Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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 3703 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

I am posting this on behalf of a relative who has received two Claim Forms out of Northampton (CCBC) County Court.

 

Both are for debts originally with HSBC a) Credit Card (1***.** and b) Bank Loan (1****.**).

 

Both Particulars of Claim are basically the same except the Credit Card uses the wording 'a regulated agreement' whereas the Bank Loan uses the wording 'a loan agreement'.

 

Both say that a Notice of Assignment has been provided to the defendant with a date on the Bank Loan one but on the Credit Card one there is no date. Also that a Default Notice has been served on the defendant (no dates given on either)

 

Finishes with wording that The complainant has complied as far as is necessary with the Pre-Action Conduct Practice Direction.

 

Claim Forms are both dated 29th April 2013.

 

Both claim forms were acknowledged with intention to defend all the claim and asking for the extra 14 days.

 

A letter has been sent for each claim asking under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of the document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1. The agreement. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.

 

2. The assignment

 

3. The default notice

 

4. A statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached.

 

These letters were sent by Special Delivery and were received and signed for on 7th May by MKDP LLP.

 

In addition to this a SAR was sent to HSBC again by Special Delivery and was received also on 7th May.

 

My relative states that they have not received any notice of assignment or default notice for either of the debts.

 

In addition they also believe that they have not made a payment or acknowledged the debt for the 6 years prior to the issue of the Claim forms (but is close)

 

To date they have received no acknowledgement from MKDP LLP.

 

What is our next step please? Do we now send N244 and also should we also have sent a SAR to MKDP LLP

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

maybe best do a thread for each claim. and type up the particulars for each less any identifiables.

double check re statute bar status. if 100% sure, then is an absolute defence. in addition to whatever else.

there is no strict requirement as such for them to comply with a cpr 31.14 request, but they should if applicable. up to them.

are they small claims?

any missold ppi?

you could do a sar. but, bear in mind that they might refuse as there is litigation. so would be as per the litigation disclosure rules. plus, a sar takes 40 days, if they comply. is it small claims?

stick to all court deadlines. ie submit a defence in time if defending.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GT,

 

It's important to separate the two claims so, in dealing with them, the cases don't get confused as suggested already above by Ford.

 

Accordingly, this thread has now been renamed as dealing ONLY with the Credit Card claim. Start a new thread for the Loan Account claim.

 

From here on, this thread should refer only to the Credit Card claim made by HSBC.

 

The SAR was not necessary because the CPR 31.14 request should get you all the info you require. As the claims has not yet been allocated to any claims track, the CPR 31.14 request should be effective.

 

As Ford says, it's vital that you check as best you can when the debt is due to become SB'd. If it's already SB'd, that's it - case over !

 

:-)

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

Thanks - Particulars of Claim are as follows:

 

The claimant claims the sum of £1,***,** being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the defendant and HSBC Bank Plc. The defendants account number was xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and was assigned to the Claimant on (no date), notice of this has been provided to the defendant. The defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sum o £1,xxx,xx and costs. The Complainant has complied as ar as is necessary with the pre-action conduct practice direction.

 

I am assured that no default notice or notice of assignment has been received.

 

This would be a small claims track.

 

CPR 31.14 sent as above and SAR was sent to HSBC not MKDP LLP

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, you have already sent a sar? see what if anything comes back re that (prob not in time though).

wait see what comes back in time. if nothing, then submit your defence (if defending). as is small claims, they prob would refuse/neglect 31.14 anyway even though not tracked.

double check statute bar

any missold ppi?

they would have to show that a compliant dn (if applicable) and assignment was issued and sent.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GT,

 

Please confirm if the CPR 31.14 request was sent to MK or HSBC.

 

:wink:

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

Good, if they fail to supply info in time for you to make a proper defence by the required deadline, you can ask MK to agree to an extension, By Consent, of the deadline for filing your defence.

 

Otherwise, you file your defence by the due date stating that the claimant has failed to supply key documents and/or information and you are therefore unable to make a full defence until this info is provided.

 

:-)

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

Thanks for the help so far everyone. Is there any chance someone could look at the new thread about the bigger claim that I have posted again by MKDP LLP

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391771-County-Court-Claim-Form-Loan-From-HSBC-MKDP-LLP-Claimant%282-Viewing%29-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

HSBC are very good at issueing SAR request (NOT) , mine came in two packages = 1. just bumpf, 2nd later (And Late = after ICO intervention, and a promise to up grade their response times = yeah!!!! ) so guess what happened a court case had been dealt with and crucial evidence that could be used against them enclosed in 2nd Bundle! so CPR 31.14 is a real must, if they refuse make sure the evidence required before the case>

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still trying to get duplicate credit card statements for this but we now know last payment was made on 21/03/2007 - need duplicate statements to see if any purchases made by defendant after 28th April 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

statute bar is usually re from last payment or written acknowlegment whichever is the later. but, i see what you mean, ie would a purchase be regarded as an acknowledgment?

ps, not much point doing reminders re 31.14 request if deemed received. either they reply, or they don't. if applicable, make representations on that if they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ford says, if no purchases were made since the last payment on 21st March 2007, the a/c should be Statute Barred and this is an absolute defence.

 

You need to check as best you can to see if any purchase was made later, and when exactly.

 

I'll look at the other thread which you have linked to in post #12 above, and comment there.

 

:-)

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

thats ok. such a request is a statutory requirement for compliance (although they can supply a reconstitution in response, but any recon should be shown to be accurate. if shown not, then should be no enforcement until so. see Kotecha v Phoenix CA case). but note the time limit re that, would it be in time?

there is also cpr practice direction 16 para 7.3 which says that re a claim based on a written agreement, the original 'contract or docs constituting the agreement' should be available at hearing (note; 'should'. and, they often use PD 7E para 5.2A (ie online claim) to avoid that, but it could be argued that 5.2a only applies re attachment of docs re an online claim or separate particulars. ie the originals 'should' still be available at hearing?)

don't forget also the requirement for a compliant default notice before enforcement (if applicable).

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is almost time to submit a defence - would like to do it by Thursday. We have heard nothing at all from MKDP not even an acknowledgement of our requests. I have been looking at various holding defences on the site and have now put the one below togther. It would be appreciated if someone could have a look at it for us please? We have been unable to get any statements so far regarding this account and it may well be that it is statute barred as stated in previous posts but without the relevant statements we can not be 100& certain.

 

 

In the Northampton (CCBC) County Court

 

 

Claim number XXXXXXXX

 

 

Between

 

 

MKDP LLP

 

and

 

 

XXXXXXXXXX – Defendant

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE

 

 

1. I, XXX of XXXXXXXXXXXX am The Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by MKDP LLP

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put The Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action; they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the civil procedure rules. (Even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system)

 

4. No documents supporting the claim in the particulars have been offered which The Defendant needs to establish what agreement it is that this action is based upon and so The Claimant's claim appears without merit.

 

5. On receipt of the claim form The Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request 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.

 

6. The Defendant also sent a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement.

 

7. It has been confirmed via the Royal Mail website that the above letters were received and signed for.

 

8. To date no response has been received from The Claimant.

 

9. As a result, the Claimants claim does not contain sufficient particulars to permit me to file a properly particularised and pleaded defence. I am at a disadvantage to respond to this claim. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

10. It is denied that I have an agreement with MKDP LLP.

 

11. If, which is not admitted, such an agreement exists, the precise terms and date of any such agreement are not admitted. I do not have in my possession any such agreement and am not therefore able to comment thereon. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the date and terms of such agreement.

 

12. Without admission that any cause of action is shown by The Claimant it is denied that I am indebted to The Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

13 It is alleged the Claimant has an agreement and there has been an Assignment. Within the proof of claim it was stated that there had been an assignment to the Claimant on a date which was given as Blank. As such it is contended that no such Notice of Assignment has been served pursuant to Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Without a Notice of Assignment, The Assignment is merely equitable and The Claimant is put to strict proof to disclose this and prove that this claim can commence in their own name.

 

 

14. AND the Defendant

 

Seeks an order that The Claimant’s action is struck out or otherwise is dismissed on the grounds that any claim cannot succeed.

 

i. Alternatively if the court decides not to strike out The Claimant’s case, it is requested that The Court orders full disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the civil procedure Rules.

 

ii. The Defendant respectfully asks the permission of The Court to amend this defence if or when The Claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents and allows inspection of the original documents.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems fair at first sight, maybe perhaps with a tweak/trim or two. it seems to address their particulars?, and therefore be 'cpr compliant' re submitting a defence? bumping though for further input :)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Defence now altered after advice on another thread. Hopefully this one is now ok.

 

In the Northampton (CCBC) County Court

 

Claim number XXXXXXXX

 

Between

 

MKDP LLP

 

and

 

 

XXXXXXXXXX – Defendant

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE

 

1. Paragraph 1 is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering in to an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with XXXXXXXXX

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied with regards to the amount the Defendant owing monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(i) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for.

(ii) Show the APR and interest used to calculate the amount claimed for.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is not admitted with regards to the Defendant defaulting on payments and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence this breach.

 

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

 

The claimant is also put to strict proof:-

 

(i) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

5. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

6. This defence will contend that under the Credit Consumer Act enables Section 140A and the court to make an order (under section 140B) if it determines that the relationship between the lender and the borrower arising out of a credit agreement is unfair to the borrower.

I will asseverate that under sec 140a CCA 2006 amendments CCA1974 that the assigned agreement was subject to an Unfair Relationship with XXXXXXXX due to extortionate interest applied.

Also that the agreement was breached by XXXXXXXX for failing to adhere to The UKCA guidelines once a payment plan arrangement is in place. The Claimant is "estopped" due to promissory estoppel the original Terms and Conditions agreed were varied.

 

7. Further, by reason of the fact that the Claimant was sent a Section 78 CCA 1974 request dated xxxxxxx and signed for by the claimant on xxxxxxxx the Claimant has yet to comply with this request and until such time the Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the Court, until such time they comply with my request.

 

8. On receipt of the claim form the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated xxxxxxx for a copy of the credit 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 signed for by the claimant on xxxxxxx.

 

9. 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.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited by gettingthere
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...