MKDP claimform +£10k Barclaycard 'debt' ***Claim Dismissed with Costs***

[victoria_siempre]

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.

[slick132]

Please post up Claimant's PoC.

 

[victoria_siempre]

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.

[The Mould]

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

Good afternoon Vic,

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1187.html

 

The above Court of Appeal judgment (click on link) confirms that a creditor is not entitled to enforce a credit agreement in contravention of the statutory requirements imposed upon him under ss.87 & 88 CCA 1974 (as amended).

 

 

Further, in Harrison v Link, the High Court also ruled that service of a valid default notice was a prerequisite to enforcement proceedings.

 

 

I hope the above is of some help to you in this matter.

 

 

Godzilla

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

The Mould

[victoria_siempre]

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

[citizenB]

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.

 

You can request via the CPR 31.14..

 

The agreement

The default Notice

Statement of account showing how the claimed sum has accrued.

 

Via a CPR part 18 you can ask the following questions.. you cannot request copies of documents.

 

Has the account been assigned

on what date

was the accoutn holder advised of this

by what method

 

You can only ask questions.. depending how they respond, you can then request copies of any documents they confirm are in existence.

 

Do not go on a fishing trip.. please dont make your part 18 request look like an SAR.

 

I have attached an example for you.. just so you can see the format.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51301[/ATTACH]

[oleg]

I remember with joy some of your interjections, eg your celebration of a fellow sufferer's victory at the expense of some cack-handed solicitor thuswise: "The sun shineth on the righteous and the sun shineth on the non-righteous".

Thus it is with humility that I offer a morsel of grist for your mill.

"Mercers Debt Collectors Ltd" are a different legal entity from Barclays. In the era of your supposed default, their letterhead bore no mention of any link. The default notice letter template said something like: "We act as agents for Barclays plc t/a Barclaycard".

A default notice must come from the creditor not any old Tom Dick or Mercer. I would certainly include this in my plea of its defectivemess.

I knew Compello dispensed with the niceties of expensive lawyers for their court claims but I didn't know the name of the Grande Dame herself appeared as la responsable. mmm

Oleg

[slick132]

"Mercers Debt Collectors Ltd" are a different legal entity from Barclays. In the era of your supposed default, their letterhead bore no mention of any link. The default notice letter template said something like: "We act as agents for Barclays plc t/a Barclaycard"

 

I disagree with this. Mercers show up as a dormant company but they've been BC's in-house DCA for years. I believe it's more important that they get the dates right about when you should remedy the default, than it is about the DN being issued by Mercers.

 

Edited June 4, 2014 by slick132

[oleg]

With what are you disagreeing? The time allowed to remedy the default is indeed of greater substantive import than the use of another co. to issue the notice. I didn't intend to imply otherwise, merely to point this out as an added defect, albeit more minor.

That said, I don't see the relevance of Mercer's having been in-house for years. Their letterhead did not state any connection to Barclays. Other considerations aside, this constitutes a deceptive practice attempting to mislead which, if I recall correctly, is something proscribed in FSA/FCA guidance.

[slick132]

Hi Oleg,

 

I was simply saying that the issue of the DN by Mercers has been going on for many years and this may not be enough, in itself, to place doubt on the DN's conformity.

[victoria_siempre]

I remember with joy some of your interjections, eg your celebration of a fellow sufferer's victory at the expense of some cack-handed solicitor thuswise: "The sun shineth on the righteous and the sun shineth on the non-righteous".

Thus it is with humility that I offer a morsel of grist for your mill.

"Mercers Debt Collectors Ltd" are a different legal entity from Barclays. In the era of your supposed default, their letterhead bore no mention of any link. The default notice letter template said something like: "We act as agents for Barclays plc t/a Barclaycard".

A default notice must come from the creditor not any old Tom Dick or Mercer. I would certainly include this in my plea of its defectivemess.

I knew Compello dispensed with the niceties of expensive lawyers for their court claims but I didn't know the name of the Grande Dame herself appeared as la responsable. mmm

Oleg

 

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

[victoria_siempre]

You can request via the CPR 31.14..

 

The agreement

The default Notice

Statement of account showing how the claimed sum has accrued.

 

 

 

Vic

 

Via a CPR part 18 you can ask the following questions.. you cannot request copies of documents.

 

Has the account been assigned

on what date

was the accoutn holder advised of this

by what method

 

You can only ask questions.. depending how they respond, you can then request copies of any documents they confirm are in existence.

 

Do not go on a fishing trip.. please dont make your part 18 request look like an SAR.

 

I have attached an example for you.. just so you can see the format.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51301[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks for this citizenB

 

I shall avoid fishing.

 

Love

[citizenB]

Thanks for this citizenB

 

I shall avoid fishing.

 

Love

 

I saw one where the sender had pretty much turned it into a SAR Then couldnt understand why the Solicitor wouldnt respond !

[victoria_siempre]

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

[The Mould]

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

You are welcome Vic

The above Harrison v Link Financial Ltd judgment is a key authority which deals with a creditor’s numerous breaches, including irredeemable breaches of the CCA 1974 (as amended), have a read of this case to establish if there is anything therein that you can rely upon for your own Defence/arguments that may undermine/defeat this claim against you.

Godzilla

Kind regards

The Mould

[The Mould]

Sorry, here is the link:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[oleg]

Victoria

I'm afraid I'm in too much of a pickle of my own to dwell much on anything else at the mo but i'll just chip following points in for what they're worth,

then bow out for now.

1. Remember that you don't have to prove the non-existence of a legal link: on the contrary, the Opposition have to prove the existence thereof and for the claimant to have both bridged links in their chain and notified the defendant in a proper manner, in accord with statutory requirement. [Whatever that means!]

2. As stated earlier, you may be making better use of your energy concentrating on the "insufficient time to remedy" aspect since, although it ought to be a show stopper, there have been reports of Learned men in wigs sniffily dismissing such trivia as "de minimis". With Mr Mould's help, you should be on your guard against any such travesty.

3. Sarah Lambast afaik boasts no legal qualifications. She in effect owns Compostello and its various sub-species. I once got the whole lot of them off somebody else's back by firing a few judicious emails at their prize turnips. [Obtained email addresses by googling, of course.]

4. Remember that most legacy accounts sold on by Barkingcard had been acquired from the original owners without anything other than a brief spreadsheet summary of each customer. Where CCAs ever existed in the first place, validly executed or otherwise, most had long since been cremated. I'm not guaranteeing this in your case, but let's put it this way, I haven't lost one moment's sleep over my own ex-Goldfish ["save money on your gas bill"] or my ex's ex-Liverpool Victoria. However, you're up against Legals, so you've attained a spiritually more refined state in the matter than I.

Good luck with it.

[oleg]

Sad that, at 5 a.m. I should be thinking of this but it beats news headlines about Newark by-election and a supermarket quail egg hatching.

Although, as you are aware, Sarah Lamppost does not need to be a solicitor to brand her name to claim forms, it's always interesting to find out who the real plumbers are.

Lucy Brown, long standing Head of Compliance at Compost, has been joined since January by Rajiv Puri "Legal & Compliance Director and Group Counsel" according to his linkedin waffle. Which of the two lords [ladies?] over the other is anyone's guess.

If you visit linkedin, pls don't confuse the above rajiv with his namesake the urologist, a worthier class of plumber.

[victoria_siempre]

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

[dx100uk]

don't lose all you PPI money

 

do it yourself with our help for FREE!!!

 

dx

[Ganymede]

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

Sorry couldn't see, has this claim been allocated to a track yet?

[victoria_siempre]

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

[gem77]

Hi Just subbing as I too have a court claim with MKDP with regards to a barclay card. I also am chasing missold ppi on this, have been for the last 3 years to no avail now its in the hands of the FOS but MKDP still decided to take me to court.

[victoria_siempre]

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

Edited August 11, 2014 by victoria_siempre
over escalation

[citizenB]

Victoria, Barclayshark have a habit of buying back debts especially if there is PPI to be refunded