mbna cc cca

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

As Enforcer says you have to keep on playing the game. We have actually been battling Barclays and Barclaycard since 2007. Had they not turned the dogs loose on us when we approached them openly and in good faith concerning our problems, they might, just might, have been paid off by us selling up. However we struggled on painfully until August 2009 and then we turned on them and not a penny has been paid on the Barclaycards, they have no legally substantive documentation and achieved with the help of a solicitor a 10% F & F on the business accounts. Yes, we have put up with hell from them including a telephone log of some 800 calls, 100 in one weekend alone. 16 DCAs and several nasty solicitors practices have been seen off. But with the help at first of a solicitor and subsequently reading up and following the help and support of AAD we have got by.

As regards Link, yes they are trouble but take a look at Harrison v Link in the legal database here at AAD and see what the court in the end thought of them. That as well went against all the normal thinking in that Keith Harrison as the plaintiff brought action against Link.


So there you go TJ you are in good hands.

regards
G

hiya Garlok,
thanks for your email, you have certainly been through it, and come out the other side.
I will have a read up on the legal database now...thank you
and yes I am so glad I have this site for info help and support......
cheers
TJ x

[garlok]

Re: mbna cc cca

Hi Garlok
I have been reading up on LINK and the many names they go by and they don't seem very nice to deal with

tj x

As Enforcer says you have to keep on playing the game. We have actually been battling Barclays and Barclaycard since 2007. Had they not turned the dogs loose on us when we approached them openly and in good faith concerning our problems, they might, just might, have been paid off by us selling up. However we struggled on painfully until August 2009 and then we turned on them and not a penny has been paid on the Barclaycards, they have no legally substantive documentation and achieved with the help of a solicitor a 10% F & F on the business accounts. Yes, we have put up with hell from them including a telephone log of some 800 calls, 100 in one weekend alone. 16 DCAs and several nasty solicitors practices have been seen off. But with the help at first of a solicitor and subsequently reading up and following the help and support of AAD we have got by.

As regards Link, yes they are trouble but take a look at Harrison v Link in the legal database here at AAD and see what the court in the end thought of them. That as well went against all the normal thinking in that Keith Harrison as the plaintiff brought action against Link.


So there you go TJ you are in good hands.

regards
G

[Enforcer]

Re: mbna cc cca

None of them are! Just play the game.

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

Its a game they play. As far as I know IDR are currently part of Link. Link has such a bad name and a number of cases have gone against their tactics so they drum up another company to front what they are doing. What you have seemingly are quite normal Notices of Assignment in Absolute.

regards
G

Hi Garlok
I have been reading up on LINK and the many names they go by and they don't seem very nice to deal with

tj x

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

In response to the letters received today, I would send the SWID letter and yes, I would send another s78. Both to Link

thanks Vint will do
cheers
Tobyjug x

[vint1954]

Re: mbna cc cca

In response to the letters received today, I would send the SWID letter and yes, I would send another s78. Both to Link

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

I would send them a sold in dispute letter and an s 78 request under separate covers.

hi Vint
I was thinking of sending a sold in dispute letter ( not sure if it would be right but I asked for help from mbna regarding a token payment and stopping interest until I could find work but they did not help in fact ignored some of my letters and just added £3k on the account and did not accept the token payment but always acknowledged it on the statement ! I have already had a cca sent from mbna, so do I request another ? and do I pay the £5 to them now. sorry if I sound stupid but I am hoping that I can either find a job and start paying off the debt or do a f&f in the future so I can stop worrying about it.
also I have looked LINK up on the internet and they sound about as caring as mbna

cheers
Tobyjug x

[vint1954]

Re: mbna cc cca

I would send them a sold in dispute letter and an s 78 request under separate covers.

[garlok]

Re: mbna cc cca

Its a game they play. As far as I know IDR are currently part of Link. Link has such a bad name and a number of cases have gone against their tactics so they drum up another company to front what they are doing. What you have seemingly are quite normal Notices of Assignment in Absolute.

regards
G

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

hi all
just a quick update. I received 2 letters today (both in the same envelope ) one from MBNA saying that my agreement has been terminated and they have sold the outstanding debt. it then goes on to say they have transferred ownership together with the right to collection to LINK FINANCIAL OUTSOURCING LIMITED.
The 2nd letter was from LINK FINANCIAL saying that MBNA have assigned LINK FINANCIAL OUTSOURCING LIMITED the benefit of the debt, AND LINK FINANCIAL OUTSOURCING LIMITED have assigned the benefit of the debt to IDR FINANCE UK 11 LIMITED. So now the balance is owed to IDR FINANCE UK 11 LIMITED.
It then goes on to say they will continue to honour the informal arrangement of £5.00 per month for 6 months and to send payment direct to them not MBNA.

wonder how much it was sold for ??? and then sold again on the same day !
TJ x

[garlok]

Re: mbna cc cca

H'mm, bad luck. At this stage and from what you have said it seems to be OK but there are better judges than me on these matters. (if it comes to it)

regards
G

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

hi Vint1954
no the full balance at that time (may 2013) was just over 18k, its now just over £19k( july 2013_[
cheers
Tobyjug x

Hi Tobyjug. Is the 2.5k just the arrears or the full ballance.

[vint1954]

Re: mbna cc cca

Hi Tobyjug. Is the 2.5k just the arrears or the full ballance.

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

Hi
no Elsa said to wait until it had been terminated and we will write back outlining how they've continually said they will help and done absolutely nothing, when I had been open and honest about my situation. Then complain to the Financial Ombudsman if they don't agree to my token payment of £5 per month.( but to be honest I thought Elsa said to wait until the account is sold only just realised I should of wrote to them already) OOPS OOPS OOPS
Tobyjug x

Ok



Ok I've had wee read back, did you complain to the FOS as Elsa suggested?

[tobyjug]

Re: mbna cc cca

Hi and thank you for the info, the notice was dated 1/5/13 and I received it on 4/5/13 it stated that I needed to pay £2.5k to remedy the breach by the 20/5/13 and on the top it states, served under section 87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974.
so I think its correct
tobyjug x

There are a number of things as to form and content and time to remedy. Can you be exactly sure of the day it actually fell through your letter box? If so from that date it should state a specific date for remedy and it must be 14 days (without looking it up LOL) or more from the date of service (i.e. through your letterbox), It must also, as this is a CCA agreement state that it is served under section 87(1) of the Act. It also most importantly be ACCURATE and state the necessary action you can take for remedy of the default. This is different to getting a default on your credit file by the way and the two should not be confused. If you look around the forum there are a number of discussions about DNs. However be aware from Paul's expertise on this subject a defective DN CAN be remedied by a re issue correctly. But don't tell them at all it is defective and heaven forbid it gets to the court door then you tell them. Nasty little delaying tactic and why not? However many re-issue and still get it wrong and after couple of attempts the judge may well get fed up and strike out.

regards
G