Tried to cancel MBNA credit card

writing to MBNA

closed'

Has this ever been tested in court or before an Ombudsman ?

(uk.legal and ie.general added)

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

Not to my knowledge. Do you think it could be challenged?

Yes

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

On what grounds?

IIRC According to the Statute of Limitations 1957, the limitation period for taking any action for a breach of contract is six years.

In message , Dermot Sheehan writes

And how would that apply in this case?

In several ways. A Merchant can't send a voucher for payment six years after the transaction was entered into for example.

I suggest the OP look at the terms and conditions of his contract with MBNA, particulary the section for termination of the agreement. It usually says either party may terminate by stating in writing that the contract was terminated and giving x days notice. If he fulfils that, then the contract with MBNA is terminated.

The contracts with each merchant thats made at the time of purchase, as I stated above, have to be settled within 6 years.

As previously advised, the T&C of the card issuer are not enforceable IMHO if they purport to make the mandate perpetual, as you suggest.

As it happens, I 've quickly checked the T&C of one of my cards, and I see no such provision.

ISTM that the notion that you are peddling is one invented by credit-card companies to make their own lives easier.

In message , Dermot Sheehan writes

That is not the point that is under discussion, i.e. can the cardholder close the account and the card issuer then refuse payment to a merchant. If the transaction is a continuing authority, say, and the cardholder doesnt countermand the payment, and all of this is within six years, than the statute of limitation isnt relevant.

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

I dont suggest they are perpetual, long, yes.

Quite.

Hang on, I am peddling nothing. I asked on what grounds could it be challenged in court on via an ombudsman. You said YES, but you wont say on what grounds.

The point is quite simple, If a CC account still has payments ' in the system' no amount of letter writing to the CC company can remove the debtors liability and so long as the merchant accepted the payment in accordance with the terms & conditions then the CC co will pay out.

Another example. Many cards are issued with expiry dates a number of years in advance. You send your card back with a letter closing the account. You record the details. At some future time, within the expiry date of the returned card, you make an Internet purchase using the recorded details. What are you suggesting should happen?

Its similar to bank having a cheque presented on a 'closed' account which has been issued and accepted by the payee under the terms of the cheque card guarantee scheme. That cheque cant be bounced.

ahh, ok,

of course its difficult to discuss this without seeing the contract between the merchant and credit card company, and credit card company and customer.

I suspect that the contract between the merchant and the bank only gurantees payment if an authorization number is generated (on small slip of paper from machine card is swiped through), this machine checks immediatley if the card is valid and that the card holder isn't over the credit limit.

If the credit card agreement between the customer and bank is terminated (which the customer must have the option of doing if the bank has the same power, (see term 1(f) of Schedule 3 of the European Communities (Unfair Contract Terms) Regulations 1995) This regulation means that if the company has the power of discretionary termination (which all credit card companies would put into their contracts, then the consumer must have the same power).

Since the contract with the consumer is terminated, the bank can not collect payment from the consumer. The bank would then be wise not to generate an authorization code in such circumstances, and decline payment to the merhcant.

The merchant can of course take proceedings against the consumer for breach of contract.

enforceable

I accept the rebuke.

I have said that the agreement which, you say, allows the CC issuer to refuse to close the account, would be deemed to be unenforceable with the terms & conditions then the CC co will pay out.

I dispute this, if you refer to a liability to the CC company.

An agreement between the merchant and the CC co does not bind the (ex) cardholder

I should be sued by the merchant, and may be criminally liable.

No, it's not similar enough. The cheque was either already signed when the account was closed or the terms of the scheme were not observed in some particular.

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

OK, they are the grounds upon which you would base your challenge, but what make you think you would be successful?

I do. In equity, do you not think the CC would have a right to claim form the cardholder, or by subrogation?

But it is likely that the CCo would still accept the payment on the grounds that to refuse the payment to the merchant would destroy the integrity of the CC system as a whole, (albeit the current 'signature' system places quite a degree of responsibility and liability with the merchant.)

BY accepting the payment the CC would still (as described above) correctly regard the Cardholder as a debtor.

Fair comment.

In message , Dermot Sheehan writes

Not so. As an example, carbonised paper manual roller machines are still used.

But what if the customer continues to avail himself of the benefits of the contract by way of the continuous authority to the merchant AFTER he has supposedly 'cancelled' the contract? Do you not think the CCo would have an equitable right to regard the cardholder as a debtor whom they could pursue?

Again, not knowing what the contract between the merchant and card issuer says, I suspect payment is only *guranteed* if an authorization code is used. That's the simple reason why virtually every shop uses it know. If payment was guranteed using the roller method then a fraudster with a counterfeit or stolen card can go to the merchant and buy things without suspicion. Indeed there would be no incentive for the merchant to catch fraudsters.

Well then the customer is possibly guilty of obtaining goods by deception. As stated above, since there is no account, and no authorization code is generated, the bank doesn't pay out a cent. The merchant can go after the customer for fraud.

In message , Dermot Sheehan writes

I think you have misunderstood the use of this 'authorisation' code to which you refer and which is not used in the way you seem to think.

I think you will find that in the case of misused credit cards it is the Card provider (usually but not exclusively) who is the plaintiff, not the merchant.

"Dermot Sheehan" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...

payment six years

Why not ?

Generally speaking, limitation affects the remedy, not the right

, Dermot

the contract

card company

bank only

(on small

machine

holder isn't

machines are still

bank is

doing if the

the European

This regulation

termination

contracts, then

benefits of

merchant AFTER he

the CCo would

debtor whom they

No. It is between the merchant and the customer AIUI.

Bhoy

but you wont

CC issuer to

unenforceable

challenge, but

I know the law quite well.

payments ' in

can remove

company.

right to claim

No.

dates a number of

closing the

within the

purchase using the

happen?

liable.

payment on the

destroy the

'signature'

liability with the

above)

Nope. A cannot create an obligation for B through making a voluntary payment to C.