Best
Missy

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

I am getting confused again. Please could someone clear up a point for me. Fredrickson are insisting that I write to Moorcroft for a copy of my CCA and have also told me not to write to them. (Bit weird when a DCA sends a cease harassment letter!) I have done a CCA request to Moorcroft in the past and they sent a microfiche copy which Niddy has deemed because it is missing prescribed terms. My question is:- it is also unenforceable on another level, that it is a copy of a copy cos its microfiched? In which case they probably don't have the original, why would they, if they have copied everything? Is there any point in asking them using CPUTR 2008 if they have the original? And does this matter - can they take me into court relying on a microfiche?

I worry because I think Bryan Carter will shortly take an interest in my case and I don't like the sound of him

[MrsD]

Re: MBNA and Arden

you should always send the CCA request to whoever is chasing you at the time, one CCA per debt, if the OC or whoever doesn't answer it then you treat it as in dispute. If you have a "live" CCA then you should be using the sold in dispute letter to subsequent pursuers, does that help?

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Thanks Mrs D. So I should send a new request to Fredrickson, despite them telling me to go straight to Moorcroft?

[MrsD]

Re: MBNA and Arden

no remember one CCA request per debt, so you would have sent a sold in dispute letter to Fredricksons (no need to be scared of any of these muppets)

[Sappho]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Just a quickie. Freds have written saying in a weirdly worded letter that "Our client's position is that the agreement is enforceable..." and are insisting I set up payment proposals with them whilst I dispute the enforceability of the agreement with Moorcroft. I will of course do no such thing but I have read elsewhere that a company cannot say an agreement is enforceable when it isn't. Is this CPUTR 2008? and is it worth pointing this out?
Freds insisted that I applied to Moorcroft for a CCA which I did but Moorcroft haven't complied. Freds say they complied on the 8th August 2013, but I think they mean they complied last year in August 2012 which is when I was sent the microfiche which Niddy ruled was UE. Certainly nothing has arrived by today. I can ask for a CCA as many times as I like, can't I?

[SA Gold]

Re: MBNA and Arden

Just a quickie. Freds have written saying in a weirdly worded letter that "Our client's position is that the agreement is enforceable..."

All these Clowns we fight take that attitude mate, i'd not worry.

and are insisting I set up payment proposals with them whilst I dispute the enforceability of the agreement with Moorcroft.

Same.

I can ask for a CCA as many times as I like, can't I?

I recall reading that one can request every thirty days, but in all honesty why would you want to?

If the CCA request to the creditor has been sent and signed for i'd be tempted to ignore any litter like this. Please post up for checking thou

Cheers
Missy