Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

MKDP LLP - Defaults - **WON everything removed**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4110 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've noticed these jokers have registered a default with the CRA's for an account I have no knowledge of. They registered the default with a date of September 2009 which is before they had a consumer credit licence, so I'm rather assuming there is a complaint to the OFT right there. Default was registered last week, nearly three years after the default date.

 

I also went back through my records and found the jokers had written to me in Feb 2011, and I'd replied with a prove it letter shortly afterwards. This was ignored.

 

So far I've written to them, requesting the default notice, and also that they either prove it or remove it. I've also asked all the CRA's to remove (which I know they wont). Any suggestions for a next course of action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

prob not them

 

they might have brought the debt after the oc registered the default.

 

thus their name as the owner gets changed on all in the file.

 

no idea what the debt was for nor the oc?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

none at all I'm afraid. Even though the default is dated Sept 2009, they registered it, and the account with the CRAs last Tuesday, so I don't think in can be just a name change.

 

I'd sent them a prove it exisits letter well over a year ago and heard nothing back, so assumed (wrongly) the'd gone awat

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you know it was not on your cra before ?

 

this is strange

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they appear to mostly deal with spoof debts to catalogue companies

 

is EVERYTHING on the cra and the letter def your details?

 

you need to complain

 

they cant just magic up a debt 3yrs old and mark your cra file

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant see they can do that

they've entered a statute barred debt if they have.

 

i think you need to question the CRA file upon WHy

they have allowed a statute barred debt to be entered on your file

 

their website had or did have a chat function

or call them

 

at the least you need to put a correction on there

 

have you checked https://www.noddle.co.uk/signup?source=mgm too?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

A short update. I sent a written complain to the jokers, and also to the CRA's about this. As expected I got the standard 'Our subscribers issue, not up to us' response from the CRA's.

 

Anyway jokers responded that it relates to a Welcome finance account which I've never had, and that they would obtain paperwork by today. More importantly they have made no effort to contact me before adding the default and claim they "would" have converted an existing Welcome account to their ownership with the CRAs

 

 

Anyway - I've sent of complaints to the ICO and the OFT about their behaviour. My first question - do I need to exhaust the CSA route before going any further down the FOS route?

 

I'm also going to send the following to the idiots, recorded. Can anyone think of any changes.

 

Dear Idiots,

 

 

On April 23rd 2012 you created an account with the CRAs and registered it as being in default. This despite my never having had an account with you, or as you claim Welcome finance. You claimed this default existed and you simply would of changed the name of the account owner on this date. This simply is not true. I have never had any dealing with you, or Welcome finance and owe you no money. In addition here was no account registered with the any of the reference agencies before this date. Not only have you broken ICO guidelines in restoring a default outside of a 6 month period you also seem to have registered a defaulted account before you held a consumer credit licence. I've bought this fact to the attention of the OFT and the fantastic untruths you have told to the ICO in my complaints to them abut your behaviour.

 

I have also been far more reasonable then could be expected considering your behaviour. In that

 

In February 2011 you wore to me regarding an unspecified debt, for an unstated amount. I wrote back to you on 26th Feb 2011 requesting that you proved this debt exists or did not contact me further. You made no further effort to contact me and I reasonably assumed you'd made an error which you'd now corrected. After a 14 month period this seemed reasonable.

 

In April 2012, without any further effort to contact me you registered a default with the credit reference agencies. Despite you being in breech of data protection and the OFT guidance on debt collection in doing so. In another effort to be reasonable I agreed to wait 28 days for you to produce paperwork to support this alleged debt and default. You have failed to do so. You this reason please find enclosed a S10 data protection act notice to stop processing all of my data, reporting it to third parties and delete it in its entirety from your system. If this is not confirmed as complied with in full within 7 days of the date of this letter. (Friday 1st June) I shall issue proceedings in the county court to order your compliance.

 

Lots of love

 

BFD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

OK - a little update.

 

The defaults are now gone from my credit file (all agencies) and MKDP have nice complaints with the ICO and the OFT about them.

 

All it took was a CPR part 8 claim requesting a court order that they comply with the data protection act or produce documentation supporting their right to carry on processing this data. I took this route because I was 100% confident that they could produce neither a CCA agreement (correct or otherwise) or a default notice and I thought this would probably be the quickest way. I did make it very clear in my poc they could not produce anything.

 

Anyway, they settled by deleting everything within 4 days of receiving the summons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

A little advice please. The jokers seems to have resurfaced on the same matter. And now claim to have sent me a CCA, and phone every day. As part of this settlement I have a letter from Sarah Lambert (the CEO of MKDP) which says

 

Dear Boyfalldown

 

Ref - Court Case

 

We are in receipt of your claim form in which you have requested MKDP LLP cease processing your data, delete your information from any third party system and remove the default registered on your credit file.

 

I can confirm that all of the above requests were actioned on (date)

 

Pleas accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

 

Clearly that letter is not worth the paper its written on. Nor was MKDP's assurances they would not contact me on this matter again. Any suggestions how best to proceed. Other then going back to court and seeking an order, plus informing the court as to there behaviour

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...