Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • PCN Charge  - NTK received on 26th January for, “illegal” parking on the  Nicol Street Car Park for 11 minutes on 19th January, (having done so on the understanding that the car parks had been made free due to the COVID-19). I noticed a similar event and correspondence regarding the same car park in June last year and the advice given was to ignore the, “fine”. However I can’t find the correspondence again and wondered if the advice was followed and how it turned out?     
    • just tell them the truth surely, it wasn't purposefully does and as you insurance company say, technically you were insured and so was the vehicle. it's not as if there was no insurance whatsoever and you were purposefully driving without ever taking out any.    
    • PCN Charge  - NTK received on 26th January for, “illegal” parking on the  Nicol Street Car Park for 11 minutes on 19th January, (having done so on the understanding that the car parks had been made free due to the COVID-19). I noticed a similar event and correspondence regarding the same car park in June last year and the advice given was to ignore the, “fine”. However I can’t find the correspondence again and wondered if the advice was followed and how it turned out? 
    • As per my old and new posts all correspondences have now ceased from all parties hence me raising issue again.   If defaulted in January 2018, surely I should have been notified?    
    • Hi   I received a NIP for traveling 39mph in a 30 zone (mobile speed camera) in December 2020. As it is my offence, the police sent a letter requesting to know who was driving with three possible outcomes: speed awareness course, 3 points of contest at court. I provided my details and sent the form off.    The police sent me a letter this week asking for confirmation of my insurance... I realised that in October 2020 I removed a private number plate off the vehicle and notified the DVLA and the V5 form but I didn't norify my insurers.    I called the insurance company today and updated my number plate and they said technically I was insured and the vehicle was insured and it depends on how linient the police will be.    I am just concerned as the recent letter states possible prosecution for driving with out insurance with a possible fine and 6 to 8 points.    If they add that to the original 3 I might be given that would be 11 for a first offence.    Has anyone got any experience on this or any advice as I am pretty worried!    Thanks 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

No reponse to CPR 31.14 request, no agreement to defence deadline extension - next step?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2620 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

Hi all.

 

Hope someone can offer some advice as to how to proceed regarding defence submission. Details as follows:

 

 

  • MKDP LLP issued County Court claim form (bulk centre) on 21 Oct regarding a credit card debt allegedly had with Barclaycard. I have no record of the account and have never received any paperwork relating to it and have never made any payments to the account.
  • I received the claim form on 24 Oct and acknowledged service and intention to defend online on the same day. Deadline for defence submission 23 Nov, although the Court advised as that is Saturday, they will accept sumbission on Monday 25 Nov.
  • I sent CPR request for copies of documents referred to in PoC on 25 Oct which was delivered and signed for by MKDP on 26 Oct.
  • No response at all to above by Weds 20 Nov so sent an email asking when they would be supplied. No response to that email so rang on Thurs 21 Nov to request response. They asked for my DoB which I refused to give (I am unsure exactly as to where they got this info from??) so they refused to speak to me. They gave me another email address for their legal department so I re-sent the email chasing a response.
  • Finally received one back with what seems to be (having read many threads on this forum...!) their standard "we are not the original lender so have requested the documents from BC which may take up to 6-8 weeks. Therefore we will allow you up to 14 days after this to submit your defence".
  • I replied requesting their written agreement to a specific date (as directed by the court) which I gave, and showed how I had worked out that date, based on MKDP's estimate of 6-8 weeks + 14 days.
  • No response so sent another email at 5pm Fri 22 Nov saying if they didn't respond I intended to apply to court to have claim struck out on the basis that it couldn't succeed. This may have been the wrong thing to do but I was in a bad mood and wound up that these types of companies appear to be able to get away with not following the guidelines, yet if I don't (i.e. submit defence by the deadline) they can automatically get judgement against me!

I have not received anything from MKDP since then - so as I don't have agreement from them as to a specific date to file my defence, what do I do now? I don't believe trying to get the claim struck out at this stage will get me anywhere, and I don't have time to do this before having to file defence anyway.

 

I can't submit a decent defence without having a clue as to what this alleged BC account is - all I have is their word it exists. So do I submit a defence denying the allegations - but how do I defend, other than to say I have no record of any such account. This seems a bit flaky and surely that's what most people would try if they were trying to avoid paying a debt? Or is there another / better course of action?

 

I can post up PoCs if necessary/helpful.

 

Thanks in advance for anyone's help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my post above, here are the PoC as per the claim form issued by MKDP:

 

The Claimant claims the sum of £3,xxx.xx being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimaint under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard.

The Defendant's account number was XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and was assigned to the Claimant on 15/01/2013, notice of this has been provided to the Defendant. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of this agreement and a default notice has been served pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Claimant claims the sum of £3,xxx.xx and costs.

The Claimaint has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action condust practice direction.

 

To re-iterate - I have received nothing from either Barclaycard or MKDP prior to this court summons.

Hope someone can offer some suggestions re. what to do!

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the (state CountyCourt here) ClaimNo. (state claimnumber here)

Between:

(state Claimant’s name here) Claimant

-and-

(State your name here) Defendant

Defence

Introduction

1. I, Mr/Mrs aged (state your age here) of ( state your full addresshere) am the Defendant in thismatter and I make this statement as my defence to the Claim brought by the Claimant. Thematters set out below are within my own knowledge and where the contraryappears, I state the source of such material and putthe Claimant to the strictest of [proof on his claim, which is denied in its entiretyherby.

a. For the purposeof this Defence, all paragraphs and sentences stated hereafter are referred to the Claimant’s statement ofcase dated (put date here).

2. The first sentence of Claimant’s statement of caseis admitted, save it is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the sums claimed therein as alleged, theClaimant is therefore, put to the strictest proof on the same.

3. The second sentence stated therein is denied andthe Claimant is put to the strictest of proof on the same. The Defendantcontends that no notice pursuant to s.136 & 196 has been served uponher/him by the Claimant as alleged or at all.

4. As to the third sentence, it is denied that anystatutory and valid default notice has been served on the Defendant and theClaimant is therefore; put to the strictest of proof to the contrary.

5. In light of the facts enumerated above, the claim is denied in its entirety and the Claimant isput to the strictest proof to establish to the contrary and his claimedentitlement under the statute and its provisions which, ifcomplied with in accordance with the obligations imposed upon the Claimant thereunder , would entitle the Claimant to his claim.

Statement of Truth

Mr/Mrs……………………………………………….. dated this day ……….. of November2013.

Singed (your printed name in caps – as the Claimant)

 

Kind regards

The Mould

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great - thanks for your response Mould (I presumed you meant the Defendant and not the Claimant in the sign-off line?). I will submit this online - should I make any reference to that fact that I sent the CPR request or is it irrelevant at this stage?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's great - thanks for your response Mould (I presumed you meant the Defendant and not the Claimant in the sign-off line?). I will submit this online - should I make any reference to that fact that I sent the CPR request or is it irrelevant at this stage?

 

Thanks.

 

Don’t worry as regards the Claimant’sclaim.

I did mean Claimant instead of Defendanton the sign off line (sorry for any confusionthis has caused you).

Yes, deny the sums claimed and the creditor’sright and claimed entitlement to the same, because he has failed to comply with his obligations imposed uponhim under s.87(1) of CCA ACT 1974 (as amended) therefore, his own non-compliant actions have denied him the fruits of s.87(1)of the CCA Act 1974 (as amended) if hehad indeed followed the statutory provisions imposed upon him thereunder.

In the light of the above, you rely upon the qualified judgement handeddown in Brandon V American Express on the issue of the invalid default notice served in this matter, the Claimantcannot, therefore, proceed to enforce the agreement in contraventionof statute and the Court of Appeal’s’ qualified judgment handed down in Brandonon the same.

The claim must fail in the light ofthe foregoing statute and higher Court of Appeal’s authority on the same.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...