Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

MKDP LLP Court Claim - HSBC Credit Card***Struck Out & Costs***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3696 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

re 7 - they're not in default as yet as you only sent it on 23/5 post #19? 14 days to respond to a cca request.

not sure re 6?

also need to put them to proof re compliant default notice,

when was the original or any subsequent 'agreement'? if prior to 4/07 they would need to show that there was a debtor signed doc that contained all of the prescribed terms before entitled to any enforcement as required by s127 3, 4 con credit act and the Wilson case. yes, you had the credit, but do they satisfy the required legal requirements in order to get an enforcement order?

any ppi?

bump for further input :)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

I have been on holiday and have only just got back. Things have moved on with this claim and I would appreciate some help/advice before going further.

 

Firstly the defence we sent was as follows:

 

In the Northampton (CCBC) County Court

 

 

Claim number 3XX98310

 

Between

 

 

MKDP LLP

 

and

 

 

XXXXXX

 

 

Particulars of Claim ......summons dated 29th April 2013

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of £1xxx.xx being monies due from the Defendant(s) to HSBC Bank Plc under a regulated agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was assigned to the Claimant on (no date given). Notice of Assignment has been provided to the Defendant(s)

2 . The Defendant(s) account number was xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3. The Defendant(s) has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement. A Default Notice has been served pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 by HSBC Bank Plc.

4. The Complainant claims the sum of £1xxx.xx and costs. The complainant has complied as far as is necessary with the Pre-Action Practice Direction.

 

 

Defence

 

Paragraph 1 is accepted in that I have had a credit card with HSBC Bank Plc. I have made no acknowledgment of this account for at least six years. I am unaware with regards to any assignment as no paperwork has ever been received from either HSBC or MKDP.

 

Paragraph 2 is noted.

 

Paragraph 3 is denied as above I have never been informed or been requested to make any payments. I have never received a Default Notice from either party. The last payment made to this account was on 21st March 2007.

 

Paragraph 4 is denied, there has been no previous communications from the claimant or its predecessor.

 

The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

Notwithstanding the above is 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 with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim

 

As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

On receipt of the claim form The Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 2nd May 2013 for a copy of the agreement, default notice, notice of assignment and a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached which form the basis of this claim. This was delivered by Royal Mail and signed for on 7th May 2013. To date no documents have been received by The Defendant.

 

The Defendant also sent a formal request pursuant to S.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement and full statement of account to The Claimant dated 23rd May. This was delivered by Royal Mail and signed for on 24th May 2013. To date no documents have been received by The Defendant.

 

 

By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

 

XXXXXXXXX

 

 

To date we have had no acknowledgement of our CPR31.14 request or our S.78 CCA request (this has now exceeded the statutory time limit).

 

Also the SAR request we sent to HSBC and received by them on 7th May was returned together with the £10.00 cheque in a letter dated 28th June from HFC Bank, PO Box 5137, Coventry, CV3 9EP. Now I know HFC bank is now part of HSBC but that seems strange. They say they were unable to action of our request because a) No signature on letter (there was a digital one) b) They were unable to locate any accounts with the information we have provided. They wanted us to resubmit request with previous address history/account numbers/DOB and they will respond in another 40 days! We have sent another letter with all information again but not holding out much hope!

 

Because of this we are still flying blind with no statements etc to refer to about this account. A visit to HSBC did not help as they said all they can do is send the last six years statements from the date we went in - not a lot of good when trying to prove it is statute barred on the date of claim.

 

A letter was received dated 10th June from MKDP LLP which stated that they do not accept our defence and have instructed Northampton (CCBC) County Court that they wish to continue with claim.

 

A N149A Notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims Track dated 25th June has been received which requires the N180 Small Claims Directions Questionnaire to be submitted by 12th July (this friday)

 

We can fill that form in ok but would like a bit of advice regarding The Small Claims Mediation Service. Is there any mileage in ticking the box and agreeing for the claim to be referred to them or is it a sign of weakness to the Claimant? If it went to mediation would I be able to speak on his behalf as he will not have a clue how to deal with it.

Also do we need to do anything further regarding the claim at moment ie how are we going to get sight of the Statements/Signed Credit Agreement/Defaut Notice/Notice of Assignement?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GT,

 

Agree to mediation at this stage - it's not a sign of weakness but shows your willingness to seek resolution by means other than a court hearing.

 

Is your relative (the Defendant) not able to speak confidently for themselves. I'm not sure if anyone can speak for you at mediation but, if mediation takes place, I'm sure the mediators would help your relative get across their views.

 

If this gets to a court hearing, it may depend on the judge on the day to decide if you can talk FOR your relative, or simply be there to support and advise at the hearing, leaving YR to speak for theirself.

 

If you've asked for doc'ts using CPR 31.14 and had no reply, there's no more you need do about it. If the Claimant fails to produce the required doc'ts, the court can be asked to order production of the doc'ts as part of the ongoing process.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We have received the copy of N.180 completed by MKDP LLP - almost a mirror image of ours. They have also ticked box for mediation but have asked for case to be heard at Milton Keynes whereas we asked for it to be heard at our local court.

 

Still no reply to our CCA request or the request under CPR31.14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your right to have the case heard at your nearest county court, mediation does not need to be a court hearing and can be carried out by telephone appointment.

Check HMCTS small claims mediation service.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Mediation call has now taken place with no progress.

 

We could do with a little help pointing us in the right direction over some legal points though?

 

They are saying that the account does not become statute barred until 6 years after the 'Default Date' Now I am sure that this is not the case but could do with reassuring that it is not and pointing to where we can read it.

 

Our requests for the paperwork relating to the account were discussed, they say they haven't got it but have requested it from HSBC. Is there anyway we can increase the pressure on them to produce it through the court?

 

We did request all the data under a SAR request to HSBC - we have now made two requests containing all relevant information, account numbers, full name, DOB and previous addresses and we have had two replies stating that they can find no accounts from the details given. It has been suggested that we should send a copy of these letters to MKDP so we would like some advice regarding that as well.

 

Looks like we will be going to court with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what do they mean by the 'def date'? ie when they registered the def? or?

technically, 6 yrs after the 'cause of action'. s5 limitation act.

but, could be deemed 6 years (eng/wales) after the last payment or deemed written acknowledgement (whichever is the later).

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act

 

the general rule in contract is that time starts to run (ie the cause of action) when the breach occurs

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a case (which I can't find) where it was decided that the limitation did not start until the creditor 'can demand full repayment of the debt' i.e. the default date, however this was in reference to an HP account.

 

I have not seen this tested in regard to a straight forward consumer debt of any sort.

 

Challenges under section 5 are succeeding still.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the general rule in contract is that time starts to run (ie the cause of action) when the breach occurs. (of course subject to any subsequent payments/deemed acknowledgments which would then reset the clock)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone give us any advice as to whether we should be doing anything further to try and get the documentation we need from MKDP LLP - when will we get our chance to ask the court to order them to disclose the documentation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone give us any advice as to whether we should be doing anything further to try and get the documentation we need from MKDP LLP - when will we get our chance to ask the court to order them to disclose the documentation?

 

At standard disclosure (N265) gettingthere.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impression they were giving during mediation was the date of 'The Default Notice' which we have never seen anyway.

 

 

isn't the issue date (ie the date of the letter) of a dn usually a bit after an actual breach re the contractual minimum payment missed (so, as long as there are no subsequent payments/acknowledgements, SB clock would start from the breach)?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy - will wait patiently then.

 

I cannot see how the relevant date can be 'the default date' as that would be when the bank eventually got round to issuing one.

 

As I posted earlier, there has been a decision that entered into case law, that decision was that the limitation period starts from the time that the creditor can demand FULL PAYMENT, e.g. the default date.

 

This was however in regard to a Hire Purchase agreement not a simple contract. So far I have not had an SB claim rejected on this basis.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...