Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 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/Barclaycard claim form


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3504 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

Greetings all

 

Following a lot of reading here,

the following is my current state of play with a claim received from MKDP LLP.

 

At the end is my proposed Defence to the Court.

 

Name of the Claimant ?MKDP LLP

Date of issue – 26th June 2014

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

Please type out their particulars of claim (verbatim) less any identifiable data and round the amounts up/down.

 

What is the value of the claim? £8410

 

Is the claim for a current or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Old credit card

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 1980s

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned

and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not sure

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

 

Why did you cease payments:- Change of circumstances

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No

 

 

Amount claimed £8000

Court fee £410

Total amount £8410

 

Particulars of claim

The claimant claims the sum of 8000 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant

under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard.

 

The Defendant’s account number was XXXX and was assigned to the claimant on XX/XX/2011,

notice of this has been given 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 8000 and costs.

 

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

 

I acknowledged service on 14th July.

 

CCa sent

 

My CPR request:

14th July 2014

 

 

 

1: the agreement.

2: the assignment

 

3: the default notice

 

4: the termination notice

 

5: statement of account

 

Their response:

 

We write with reference to your recent request to inspect the documents referred to in our statement of case under CPR 31.14.

 

Unfortunately at this time we are unable to fulfil your request and as such we will need to liaise with the original lender

to request the appropriate documents.

 

We will forward these to you upon receipt but this may take up to 8 weeks.

 

We draw your attention to the fact that this claim is for a balance less than £10,000

and the normal track will be the small claims track which is governed by the Rules and Practice Directions of CPR 27.

 

This means that Part 31 of the Rules is not applicable to your claim pursuant to CPR 27.2(1)(b) and CPR 31.1(2).

 

It is not our intention to obstruct proceedings, on the contrary it is our view that the early disclosure of documents assist in reaching settlement.

 

It is also worth noting that we are required to serve on you and the Court copies of all documents upon which we intend to rely

at least 14 days prior to any date fixed for a final hearing in order to substantiate our claim and in compliance with CPR 27.4.

 

Please note that now that a claim has been issued it is your responsibility to file a response

and we may enter judgement if an Acknowledgement of Service or Defence is not filed at the appropriate time.

 

For the avoidance of doubt it is our contention that you are in a position whereby you can respond to the claim form

to the extent that you can admit or deny both liability and quantum without sight of any documents.

 

My proposed defence to be filed:

 

 

1.The claimant claims the sum of ****.** being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the defendant and Barclaycard.

 

2.The Defendant's account number was **************** and was assigned to the Claimant on XXXXXX, notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3.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.

 

4.The Claimant claims the sum of ****.** and costs.

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

 

 

 

Defence

 

 

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 is neither admitted nor denied with regards to the Defendant entering in to an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim. Until such time the claimant can comply with my section 78 request and CPR 31.14 the claimant is prevented from enforcing any agreements or seeking any relief.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied that any notice of assignment – as required by section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and by section 82a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – was received on or after 17/9/2012.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied that any statutory and valid default notice has been served on the Defendant.

 

4. Paragraph 4 is denied the claimant has complied with any pre action protocol and has yet to respond to my requests for clarification.

It is denied the Defendant owes any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) Show how the defendant has entered into the agreements

(b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for

© Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim by way of a Notice of Assignment and evidence of its service

On receipt of the claim form the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated xxxxxx for a copy of the notice of assignment, default notice and a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, which form the basis of this claim.

This was signed for by the claimants solicitors on xxxxxxxxx. The claimant has yet to comply.

 

On receipt of this claim form the Defendant requested a copy of the credit card agreement by way of a section 78 request dated xxxxxxxx. The Claimant has yet to comply.

 

Therefore the claimant in their non-compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

5. As per Civil Procedure rule 16.5(4) I expect 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.

 

Is this appropriate as a filing?

 

Thanks to all who have contributed and have let me get this far.

 

I hope I haven't yet made any blunders.Any other guidance greatly appreciated,

 

please just let me know if I am good to go with the above.

Edited by dx100uk
post tidied & templates removed - please do not post templates in the open forum - dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also just checked on the Experian website, and the date of default is under four months before the debt was allegedly reassigned.

 

Also, as of today, they have added the £410 court fee to the default balance.

 

I'd really appreciate some help here, please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to file by tomorrow Monday midnight.

 

i'll alert the team

 

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

who are the sols please

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

Thanks DK

Claimant and sols are MKDP LLP

br

 

mkdp are not sols

who are the claimants sols please

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

Defence is good to go dogilvy78

 

Your thread is exemplary..well laid out...good research.......you seem to have have a good grasp of the process.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Dont forget to print proof of defence submission and retain.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy.

It's all down to this wonderfully empowering forum, not least yourself and DX.

I'll post my defence first thing tomorrow and keep the Caggers updated. (Why does the spell checker insist on defense? NFL no doubt.)

Nighty night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's you spell checker not ours

 

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

thx both

I guess from DX's question that MKPD haven't claimed as as sols before?

I'll confirm defence am.

fwiw, the restriction on 10 posts before you can PM can make things fraught.

ttfn

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you don't need PM

it only opens you up to people trying to fleece and charge you

which is why we did it.

 

you can still PM siteteam mind

 

dx

 

 

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

Defense is preferred in American English, and defence is preferred in all other main varieties of English, including Australian, British, and Canadian English.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

thx both

I guess from DX's question that MKPD haven't claimed as as sols before?

I'll confirm defence am.

fwiw, the restriction on 10 posts before you can PM can make things fraught.

ttfn

 

I have an ongoing one with MKDP at the moment, and there were no solicitor's details listed, just the same address for them in Milton Keynes, so have just sent all documents to that address.

 

My guess is that to keep costs down they do everything in house, in the hope that they get default judgments with a % of filings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Okay, I've had the a copy of the original agreement back via MKDP.

 

It is my signature on the form but the other printed details are unreadable, a

nd the were no full T&Cs sent.

Agreement from early 80s.

 

I have scanned it and was just redacting it when I noticed there have been changes made to the address not in my handwriting.

 

Therefore, the form as completed by me has been altered.

 

It was never went back for me to correct because it has been done in someone else's handwriting.

 

Should I still carry on redacting and post the form, or does this change the complexion of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so wheres the agreement and the terms and conditions?

 

that's an application form

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

Hi DX

That's all they sent me.

Do I write to them asking for the agreement as per my CCA request?

Or does this constitute their failure to comply?

 

Their letter:

 

MKDP LLC v Yourself

Claim Number: XXXXXXXXX

 

We write with reference to the matter above.

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the signed application form relating to this outstanding balance which confirms you are liable for the outstanding amount.

 

If you wish to discuss this matter further please contact our legal department on 0800 XXX XXXX. Please be advised, should this matter proceed to trial and you are unsuccessful you may be liable for our costs.

 

I really don't appreciate their attempt at a threatening tone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you've filed your defence

 

if they wanna go back to court with that

 

then good luck MKDP!!

 

i'll let andy comment.

 

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

Could you please repost the agreement in pdf format.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...