Hi guys This has now been tried and the court experience was very unthreatening and fair, but one needs to prepare; I found the following useful: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZyb4HYC5A8 https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf The result was ‘Case Dismissed’. + costs in my favour as LIP at fast track: · Their case was slapdash (Judge’s words). They had no signed agreement and failed to meet court direction deadlines etc etc.. · The case involved MSDW – Goldfish – MKDP but MKDP did not realise this · Nobody from MKDP attended but they were represented by a very polite but embarrassed solicitor · My defence leant heavily on sec 61 and 127 - irredeemable unenforceability, acknowledging Carey but referring to Waksman re Carey and s. 127 – really an adaptation of DJ Manners judgement in Santander v Mayhew. I volunteered that I recalled that I had signed the application form which contained no terms or prescribed terms. · My defence was CAG-standard deny all and my WS followed this line. By good fortune I included the bizarreness of MKDP’s reconstituted NoA which might have been reproduced by anyone with a word processor (Judge’s words). Critically, my sec78 request to MKDP in 2014 (2 years after the alleged NoA) was replied to by Barclays, on BC headed notepaper, whereas for their recon NoA they claimed that they did not have permission to use the BC headed paper! · By good fortune, they had included the Deed of Assignment in the (very late) list of documents, claiming it was withheld because of privilege as a result of commercial confidentiality. · The DJ was clearly ****ed off by the slapdash procedural behaviour but, I felt, wanted to avoid ruling on s.61 & s.127, although at no point did he criticise or contradict my argument. · The case was dismissed on grounds of title. Their WS carried little weight, the NoA was suspect and the s. 78 response implied continued ownership by BC. The claimant had not proved on the basis of probability that they had title to this debt; yet, might have done quite simply by a redacted Deed of assignment or a simple letter from BC confirming the assignment to MKDP. I hope this provides some small succour to fellow contestants in these Hunger Games. love vic

Hi delbot I am having a very similar experience. My defence (pinched from one of Andy’s) is posted below and I have a trial window for April 2015; MKDP have not responded to the Court’s standard disclosure directions and seem to be engaged in a game of ‘chicken’. They have a sent me a response to a Sec 78 request that I did not make comprising a load of recon T&C crap and separately a notice of intention to apply for a charging order on my property, so far I have merely informed the Court of their actions. “Defence 1. With regard to the Particulars of Claim: Paragraph 1 is denied in that it is denied that there is a ‘…regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard and it is denied that any monies are due as alleged by the claimant MKDP LLP. 2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a legal assignment between Barclaycard and MKDP LLP and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof. It is further denied that any default notice has been served by either Barclaycard or the Claimant pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof and as a consequence it is denied that I have failed to make payments in accordance with terms of the agreement. 3. Paragraph 3 is denied. Notwithstanding the denials above it is denied that the Claimant has provided any annual statements of account and statements of sums in arrears and statement of what the claimed sum of 10,xxx is comprised. 4. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Claimant has failed to meet with the pre-action conduct practice direction aim [1.1 (1)] in that no evidence has been provided to support the Claimant’s particulars of claim. In order to further this aim I sent a CPR 31.14 recorded delivery and signed for request dated 9 June 2014 requesting sight of the documents on which the Claimant’s particulars of claim relies: i. the agreement ii. the assignment iii. the default notice iv. statement of account This was signed for as received by the Claimant at 10.30 on xxxx 2014. The claimant has yet to respond. 5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. Therefore 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 © show evidence of Annual Statements and Notices of Sums in Arrears since assignment; (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. 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. 8. 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.” Love Vic

Hi guys Just an update to inform fellow victims. I have a letter from Northampton allocating my case to my local court (entirely normal procedure) and to await their Direction. I remain at DEFCON4 and hope that this won't impact upon my luxury round the world cruise (this is joke by the way for Barclays bandits who may be watching). x v

Hi both I think I'm OK at DEFCON4; I have proof of receipt of the unagreed DQ from CC and bandit; my defence is a very robust version of Andy's deny all; I have a briefed brief on standby to play charades on the day (he told me to use plenty of parentheses and square brackets when quoting case law), albeit that this would add to his costs by having to read them, notwithstanding that costs are recoverable in Fast track. So, my point is, out of pure curiosity, who is behind MKbandit (Compello resonates with Cosa Nostra) because either Sarah has struck gold with the 'take all them all to court' business model or somebody with a deeper pocket is pulling her purse strings; I genuinely don't know, yet smell Barclays hand up her skirt; maybe DonkeyB (with his other hat on might shed light). x V PS QED by: http://www.ihatebarclays.co.uk/

Hi and thanks cB All communications have the flavour of a conditional assignment; I cannot communicate with BC by telephone to check anything because computer says ‘assigned to Compello – ‘phone them on...’ but I stress that I do not know for a fact. MK refuse to agree DQ by telephone but confirm they have no paperwork, are aggressive and state ‘you will have a CCJ against you’ because we have already paid the £400 court fee. Now, no logical entity would pursue a person at its own cost for that which that cannot pay and even MBNA (the penultimate nastiness) has not so done. BC have rigged Libor, the FX exchange, and bankrupted small businesses via interest rate swaps but clearly have an appetite for more. I merely pass this as experienced comment: my position remains as was; I do not negotiate with terrorists (Barclays). x v

Hi gem I should not wish to conflate the two issues. MK's business model seems to be to take everyone (maybe who has property, I don't know) to court: I also suspect that these accounts have not been sold outright and that BC are bankrolling (again I don't know). Anyway, as I have said I moved to DEFCON 4 and responded accordingly notwithstanding that they admit that they have no paperwork whatsover and we shall see what their court action brings. PPI is a seperate issue. It is all so long ago and my memory fades hence my tentative kiss towards someone who might interrogate beyond my power of embrace. Anyway, as FDR put it "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself" and these people are f******g terrorists and I ain't frit because I is skint. x Vic

Hi dx My approach might be unorthodox but my father hails from Sauchiehall Street where razors were nested in caps; in usual circumstances of course one should not pay to pursue a PPI claim but my purpose here is slightly different. Hi Ganymede, fast track because the bandits have dubiously inflated the claim beyond 10k which of course means that standard disclosure automatically applies, so maybe Saarh ain't that bright; we shall see. x v

Hi guys A quick curtsy, courtly update. Defence has been submitted as per Andy's deny all and Directions Q submitted as per court timetable. I have attempted to agree DQ with bandits to no avail; they admit that they have no documentation whatsoever and request a further 28 day stay ('it may take Bod Dimone 80 days to provide same'). I have not made a sec 77/78 request (don't see the point, but they say thay have sent a recon job anyway [which they haven't] so I'm pondering the meaning of this. Gladstone Brooks have kindly agreed to investigate possible PPI for the account prior to its assignment to Bob for 39% + VAT; I am pondering the merits of this. I have secured a no win no fee brief should it go to court who estimate their costs at £3540. We move to DEFCON4 but our position remains that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Love vic

Hi guys I am just thinking aloud here prompted by oleg’s point. MKDP LLP’s claim is not evidenced by a NoA from Bob Diamond to MKDP LLP but is rather stained by several Compello group hands (I suppose they’ve made a bit of a fist of it). The ‘original’ NoA [such as it was] referred to an entity that did not have an extant licence; are they all different compelling entities (oleg’s point)? I have had an interesting and informative telephone conversation with FCA who suggest that, for them, separate CC licences imply separate entities regardless of the controlling ownership. Interestingly, MKDP LLP are not known to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (so oleg appears again to be correct in that Sarah is not a dear solicitor, although, granted that anyone is entitled to do the Lambert walk). Now, back to CPR part 18 request: I assume that sight of NoAs from Compello, MKRR, Raven, Keynes Recoveries to the terminus of MKDP LLP is not whimsical? x V

Thanks for this citizenB I shall avoid fishing. Love

Thanks for this oleg I shall certainly include mention of Mercers debt collections limited in my defence; if nothing else, it indicates an obfuscatory intent on the part of Barclays. You are correct in that the defective DN says, ‘We act as agents for Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard’. Love Vic

Dear Mould Thank you very much for the link confirming the Court of Appeal's judgement that a statutory requirement is a requirement (I suppose that the clue's in the name). This is exactly the sort of case law that I shall rely on in my defence. The much maligned and misunderstood Carey judgement is also useful with regard to 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Act. Love Vic

Sure slick, ‘The Claimant claims the sum of 10,xxx.xx being due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard. The Defendant’s account number was 530xxxxxxxxxxxx and was assigned to the Claimant on xx/07/12, 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 of 10,xxx.xx and costs. The Claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction.’ Signed: Sarah Lambert.

PS The DN shows a balance of well below 10k which would make the claim eligible for a small claims track; I should welcome any advice from Andy O on this.

Hi slick Thanks for the CPR link on which I am pondering deeply to utilise a part 18 request to harvest evidence prior to MKDP’s purchase of the account and their assumption of duties as well as rights. A DN notice giving inadequate time for remedy was served by Mercers in August 2010 where the alleged balance is shown as some £800 less than is now claimed by MKDP. I do not have statements from the inception of the account with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the year 2000. There are a number of £12 over-limit charges post the defective DN arising from continued interest charges applied to an account with a reduced credit limit. I am sure you get my drift and, for example, I have letter from Calder threatening legal action in November 2010 for a sum some £200 less than is now claimed. As an aside, the default date on my CRA file posted by Barclaycard is significantly different from that posted by MKDP; this all seems to me to present a picture of, at best, incompetency that, on a balance of probabilities, renders any reconstructed documents or ‘ we would have done this…’ somewhat implausible. Thanks again for your support. Love Vic

Hi guys Vic (dx will remember) needs some help. MKDP have issued a claim form (issue date 23 inst) with their bog standard POC (including a 410 sterling court fee); an alleged old Barclaycard account (date 2000) for 10k plus. I have made a CCA1974 request to the claimant. I have acknowledged via MCOL with deny all. Some context: last payment was 03/12 of £1; the account is in dispute because they would not place a default on my CRA file. Barclaycard failed to provide a valid CCA agreement. From my perspective, a CCJ is no big deal; I have no assets, a joint, interest only mortgage with no equity and only part-time employment at the age of 63. I think that I understand the nature and purpose of CPR31.14 request specifically relating to their POC and I am drafting that now. I am unsure as to what further information I might reasonably request via a part 18 request: for example, statements of account from inception to action (including penalty charges and interest thereon) ; variations in T&Cs; NOAs along the way, and so on. My drift here leans on statute (including the European Credit Directive) and that MKDP inherit the obligations of Barclaycard with regard to my consumer rights. My thanks, as always, are extended to CAG folk who have helped me along the way, especially but not exclusively, dx (my father was born of Sauchiehall and was an International Brigader); so, in the grand scheme of things, this is small beer indeed. “In sooth, I know not why I am so sad: It wearies me; you say it wearies you; But how I caught it, found it, or came by it, What stuff 'tis made of, whereof it is born, 5 I am to learn; And such a want-wit sadness makes of me, That I have much ado to know myself.” Love Vic

Hi BF The blessing is in the surprise; it ain't sad - I'm sixty and if I don't do it now.... x v

Hi guys I admit defeat; Sandander have increased SVR by 0.5% on 260k interest only mortgage with zero equity and I cannot afford £100+ pm (and they accept that I can't afford this) but will proceed with repossession despite this not being in their commercial interest. I have been gifted a caravan and am departing to Albania and Moldova and have informed all OCs and DCAs (not that I pay any DCA a bean) that token payments will cease because of above reason. CAG has been a great experience for me and I thank everyone, especially dx; God bless. x v

Hi FF I have 2 Eggs flogged to 'I luurve Barclays'. One, they have lost and do not want to know about (I suspect because I simply challenged the CCA originally with Egg). Do bear in mind that PPI was offered by default on every single Egg transfer and it would be difficult for them, Barclays (please see EU Credit Directive guidance), to deny this in the absence of statements which Egg will not provide and 'I luurve Barclays' cannot provide. I hope this helps. love vic

Hi SAFCstriker I had a similar problem with Sharkleys refusing to put a default on my CRF (which I checked following splendid advice from dx); notwithstanding that Sharkleys had issues a DN of sorts they said they would not report a default whilst I remained in a DMP of £1 p.m. and, as you say, placed me in a disadvantageous position compared to someone who chose to avoid their debt to 'I luurve Barclays'. I took their advice, ceased my payment of £1 p.m., wherethrough they sold said account to MKL (with no clear line of NOAs). Basically, I have told MK...whatever to foxtrot oscar and have heard nothing for a few months. Sometimes, I think we're overly polite in dealing with these agents of the devil. love vic

Hi ttessof I generally agree with dpick but it’s all of a matter of taste. I always reply by email in a tone that is as sensible as theirs. For example, my latest reply to these bandits (who communicate under four separate Consumer Credit Licences, is: ‘I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September x 2012 which I received today. I struggle to understand how this might relate to a Loan Account Number that you quote. For the avoidance of doubt, I deny any account with your multifarious entities; you are very welcome to proceed under UK and EU law should you think otherwise. Should you wish to discuss this further please feel free to telephone me on xxx; I am generally free 9.00 p.m through 8.00 a.m.’ "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram". Is also an appropriate riposte. http://jackofkent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/reply-given-in-arkell-v-pressdram.html x v

Hi Salbee As colleagues imply, pithy is good if one wants to play. x v

Sorry Uncle Crossed wires v

Hi Sally This is a standard computer generated letter (they don't have very many). I am intrigued as to why feel you should pay some random person £112.85 p.m. whom cannot authenticate legal entitlement to an account. No you should never call them. You might write, saying they're right about reviewing, and pay a lesser sum without negotiation; my feeling, were I you, would be to pay zero £ p.m. in the acknowledged absence of a CCA; and, no, our advice is never to supply a DCA with an I&E. This is just my view, based on my experience; the final call is your's. x v

Hi again Cheesy A SBed debt can be pursued through a non-legal process. DWP will pursue via direct deductions from future payments (in the absence of a DRO or Bankruptcy); that is what I meant by 'hot potato'. My comment on laying low still stands. x v