Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just an update on Celticheart37 versus Barclaycard.   On the claim for my late Husband's PPI, Barclaycard have responded saying they have been unable to locate a PPI Policy . They say he held his card since 1979 ( not the late 1980's as I had believed) which means that PPI did not exist and that is fair enough. I accept that PPI did not exist in 1979 so couldn't have been included. So that is the end of that one.They could have told me that at the beginning rather than let me search for proof that would not exist , but never mind.   On my own Barclaycard claim for which they have offered me a refund  "based on averages", I have sent a SAR requesting my statements back to 1993 when the account opened,so hello 12345 I will post an update when I get a response and let you know how far back  they were able to go !   Celticheart37
    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. 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 to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  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. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and 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.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon 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 to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   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.  Regards  Andy    
  • Our picks

Dotty50

MKDP/barclaycard claimform - will need some help please!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1670 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I'll double check the DN and dates etc but I think it was issued prior to the sale/assignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be strange for an account to be sold before a default notice was issued though so chances are ..

 

 

M1

 

Well they can sell the account at any time, without a DN, but the new owner would be in a bit of a spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw another puzzle into the mix, my CRA file has never had a Default registered by BC, but MKDP registered one in December 2011 - despite the fact I've never received a DN from MKDP.

 

Got to be worth pursuing a correction if we "win"?

 

BL


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to throw another puzzle into the mix, my CRA file has never had a Default registered by BC, but MKDP registered one in December 2011 - despite the fact I've never received a DN from MKDP.

 

Got to be worth pursuing a correction if we "win"?

 

BL

 

If you were defaulted by Barclays, they cannot post another DN post assignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My BC was never registered on any CRA until after the assignment and that's when the default appeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My BC was never registered on any CRA until after the assignment and that's when the default appeared.

 

Hi Dotty,

 

If Barclays issued you with a DN, which I presume that they did, the new owner cannot Default you again. They can only update that notice.

 

When they purchase a debt, they take on the liabilities and responsabilities of the OC, in an absolute assignment.

 

Where are you with that one Dotty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My BC was never registered on any CRA until after the assignment and that's when the default appeared.

 

Have you heard back from the court as to the stayed status?

 

If not, it may be worth a call to Northanmpton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dotty,

 

A point for your DN defence

 

The Default notice is a bad notice. I refer the Court to the recent

ruling of HHJ Chambers QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Keith Harrison vs Link Financial Limited EWHC 2011 B3 where at paragraph 75 when addressing a default notice he stated………

 

The notice of enforcement

 

75. The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement CANNOT be attempted in dependence upon it. ……………………….

 

Accordingly the Claimant cannot enforce the agreement due to the fact the notice is indeed bad for the reasons stated above.

 

It is also noted that the provisions of s78, s87 & s88, are for application to live accounts only. Having terminated the agreement, the Claimant is no longer in a position to rectify these defects in the statutory documents issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My laptop just packed up as I was halfway through posting! I'm doing this from my phone which isn't ideal and I don't know how it will work.

 

Thanks for that info Vint, I was putting the link to the case you referred to but I don't know how to from my phone!

I've heard nothlng from MK or the court so I'm guessing it's stayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My BC was never registered on any CRA until after the assignment and that's when the default appeared.

 

Exactly!


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello guys laptop now in for repair so now limited but hopefully not for too long!

 

As soon as I'm up and running again I'll be resuming a BC thread for my OH as we had another N1 yesterday from MK!

 

I'm posting this from my phone and I find it very slow and not user friendly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dotty,

 

A point for your DN defence

 

The Default notice is a bad notice. I refer the Court to the recent

ruling of HHJ Chambers QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Keith Harrison vs Link Financial Limited EWHC 2011 B3 where at paragraph 75 when addressing a default notice he stated………

 

The notice of enforcement

 

75. The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement CANNOT be attempted in dependence upon it. ……………………….

 

Accordingly the Claimant cannot enforce the agreement due to the fact the notice is indeed bad for the reasons stated above.

 

It is also noted that the provisions of s78, s87 & s88, are for application to live accounts only. Having terminated the agreement, the Claimant is no longer in a position to rectify these defects in the statutory documents issued.

 

Is this in relation to your MK/BC claim Dotty? Just wondering if you're preparing a defence in preparation of a court hearing?

 

BL


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is his story similar to ours Dotty?

 

At least you'll know what to expect from these muppets!!

 

BL :)


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing. I bumped into some of your post yesterday and it lead me to a helpful place. Good luck with everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this in relation to your MK/BC claim Dotty? Just wondering if you're preparing a defence in preparation of a court hearing?

 

BL

 

Hi BL, now got laptop sorted, the post that Vint added referred to another case, not mine.

 

Hi happyhippy and noshovel, welcome to my thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you got the tech sorted out Dotty :)

 

Are you bothering to do anything with MK, or just going to leave it? I'm half tempted to forget about it, but at the same time, I'd like to haul them in front of a judge to show how they've abused the court process in attempting to sneak a case through the bulk claims centre when they've not got a sniff of a case....but I don't know if I can be ars*d!!

 

BL


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BL I agree, they need to be taken to task and stopped, but I really wouldn't know where to start and really have to many other things to cope with at the moment!

 

Have you spoken to anyone at Northampton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi BL I agree, they need to be taken to task and stopped, but I really wouldn't know where to start and really have to many other things to cope with at the moment!

 

Have you spoken to anyone at Northampton?

 

I have now!!So - in the words of the guy at Northampton CC, the claim is now "blocked". As its been over 33 days and MK haven't responded to my defence, they've efectively closed the file. If MK want to re-open the case, they'll have to make an application and explain to a DJ why they didn't respond to my defence within the required timescales. Worth a call Dotty, but I expect yours will be the same story - happy days!do we put our files back into storage, or go for the jugular (but risk re-opening the can of worms?)BL


Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats excellent news Bl . I have not contacted Northampton court but i have had nothing in the post either .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have now!!So - in the words of the guy at Northampton CC, the claim is now "blocked". As its been over 33 days and MK haven't responded to my defence, they've efectively closed the file. If MK want to re-open the case, they'll have to make an application and explain to a DJ why they didn't respond to my defence within the required timescales. Worth a call Dotty, but I expect yours will be the same story - happy days!do we put our files back into storage, or go for the jugular (but risk re-opening the can of worms?)BL

 

Thanks for letting us know BL, I will get round to giving them a call when I can.

 

Once I know, I wouldn't take it any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dotty

 

Read your thread with interest ,trying to sort out same problem for o/h , have u heard anymore ?


Go For It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, go for it

 

Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been away on holiday.

 

No nothing heard since and I guess none of the others in similar situations have heard anything more either as I have not had any notifications from their threads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...