Thanks for your replies:-) I haven't heard anything from the Court regarding MKDP? I did receive a Statement from MKDP with the reference a Statement in relation to the below Agreement which is governed by Consumer Credit Act 1974 which they say under CCA Act 1974 they are obligated to send. I've noticed that MKDP have an opening balance starting from 1.4.14 until present? despite the fact that they have been chasing me using different trading names since 2012.

The claimant was to provide there defence by 11th March 2015 and have not done so to date. I have contacted the court and they have advised me that the claim is now classed as a case stayed no action. Can somebody advise me as to my next step from now? Thanks in advance

The friend concerned to this matter has been reading the thread and has emailed me this response below. Hi lookingforinfo, To answer your questions:- 1, car is valued at £1800 total bailiff fee is £700+ 2. The car was seized on public highway and I was not present at the time the vehicle was seized. 3 the seller claims he only knew the car had been removed after it had been seized. 4. He claims to be unaware. 5 the previous owner has the notice. 6, he will not pay debt as he apparently has more with the same bailiff company. I was wondering what the legislation schedule 12 section 62 part 5, means by "1) EFFECT of property in goods being bound, sub-paragraph 1 does not take prejudice the title of the debtors goods that a person acquires a)in good faith, b)for valuable consideration, c) without notice. For the purposes of sub-paragraph 2a a thing is to be treated as done in good faith if it is in fact done honestly( weather it is done negligently or not)." Does this mean that as I was unaware of the vehicle being bound and I followed the correct procedure for buying the car with money that the title belongs to me? Also in same legislation 2007/15/schedule 12 " 51 PASSING OF TITLE. A purchaser of controlled goods acquires good title, with two exceptions. 2) Only if the goods are not the debtors at the time of sale. 3) The first expiation is where the purchaser, the creditor, the enforcement agent or related party has notice that the goods are not the debtor's." Which my email to them has given notice and they replied acknowledging this, does that mean even if they sell the car I can claim the proceeds back? Before I pursue any legal proceedings I’d like to know that I followed all correct procedures and do I have any chance to win based on this legislation or does the property being bound disregard the fact I was unaware (negligent) and bought in good faith with money? Thank you in advance to all your replies.

Thank you for your replies until now.

My friend purchased a car from an associate of her sister on the 30th jan 2015, with cash payments made in instalments of £300 throughout January until the 30th jan as part of this arrangement my sisters friend would be allowed to to drive the vehicle for another month after my purchase. She became the official owner with a signed receipt and new keepers slip awaiting the log book on the 30th january. Following month feb 6th bailiffs seized the vehicle with a warrant on the previous owners name as she was awaiting the full log book and the bailiffs refused to accept her new keepers slip with the receipt and bank statements. The following week she received the log book from dvla and provided it as bailiffs requested and they refused to release the vehicle saying the debt is bound to the vehicle and they will sell it in auction as soon as possible. Below is a copy of the reply sent by the Bailiff. Please can somebody advise me? Thanks in advance. After reviewing you documents, we rejected your claim. Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 paragraphs 4 and 5, the property of the named debtor becomes bound to them, preventing the sale or disposal of those goods from the time the Warrant of Control is issued. This does not prejudice title in the goods that a person may acquire, provided they have done so in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice. As such the goods are bound to the named debtor and we would suggest that you revert to the person you claim to have purchased the vehicle from for remuneration as they had no right to dispose of the goods in the first instance. Under paragraph 60 (4) (a) of Schedule 12 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 if you are to make an application to the Court, you must deposit the value of the vehicle into Court when making the application. CPR 85 sets out the procedure for claims on controlled goods, which you will be required to follow. I would suggest however, as an alternative, that you discuss the matter with the named debtor, and simply ensure that the Warrants of Control issued against them are discharged, thus securing the release of the vehicle. In the event that either payment in full is not made, or an application to the Court including the value of the vehicle is not made, then vehicle will be entered into public auction. Your claim has been treated as one being made pursuant to CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position you should seek competent independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC or our Enforcement Agent would be vigorously defended and in the event that you are unsuccessful Newlyn PLC will request the court to award costs.

I've pretty much put up everything I've received from MKDP and anything else i receive I'll attach it and post it here.

Yes I filed my defense in time and received the copy of the application form by special delivery.

I actually found this similar defence some where on this site?

I came here asking for help?

Not one person on this site has offered me any advice other than to ask me post up my personal information for the whole world to see and then criticize my lack of knowledge and then advise me to research information my self on your site? How has anybody here helped me.

1. Ixxxxxxxx xxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by MKDP. 2. The claimants claim form fails to adequately or even accurately set out the nature of the claim. 3. The defendant avers that the claimant’s pleadings are an abuse of process. The claimant’s pleadings are lacking detail; there are no details as to when the alleged agreement was entered into by the defendant. 4. The claim form itself is incorrectly served and in breach of Civil Procedure Practice Direction 22, section 3.10. 5. The defendant demands by reason of the provisions of Civil Procedure Practice Direction 16 para 7.3 that the claimant does provide a Certified Copy of the alleged EXECUTED written CREDIT AGREEMENT no. xxxxxxxxxxxx referred to in the particulars of claim, as the defendant recalls signing no such document. 6. The defendant denies being served a Default Notice /Notice of Termination of Agreement pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act1974 by Barclaycard for the alleged agreement no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and puts the claimant to strict proof by providing a copy of said Default Notice /Notice of Termination of Agreement as referred to in the particulars of claim. 7. The defendant denies receiving a Certified Copy of Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from the claimant for the alleged agreement no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and puts the claimant tostrict proof by providing a Certified Copy of said Notice as referred to in the particulars of claim. 8. The defendant denies signing any agreement with the claimant and demands the claimant provide a certified copy of the Deed of Assignment signed by Barclaycard, the defendant & the claimant, as proof they have the right title and interest to pursue the alleged debt. The defendant demands that in accordance with s.136 (1) of the law of property act 1925, that the claimant do provide proof of absolute assignment, by providing a certified copy of the Deed of Assignment between Barclaycard and the claimant to show proof of complete transfer and ownership (all rights, title, interest, benefits and liabilities) and that they have the power to give good discharge pursuant to s.136 (1) ©of the law of property act. As referred to in the particulars of claim. 9. The defendant denies agreement to or entry into any contract with the claimant and demands the claimant provide a certified copy of the Deed of Novation binding Barclaycard, the claimant, and the defendant together in any alleged contract. 10. The claim is therefore denied with regards to the defendant owing any monies to the claimant and the claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement. (b) Show how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. © Show how and when the agreement was breached. (d) Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (e) Show how the defendant has entered into any agreement or contract with the claimant. 11.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The Defendant respectfully asks the permission of the court to be allowed sufficient time to submit defence (say 28 days) once the Claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents and allows inspection of the original documents. ***************

Please could somebody give me some ideas as to how to construct a defence to this application form which the claimant plans to use in their defence and is clearly a copy of a microfiche copy and is hardly legible?

[ATTACH]56110[/ATTACH] This is the Barclaycard application dated 1997 which was sent to me, also this is the quality of the print I received it in? Is this enforceable?

How do you upload copies to here?

Yes just the Barclaycard application blown up from it looks like a microfiche but is this also the agreement?