Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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 claim struck out at the County Court barclaycard


Awobodia
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3528 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

I noticed last year (2013) that MKDP has entered a record of a CCJ

and default out of the blues against me on my credit file.

 

As I have never had any dealings with MKDP whatsoever,

I called to challenge the entry on my file.

 

MKDP claimed they had bought a debt i owed to Barclaycard.

 

For the record the Barclaycard debt was settled/satisfied in 2009.

There is a record to this effect on my credit file.

 

I went to the court and I was successful in having the CCJ set aside.

 

Following which MKDP then took me to court claiming that I owed the best part of £5K.

The District Judge on the 18th of June 2014 struck out MKDPs claim

as she had directed on two different occasions that MKDP provide evidence that I owed Barclaycard,

and MKDP still did not provide the evidence..

.I'm guessing because they had nothing to present.

 

MKDP's request afterwards for an appeal was also denied.

 

MKDP has also not made any request for an appeal of the decision to a higher court within the 21 days

allowed by law.

 

This in effect means MKDP can never again come after me for this fictitious debt!

 

Now to the crux of the matter,

 

MKDP is still insisting, despite the court judgement,

that I owe them and thus have to pay them before they remove the default record from my credit file.

 

I have written to Equifax attaching a copy of the judgement.

But, to my amazement, Equifax have written back advising that the default record entered by MKDP

cannot be removed as MKDP are of the opinion that I still owe them.

 

Equifax have advised that the record can only be removed at the behest of MKDP.

 

So, please what can I do legally to get this fictitious record on my credit file removed.

 

Is the court judgement not enough to get it removed?

 

Can MKDP still insist on me paying a debt that I do not owe

and that the courts have also adjudged that I do not owe?

 

Despite the fact that there is no legal means left open to MKDP

it appears I'm still being held to ransom by this dodgy company.

..is there nothing I can do legally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the same boat in as much as they do not have a contract and the judge has asked for a certified copy which they don't have. and i am looking into the following Action

1 I did the 3 letter process with a unilateral contract containing a fee schedule so i will invoice them for my time ( so can you) and put them in the county court see how they like it

2 take them to Queens bench which is a common law court. for trespass on my rights and seek damages for far more than they are asking off me.

3 a private criminal prosecution for breach of the 2006 fraud act misrepresentation's etc (have a look it could apply to you )

I may get no where buts it is worth trying to give them a bloody nose if i can

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG Awobodia.

 

The CCJ was set aside, they failed to appeal it. tough luck MKPD.

 

You will need to raise a written formal complaint to them. If they dispute this, they must prove that the default has been placed correctly.

 

You could go to the ICO but that is a long drawn out process and the default could drop off itself before you got any action.

 

I suggest the court route. As soon as these p*ssant companies realise you are serious, they take notice.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

and beware of following that fotl twaddle in post 2 as well

 

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

I noticed last year (2013) that MKDP has entered a record of a CCJ

and default out of the blues against me on my credit file.

 

As I have never had any dealings with MKDP whatsoever,

I called to challenge the entry on my file.

 

MKDP claimed they had bought a debt i owed to Barclaycard.

 

For the record the Barclaycard debt was settled/satisfied in 2009.

There is a record to this effect on my credit file.

 

I went to the court and I was successful in having the CCJ set aside.

 

Following which MKDP then took me to court claiming that I owed the best part of £5K.

The District Judge on the 18th of June 2014 struck out MKDPs claim

as she had directed on two different occasions that MKDP provide evidence that I owed Barclaycard,

and MKDP still did not provide the evidence..

.I'm guessing because they had nothing to present.

 

MKDP's request afterwards for an appeal was also denied.

 

MKDP has also not made any request for an appeal of the decision to a higher court within the 21 days

allowed by law.

 

This in effect means MKDP can never again come after me for this fictitious debt!

 

Now to the crux of the matter,

 

MKDP is still insisting, despite the court judgement,

that I owe them and thus have to pay them before they remove the default record from my credit file.

 

I have written to Equifax attaching a copy of the judgement.

But, to my amazement, Equifax have written back advising that the default record entered by MKDP

cannot be removed as MKDP are of the opinion that I still owe them.

 

Equifax have advised that the record can only be removed at the behest of MKDP.

 

So, please what can I do legally to get this fictitious record on my credit file removed.

 

Is the court judgement not enough to get it removed?

 

Can MKDP still insist on me paying a debt that I do not owe

and that the courts have also adjudged that I do not owe?

 

Despite the fact that there is no legal means left open to MKDP

it appears I'm still being held to ransom by this dodgy company.

..is there nothing I can do legally?

 

this settled/satisfied bit

 

so you have proof that you did this?

 

or are you just going by the fact that all entries by an OC

get marked this way when they sell a debt on?

 

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

Most of these companies make you think you are a criminal for not paying the debit. When in fact they don't abide by the law, regulations or any guidance set by the regulators. Why should one have to pay any more than one us legally required to do so, I am sure they will not

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the same boat in as much as they do not have a contract and the judge has asked for a certified copy which they don't have. and i am looking into the following Action

1 I did the 3 letter process with a unilateral contract containing a fee schedule so i will invoice them for my time ( so can you) and put them in the county court see how they like it

2 take them to Queens bench which is a common law court. for trespass on my rights and seek damages for far more than they are asking off me.

3 a private criminal prosecution for breach of the 2006 fraud act misrepresentation's etc (have a look it could apply to you )

I may get no where buts it is worth trying to give them a bloody nose if i can

 

 

Thanks for your response.

Please, can you expatiate a bit more on the 3 letter process with the unilateral contract containing a fee schedule?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this settled/satisfied bit

 

so you have proof that you did this?

 

or are you just going by the fact that all entries by an OC

get marked this way when they sell a debt on?

 

dx

 

I think your query is rather very irrelevant at this point as a Court Judgement has already been made. I trust you'll appreciate that County Court judges are not stupid people. Moreover, the onus is on the claimant to proof that there is indeed a valid debt owed to it.

 

Please, refer to the extract of my initial submission below...

 

"I went to the court and I was successful in having the CCJ set aside.

 

Following which MKDP then took me to court claiming that I owed the best part of £5K.

The District Judge on the 18th of June 2014 struck out MKDPs claim as she had directed on two different occasions that MKDP provide evidence that I owed Barclaycard, and MKDP still did not provide the evidence...I'm guessing because they had nothing to present.

 

MKDP's request afterwards for an appeal was also denied."

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well done

the three letter bit is freemen of the land twaddle

 

forget it.

 

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

ok so now forget the court case ccj etc

that now does not exist

and everything is reset to before the case.

 

now did you ever have a Barclaycard then?

 

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

Hi Awobodia,

 

If MKDP refuse to remove adverse credit markers from your CRA records, you have the option to take them (and Barclays t/a BC as co-defendants) to court seeking removal of the data and comensation as per the case of Kpohraror v Woolwich BS and/or Richard Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd.

 

Read up on these cases from reports of proceedings.

 

I agree with DX - ignore comments in post #2 above as it looks like Freedom of the Land nonsense that'll get you nowhere.

 

:-)

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...