MBNA Termination

[simon]

Re: MBNA Termination

HI

I think Paul agrees me with me on this particular aspect of the law Are we talking about the same thing..
" There is no accelerated payment provision within CCA s98A. If there is a Debt still to pay, then they must allow you to pay that down. If doing so will take longer than two Months, then the time scale for Termination will have to be increased accordingly, in line with the time it will take to pay off the Balance, at the minimum rate you must maintain to perform your side of the Agreem
I was talking about this
which is factually icorrect in law in my opinion in logic and in this country. Forgive me if i left something out

Me

[simon]

Re: MBNA Termination

It was never intended to be rhetorical at all though, or certainly wasn't made to be clear - that's a fact! I have no need to use a dictionary, thanks. I was blessed with a brain and rely on that most the time. If I need a dictionary then I shouldn't be answering with that word as if I do not know what it means, i'd never use it

I know you disagree with silverbacks comments, this is evident from 2 other forums no? Whats this make it a full house?

Best of luck whatever your ultimate aim is.

Well my aim was to chronical an action i am taking against MBNA for applying interest to a terminated account.
At least that is what i thought it was.

Peter

[simon]

Re: MBNA Termination

Does that mean:

Uncanny resemblance, right down to the hair cut.

Think i will stick with PImon

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA Termination

Well my aim was to chronical an action i am taking against MBNA for applying interest to a terminated account.
At least that is what i thought it was.

Peter

Thank you for clarifying this. Now we know what's going on, best of luck

[Silverback]

Re: MBNA Termination

WTF?

Regarding siverbacks reply, it was factually incorrect, that is not my fault.

No, my reply was spot on.

I think you will find that CCA s76 and CCA s98 are limited to Fixed Term Agreements only.

There is a nonsense argument doing the rounds that when a Borrower with an Open-Ended Agreement who is not otherwise in any default, it is permissible for his Creditor to suddenly Terminate, without Notice, via s98, and also call in payment via CCA s76, also without any Notice. IOW, no need either to furnish the Borrower with any advice on Time Orders or bothersome CCA trivialities like that.

Let me guess? You think the Denyer "Amex v Brandon Judgment" (unreported) supports that? Well, that absurd Summary Judgment is being Appealed, and rightly so.

In any event, s76 was not pleaded at all in the original Claim or subsequently, and s98 was only introduced after the first instance Trial. The Claimant moved the goal posts around in a rather desperate attempt to overcome many difficulties.

That Judgment in terms of the time that must be allowed for Service of a s87(1) Default Notice when sent via Post, is now defeated by a more senior High Court Judgment, namely Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) (28 February 2011) . The full High Court Judge in that Case considered the s76/s98 argument used by the Claimant in Brandon (to try and evade their s87 difficulties), and rejected it out of hand.

If you read those two CCA Sections properly (s76 and s98), you will see how barking that argument really is. Attempting to use those Sections in the way proposed, or to evade s87 or deny the Consumer's entitlement to pay a debt off over time without fear of having the rug pulled from under them overnight and without Notice, is unlikely to win any support at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.

Using s76/s98 to evade other issues was a cunning ploy that is now well past its sell by date. That travesty of justice is unlikely to survive close scrutiny in the upper Courts. The Act is there for the protection of Debtors, not for the protection of manipulative Creditors.

I suspect you had other motives for the original Post. I do not believe that you are a genuine Consumer seeking help.

Deep joy.

Looks like I have found my first AAD Troll.

Silverback

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA Termination

Looks like I have found my first AAD Troll.

Silverback

This is Peter from LB (thought you knew)...

[helmsman]

Re: MBNA Termination

WTF?

No, my reply was spot on.

I think you will find that CCA s76 and CCA s98 are limited to Fixed Term Agreements only.

There is a nonsense argument doing the rounds that when a Borrower with an Open-Ended Agreement who is not otherwise in any default, it is permissible for his Creditor to suddenly Terminate, without Notice, via s98, and also call in payment via CCA s76, also without any Notice. IOW, no need either to furnish the Borrower with any advice on Time Orders or bothersome CCA trivialities like that.

Let me guess? You think the Denyer "Amex v Brandon Judgment" (unreported) supports that? Well, that absurd Summary Judgment is being Appealed, and rightly so.

In any event, s76 was not pleaded at all in the original Claim or subsequently, and s98 was only introduced after the first instance Trial. The Claimant moved the goal posts around in a rather desperate attempt to overcome many difficulties.

That Judgment in terms of the time that must be allowed for Service of a s87(1) Default Notice when sent via Post, is now defeated by a more senior High Court Judgment, namely Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) (28 February 2011) . The full High Court Judge in that Case considered the s76/s98 argument used by the Claimant in Brandon (to try and evade their s87 difficulties), and rejected it out of hand.

If you read those two CCA Sections properly (s76 and s98), you will see how barking that argument really is. Attempting to use those Sections in the way proposed, or to evade s87 or deny the Consumer's entitlement to pay a debt off over time without fear of having the rug pulled from under them overnight and without Notice, is unlikely to win any support at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.

Using s76/s98 to evade other issues was a cunning ploy that is now well past its sell by date. That travesty of justice is unlikely to survive close scrutiny in the upper Courts. The Act is there for the protection of Debtors, not for the protection of manipulative Creditors.

I suspect you had other motives for the original Post. I do not believe that you are genuine Consumer seeking help.

Deep joy.

Looks like I have found my first AAD Troll.

Silverback

hi,
Laymans terms please,

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA Termination

hi,
Laymans terms please,

[helmsman]

Re: MBNA Termination

sorry niddy,
what I meant was do we have a troll.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MBNA Termination

sorry niddy,
what I meant was do we have a troll.

Nooo, its just some discussion that started on other forums - our mods know about it - just lets get the facts, sit back and enjoy the lesson in the finer points of termination! I know I will....

[simon]

Re: MBNA Termination

WTF?

No, my reply was spot on.

I think you will find that CCA s76 and CCA s98 are limited to Fixed Term Agreements only.

There is a nonsense argument doing the rounds that when a Borrower with an Open-Ended Agreement who is not otherwise in any default, it is permissible for his Creditor to suddenly Terminate, without Notice, via s98, and also call in payment via CCA s76, also without any Notice. IOW, no need either to furnish the Borrower with any advice on Time Orders or bothersome CCA trivialities like that.

Let me guess? You think the Denyer "Amex v Brandon Judgment" (unreported) supports that? Well, that absurd Summary Judgment is being Appealed, and rightly so.

In any event, s76 was not pleaded at all in the original Claim or subsequently, and s98 was only introduced after the first instance Trial. The Claimant moved the goal posts around in a rather desperate attempt to overcome many difficulties.

That Judgment in terms of the time that must be allowed for Service of a s87(1) Default Notice when sent via Post, is now defeated by a more senior High Court Judgment, namely Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) (28 February 2011) . The full High Court Judge in that Case considered the s76/s98 argument used by the Claimant in Brandon (to try and evade their s87 difficulties), and rejected it out of hand.

If you read those two CCA Sections properly (s76 and s98), you will see how barking that argument really is. Attempting to use those Sections in the way proposed, or to evade s87 or deny the Consumer's entitlement to pay a debt off over time without fear of having the rug pulled from under them overnight and without Notice, is unlikely to win any support at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.

Using s76/s98 to evade other issues was a cunning ploy that is now well past its sell by date. That travesty of justice is unlikely to survive close scrutiny in the upper Courts. The Act is there for the protection of Debtors, not for the protection of manipulative Creditors.

I suspect you had other motives for the original Post. I do not believe that you are genuine Consumer seeking help.

Deep joy.

Looks like I have found my first AAD Troll.

Silverback

16100 Egg customersw had there agreemnts terminated on a cotractural term.
Section 98A3 of the CCA says that an open ended agreement can be terminated after 2 months notice. The particular aspect that your efer to in the Brandon judgement is not being appealed because it is trite law.
The rest is gibberish.
What really woprries me is the number of thanks this post got.

I thnk i will leave you to it

Good luck Paul

[garlok]

Re: MBNA Termination

Oh No not again!!!!!

Silverback is absolutely correct from my own studies of the subject.

regards
Garlok

[Silverback]

Re: MBNA Termination

Hello Niddy!

This is Peter from LB (thought you knew)...

Sorry, new to AAD, so had no idea that particularly virulent malaise had started to infect AAD as well!

If so, then the first Post was clearly a plant, and was never sincere. It was clearly intended to achieve the inevitable flame war that very nearly erupted.

It has a selective memory too, s98A(3) needs to be stated in full:

CCA 98A

(3) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination of the agreement by the creditor—

(a) the termination must be by notice served on the debtor, and

(b) the termination may not take effect until after the end of the period of two months, or such longer period as the agreement may provide, beginning with the day after the day on which notice is served.

I'll bite my tongue and hold fire.

Silverback

[pompeyfaith]

Re: MBNA Termination

Niddy, Silverback, Gorlok,

He has come to the wrong forum now as we all know who is right on the subject and hence will get no support in his drivel here.

Tried and tested legislation in a court of law will always over rule anything else.

Regards

[Miss Molly]

Re: MBNA Termination

Hi
I didnt know that i was required to ask a question. My question was a rhetorical one to the creditor. I thought that was clear obviously not. Regarding siverbacks reply, it was factually incorrect, that is not my fault.
I am mearly chronicalling an action i am taking against MBNA if people want to comment fine, if they are mistaken in there interpretation of the legislation i will comment.
I cannot really see your problem

Peter

Oh lordy, who let him in ?