old HSBC OD prev settled by F&F to Westcot - now MKDP Claim Form***Claim Struck Out***

[AndyOrch]

I would simply defend it on the grounds of payment made pursuant to a Full and final settlement with Wetcloths...

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Requirements of promissory estoppel:

 

 

1.A pre-existing contract or legal obligation which is then modified

2.There must be a clear an unambiguous promise

3.Change of position

4.It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise

 

1. A pre-existing contractual or legal obligation which is then modified:

 

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215

 

2. A clear and unambiguous promise.

 

 

This may be implied through conduct:

 

 

Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. v. Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd. [1972] AC 741

 

 

3. Change of position:

 

Alan v El Nasr [1972] 2 WLR 800

 

 

4. It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise:

 

 

D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 WLR 28

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Bump your thread as your defence date approaches and I will draft you a defence that contends promissory estoppel.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Wetclots should have no need to try to withhold the letter but we will see. DSAR could flush it out but can take up to 40 days for a response so any information disclosed will be post defence.

 

Whenever a F&FS is agreed its vital that all written conformation is retained and any letter must be drafted in a way that confirms that.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

What is your date to submit xedbot?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

No problem we can have a look at it tomorrow and finalise a draft.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Any joy with the letter of conformation agreeing to the F&FS xedbot ?

[AndyOrch]

Particulars of Claim

 

MKDP LLP

 

Date of issue 11 Apr 2014

 

1.The Claimant claims the sum of 712.04 being monies due from the Defendant(s) to HSBC Bank PLC under a bank account facility regulated by the consumer credit Act 1974 and assigned to the Claimant on 29/01/2013.

 

2.The Defendant(s) account number was xxxxxx/xxxxxxxx. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable in full on demand.

 

3.The Defendant(s) has failed to make payment as required by the statutory default notice served by HSBC Bank PLC.

 

4.The Claimant claims the sum of 712.04 and costs.The Claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the Pre-Action Conduct Practice Direction.

 

 

Defence

 

1.Paragraph 1 is denied as the account number claimed has already been settled by way of a Full and Final Settlement payment to Wescot Credit Services DCA, acting on behalf of HSBC's . Agreement was reached on a reduced settlement figure and the account was terminated.

 

2.Paragraph 2/3/4/ are denied for the aforesaid reasons and the claimant is estopped from changing its position by the first party (Wescot)

 

3. Notwithstanding the above it is denied that any monies are due to the Claimant and is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

 

4. Should the above be denied the Claimant is put further to strict proof;

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

6. 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.

 

7.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

[AndyOrch]

Excellent news...well done xedbot

 

Delighted that this has been resolved for you .

 

With regards to your questions they have 7 days to act on the order from the date of that order...but I doubt you will hear anymore.

Unfortunately the default remains until its 6th anniversary and will then disappear...just because the claim was struck out the debt remains.

 

 

Put this behind you now and enjoy the Xmas festivities...I will amend your thread title to reflect the outcome.

 

Well done.

 

Andy