Some weeks ago sent MKDP a sec 78 request.

They eventually responded with a recon document and some alleged old statements mostly illegible,

also received a recon document from OC which differed from the one from MKDP.

sent MKDP a CPUTR request.

They have now replied to that request stating that they do not have a signed copy of the original agreement

but have been told by the alleged original creditor (BC) that such an agreement would have existed

and as such the account is enforceable as their documentation sent to me conforms to sec 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1972.

(Yes 1972) they state.

Any advice or comments on what next action should be please.

Hi,

What date approx. did you take out the agreement? The date is important regarding a recon agreement.

When was the last date that you paid?

Was this a Loan, Credit Card?

Does this show on any of your credit reference files?

Are MKDP collecting on behalf of the OC or have they purchased it?

If MKDP have purchased the debt you may want to view the default date on your credit reference file because MKDP have a nasty habit of using their purchase date as the default date when they update the CRA's (I know from personal experience because they did this to me).

Stigman

Stig

For the information of others in a similar situation, do you have evidence that this updating of the default date is habitual - or are you simply extrapolating from your own case?

Hi Stigman,

Account from 1990's and a credit card, last payment in 2009. Does not show on my Noddle listings at all. I believe MKDP have been assigned the account from BC

Stig

do you have evidence that this updating of the default date is habitual - or are you simply extrapolating from your own case?

To name just a few threads as well as my own personal experience...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?384870-MKDP-Welcome-Finance-and-new-default-date-Equifax

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411710-False-default-on-credit-record-put-on-by-MKDP-LLP

Please have a search around the site as this is common with MKDP.

Stigman

Account from 1990's and a credit card, last payment in 2009.

 

Does not show on my Noddle listings at all.

 

I believe MKDP have been assigned the account from BC

Hi Bolt,

A year away give or take from being Statute Barred so MKDP are having a good throw of the dice, MKDP have in the past obtained or try to obtain a CCJ.

You said that nothing was showing on your Noddle file, you may want to request your credit files from both Equifax and Experian, free but only for 30 days so remember to cancel or for £2 postal order for a paper copy.

You said that you were sent a CCA request by MKDP, can you please remove all of your personal identifiers including barcodes, reference numbers etc. and post up, this includes the terms and conditions that came with it.

Stigman

I will attempt to send you what you request later,

but how can they apply for a CCJ when they admit that they do not have a signed and original copy of the original agreement.

I understand that a recon agreement satisfies a sec 78 request,

but it does not comply with sec 61 (1) and therefore action is prevented by sec 165.

They can try all they wish.

At my age 70 with no assets

they can at the worst go to make me bankrupt, my credit record stinks so nothing to loose.

I will attempt to send you what you request later

 

how can they apply for a CCJ when they admit that they do not have a signed and original copy of the original agreement

 

They can try all they wish. At my age 70 with no assets they can at the worst go to make me bankrupt, my credit record stinks so nothing to loose

Hi Bolt,

Thanks for the quick reply.

Please do not send me the request, please post on this forum so everyone can not only advise but others also learn if they are in that same predicament.

A CCJ is one of MKDP's little habits that they have, I have not heard so therefore do not know if they enforce beyond this stage but enough is posted on this and numerous message forums regarding a CCJ.

Blessing in one way that you have no assets, at least it takes that element away from the collection equation.

If you need any assistance uploading, pop back and I or someone will post up step by step instructions of how to upload documents.

Stigman

Recently received threat of litigation letter from their collection agency

despite them admitting they have no agreement

and the same admission from the OC

who sold them the alleged debt.

Should I respond or just ignore.

More letter tennis seems futile as they either ignore or totally fail to read previous letters to them.

Should I respond or just ignore. More letter tennis seems futile as they either ignore or totally fail to read previous letters to them.

Respond with a final letter and write that this is your final response and no money will be paid because MKDP have failed to comply with your CCA request.

Write and include that any attempt to proceed with Court action will be vigorously defended.

Keep a copy of the letter for yourself.

Do not forget to write at the top of the letter "I do not acknowledge any debt to MKDP or any Company that it claims to represent".

Stigman

Thanks Stigman.

MKDP sent me sometime ago a recon agreement and some old mostly illegible statements. I also have a recon agreement from OC which differs from that from MKDP. Previously sent MKDP a CPUTR request to which they replied that they do not hold a copy of the agreement, but have been told by someone at BC that such an agreement would have been in existence at inception. Do not have a printer/copier to flash up copies to you.

Thanks Stigman

Letter sent off as suggested.

MKDP have now started again to pursue an alleged B/C dept

by sending a recon agreement after another request for a copy of the original SIGNED agreement.

Previously they have admitted in writing that they do not hold a copy of the original agreement

and the same from B/C.

Does this mean they are stuffed,

and what if any further action would be advisable as they state court action if account not settled.

Hi Boltmaker,

As the Account was opened in the 1990's (Post #4), MKDP MUST produce an original copy.

A reconstituted agreement is only acceptable for accounts that are post March 2007.

Write back & remind them of the law.

Stigman

Thanks Stigman for that advice. However could you state where that rule or legislation can be found so I can get the wording correct.

\many thanks

Boltmaker.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?285200-Can-anyone-explain-Consumer-credit-Act-2008

Hope this helps, forget the title, it is all concerning the 1974 Consumer Credit Act & the amendments, happy reading!

"A lergy infested" Stigman

Hi Boltmaker,

 

As the Account was opened in the 1990's (Post #4), MKDP MUST produce an original copy.

 

A reconstituted agreement is only acceptable for accounts that are post March 2007.

 

Write back & remind them of the law.

 

Stigman

This is not correct. For a section 78 request a reconstituted copy is sufficient for any agreement , even before 2007.

This is not correct. For a section 78 request a reconstituted copy is sufficient for any agreement , even before 2007.

Sorry Catquest but you are wrong and giving incorrect information, before March 2007, an ORIGINAL copy of the Agreement including a full set of the terms and conditions MUST be supplied.

Please have a read around this forum for full clarification on the amendments made to the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

Stigman

Actually you are both right

An original agreement for pre 2007 is required TO ENFORCE the debt in court. A recon will satisfy the actual CCA request ONLY

A recon is OK for a s78 request but it must be a true copy.

However for a pre 2007 agreement evidence of a properly executed agreement is required. This does not necessarily mean the actual agreement has to be produced. What usually happens is the bank provides a witness statement stating their records show that a properly executed agreement would have been obtained. Off course this is nonsense but proving it can be difficult. If you use an experienced solicitor in this area they can frequently provide a witness statement that says, hold on, I had an account that started at the same time and I didn't sign an agreement. This can be difficult for lit in persons to do. The best you can do is argue why you didn't sign a fully compliant agreement.

This is not correct. For a section 78 request a reconstituted copy is sufficient for any agreement , even before 2007.

For instance it seems Barclaycard sometimes come up with reconstituted copies which include in the T&Cs reference to Premiership Football. It should be fairly easy to show that this cannot be a true copy unless you actually applied for a Premiership card.

Thanks for all replies. Been off line for a while had to purchase new laptop.

As of today no further action from MKDP since sending recon agreement. Strange thing is their last recon differs from a previous recon they sent (which was mainly T&C's) and again differs from a similar recon from the original alleged creditor BC (Morgan Stanley). Seems that MKDP have a department making recons. Now back in action will write to MKDP as Stigman suggests and hopefully put this to bed for good.

I know this is an old threat Boltmaker but has MKDP taken this further.

Hello goodatresearch,

No further response from MKDP. Sent letter as suggested by Stigman and all has gone quiet once again. Keep at them if you are in the right they seem to try anything they can think of to wear you down. Don't give in, challenge everything within your rights. |Wising you good luck.

That's good news. Dont want to hijack your thread but I'm in a similar position but have received a LBA. Told them the LBS is defective (no list of docs) to which they said the had because they'd followed their own companies procedures!!. Wrote to them again telling them where they had gone wrong and asked them for the copies of the docs theyre are going to rely upon (as per the pre action protocol). If they haven't responded by my time limit I will write to them again telling them the OC has confirmed ( reluctantly), they don't have a signed agreement (like you a 1990s card).

We will see what happens yet.

Please keep us updated, it will help others dealing with MKDP.

Hello goodatresearch,

 

No further response from MKDP. Sent letter as suggested by Stigman and all has gone quiet once again. Keep at them if you are in the right they seem to try anything they can think of to wear you down. Don't give in, challenge everything within your rights. |Wising you good luck.