Got an MBNA C/C Written Off - March 2008!

jamalfatty

I cant believe this is still ongoing from yesterday! I think one thing is missing here though, lots of talk about legal documents, contracts not being enforcable etc, not least of which is from cashpig, but from what everything the OP has said (and his alter ego), they have yet to point out a single thing that was wrong with the written contract which he signed and the whole agreement and thus debt was based on.

There was also a post or two about only the good points of the card being explained, think someone should explain how a sales pitch works

never-in-doubt

jamalfatty wrote: »

I cant believe this is still ongoing from yesterday! I think one thing is missing here though, lots of talk about legal documents, contracts not being enforcable etc, not least of which is from cashpig, but from what everything the OP has said (and his alter ego), they have yet to point out a single thing that was wrong with the written contract which he signed and the whole agreement and thus debt was based on.

There was also a post or two about only the good points of the card being explained, think someone should explain how a sales pitch works

It doesn't matter why the CCA was wrong, but from past history (i.e. pre 2007) they have forgot to add the APR and monthly equivalent onto the CCA which renders any agreement unenforceable.

The in's and out's don't matter - the principle remains the same that the bank issued yet another unlawfully binding contract and as a result, they have lost out.

crazyfj

They will probably sell the debt onto a collection agency, if you have a default on your credit record I don't think it will go away that easy.

jamalfatty

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It doesn't matter why the CCA was wrong, but from past history (i.e. pre 2007) they have forgot to add the APR and monthly equivalent onto the CCA which renders any agreement unenforceable.

The in's and out's don't matter - the principle remains the same that the bank issued yet another unlawfully binding contract and as a result, they have lost out.

I think you should read the thread from the beginning (not least because it's quite a good laugh) - unless I've missed something cashpig/AJ3456/whateverhisnameis hasnt said there was a problem with the CCA at all, just that they have claimed they were told one thing on the phone and then the written contract (which takes precedence) was different. Nothing that has been posted in this whole lengthy saga has suggested the CCA was incorrect in some manner

Cashpig74

much appreciated Never in Doubt - sometimes there are just born losers and they all seem to be online tonight.

Jamal - i did not post this to PROVE anything to anyone and I may even be wrong - which i am not afraid to admit - i only stick by what I claim and that was what I was TOLD. This card has nothing to do with unenforceablility but more to do with me complaining that it was mis-sold on sales grounds.

which it was - but MBNA are not willing to accept that officially.

Does it matter; really? NO
Am I going to die: NO
Will I ever recover from this before I am an old man?? YES OF COURSE

It's only a poxy credit card.

Cashpig74

crazyfj wrote: »

They will probably sell the debt onto a collection agency, if you have a default on your credit record I don't think it will go away that easy.

The more I have looked into it, the more I think you are right, but still, I was told something very differnt on the phone. I was naive to trust verbal agreements and sales ppl - my fault, but i'll learn from that for the future.

never-in-doubt

jamalfatty wrote: »

I think you should read the thread from the beginning (not least because it's quite a good laugh) - unless I've missed something cashpig/AJ3456/whateverhisnameis hasnt said there was a problem with the CCA at all, just that they have claimed they were told one thing on the phone and then the written contract (which takes precedence) was different. Nothing that has been posted in this whole lengthy saga has suggested the CCA was incorrect in some manner

Ok, cashpig/AJ3456 aren't the same person and if they were, so what! Again it's no big deal but to be honest look at the post history etc - its a lot to type and argue over if they are one in the same....?

Just my opinion which doesn't matter, but i'm just saying...

I know that in this case there was nothing wrong with the CCA (thanks but I do read from the front before posting any response) but I was referring to the principle behind not paying when you do not have to. If you want to pay your debt when you know you don't have to fine, go do it but don't preach that we wrong when we'll take the freebie thank you very much! If you don't like it then join us or keep quiet (no offense but you know what i'm trying to say).

Its so frustrating cos anyone with half a brain can see that if you were offered free money you'd take it - who wouldn't? So what if it costs me a little extra every month, i've had that for the last 40 years so a few more aint gonna change my way of thinking!

The bank deserve everything, I only wished we, the taxpayer, didn't bail them out and let them go bust. Then lets see how successful the insolvency company would have been in demanding immediate repayment.

OH yea, you forgot about that didn't you? If a bank goes under then you are immediately liable to pay the whole debt off within a timescale set by the insolvency service and I bet if they wrote asking for all 50 grand or they'd look to take your house you'd try anything to avoid paying.

I rest my case.

jamalfatty

Cashpig74 wrote: »

Jamal - i did not post this to PROVE anything to anyone and I may even be wrong - which i am not afraid to admit - i only stick by what I claim and that was what I was TOLD. This card has nothing to do with unenforceablility but more to do with me complaining that it was mis-sold on sales grounds.

Could it be the case though that maybe both parties are at fault? I suspect they may have been under the impression from outset that you were using this for BT's, as you mentioned something about 0% so in this instance I could well imagine they werent very forthcoming about the cash advance fee's & interest for gambling transactions as there was no need to with it being in your T&C's. I would also hazard a guess that you didnt tell them this was going to be used for this purpose?

And was it really mis-sold? Regardless of what you were or were not told, you would have had a copy of the agreement and T&C's to read through well before you had chance to use the card, you chose not to so who is really at fault here?

Anyway, obviously some strong opinions on here which arent going to be swayed, has been an amusing thread thus far though.

Cashpig74

OMG you sound like them! the gambling was not on my mind at the time I got the card, it was one option but I was unaware of its status as cash anyway so i would not thought it a problem.

the fact is what they told me they dressed up as something different to the actual event. they gave the impression it was better than it really was and told me so many inconsistancies its not funny..

i was naive - sure, but still, you dont tell a foreigner that a fiat is a rolls royce and then say he wasn't misled. We can all do our homework and my homework was getting the girl to tell me in no uncertain terms exactly what the card was all about - in the end i trusted what she said. MBNA have to take responsibility for their staff and how they perform like this - i feel mugged totally.

normanmark

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The bank deserve everything, I only wished we, the taxpayer, didn't bail them out and let them go bust. Then lets see how successful the insolvency company would have been in demanding immediate repayment.

OH yea, you forgot about that didn't you? If a bank goes under then you are immediately liable to pay the whole debt off within a timescale set by the insolvency service and I bet if they wrote asking for all 50 grand or they'd look to take your house you'd try anything to avoid paying.

I rest my case.

Well your case falls at the first hurdle. MBNA were not bailed out at all by the British tax payer.