Is MBNA within its rights to ask me to do this ?

Degenerate

NickX wrote: »

This is quite amusing, I haven't been on this forum for a few months now and I notice the moralising and judgemental attitude haven't changed.

The OP is asking whether MBNA have a right to demand they cancel their Sky subscription because they are on a DMP ?

The answer is NO, they have no legal right whatsoever. End of answer.

Another person with the bizarre idea that you need a sanctioned legal right to negotiate concessions.

never-in-doubt

NickX wrote: »

This is quite amusing, I haven't been on this forum for a few months now and I notice the moralising and judgemental attitude haven't changed.

The OP is asking whether MBNA have a right to demand they cancel their Sky subscription because they are on a DMP ?

The answer is NO, they have no legal right whatsoever. End of answer.

However, as with people who ask whether their pre-2007 CCA is enforceable, on this forum you get a host of people moralising and demanding that debts are repaid in full and as a priority over anything else. Who are these people to make such demands ?

It is very much my opinion that there is very much an attitude on this forum that tends to err on the side of the corporation rather than the side of the consumer. I have noticed this since I first joined and surprises me considering one of the forum trademark sayings is "Consumer Revenge". Interesting

LOL I can vouch for the moralising issues regards to unenforceability - that is my forte at upsetting people as I am totally consumer against banks!

However, with regards to the site message mate i'd look at joining CAG - several of the good people on here are also on CAG.....

never-in-doubt

Degenerate wrote: »

Another person with the bizarre idea that you need a sanctioned legal right to negotiate concessions.

because you do! one rule for one, one rule for another eh?

Degenerate

NickX wrote: »

If MBNA wants to force the OP to pay them rather then Sky, then they issue court proceedings and get a CCJ.

I believe you just described a legal method for them to achieve what you just said they cannot do.

Degenerate

never-in-doubt wrote: »

because you do! one rule for one, one rule for another eh?

What planet are you on?

NickX

ILW wrote: »

I think Sky is a corporation. Do you consider they have a greater right to the OPs money than the people that he is already indebted to?

Irrelevent. I have not stated anywhere that Sky has a greater right to the OPs money than MBNA.

I have no opinion on which corporation the OP should pay. I have simply answered the question.

never-in-doubt

Degenerate wrote: »

I believe you just described a legal method for them to achieve what you just said they cannot do.

no they need to get the proper paperwork but like advised - if the OP makes a token payment then any court would throw intended action out as the offer would be deemed acceptable!

NickX

Degenerate wrote: »

Another person with the bizarre idea that you need a sanctioned legal right to negotiate concessions.

If the right is not backed by law then it cannot be enforced, so it is worthless.

never-in-doubt

Degenerate wrote: »

What planet are you on?

planet earth my son, planet earth

NickX

Degenerate wrote: »

I believe you just described a legal method for them to achieve what you just said they cannot do.

If MBNA want the OP to pay them instead of Sky then they have a legal route to enforce that.

This route is not having a junior CSA making degrading remarks over the phone which leave the debtor feeling inferior.