MKDP claimform for Barclaycard 'debt'*** Claim Dismissed***

[tigger74]

Now they know what is wrong, Im sure that they can dot the I and finish the t properly.

 

Which I think the judge has let them have a get out,

 

 

All they have do is separate out the terms and conditions and label them correctly so they match the Acc numbers.

 

That's it....

 

In effect the old non enforceable agreement with missing terms and conditions,

then is connected with the copy that they say was in issue at the time and bingo, that's now enforceable...

 

Don't think much I can do now with this one but wait for the next couple of weeks and look at the re drafted documents.....

[SabreSheep]

how old is this account again?

 

if it is before 2007 they must have the original. Start reading up the appropriate case law so you can present it to the judge, in 4 weeks time. Its worth a shot

[tigger74]

Its a 1999 account,

 

 

they have produced a modified agreement that is 2002(copy in pdf on page 4),

not signed,

no credit limit or mention of how worked out.

random terms and conditions.

 

 

The agreement clearly says apr price match coupon and refs back to previous agreement which they have not supplied at all.... the original was a magazine application.

 

the claim is for a different ACC number (dated 2010) and no connection of the terms and conditions to any of the accounts, in effect random..

 

I was right on 61(1), 65, 127 (3) as stands could not be enforced, what you guys have helped me understand...

 

What I don't get is now if they can change the documents presentation,

and type out a letter saying all the 3 Acc numbers are the same 1999/2002/2015(court claim) agreement what has changed?

 

They still don't have the first agreement... which all is based on..

 

I have not got a clue what to do with this or where to go

[dx100uk]

the simple fact is they will NEED the signed agreement

later unsigned ones

or T&C's are IMHO irrelevant.

 

 

let them sweat.

 

 

the later agreements mean NOWT if they cant prove you originally signed up before then.

[tigger74]

I remember filling out the magazine application and the apr price match coupon.

 

 

how do I stand firm that they need the magazine or coupon originally signed?

 

 

trying to understand why the judge implys they don't need it..

 

 

. and the information points to the fact they do

 

bit lost now, and sorry to be a pain..

[dx100uk]

Right bad day,

 

 

I won in that the poor documentation form MKDP meant they could not enforce the debt.

 

But and its the big but, as the amount is large. the Judge has allowed them 4 weeks to correct the document failures and re-submit..

 

 

..Once they correct the non compliances issues, should we say get the white rabbit out

. im stuffed according to the judge and the debt will be enforced by the courts

 

He let them off the late serving of documents as well, and the incorrect documents because of the value of claim...

 

Once they send in the modified documents, I have to agree to what ever they put forward...

... stuffed, rofl was worth a go

 

 

what not compliant issues did the judge elude too?

 

 

the fact that the presented documents are blurred

makes no odds at the end of the day

 

 

where is my signature on this agreement judge?

 

 

nowhere????????

 

 

dx

[tigger74]

Said all that, no signature on show any where, no credit limits, no 1999 documentation, or magazine application/voucher true copy supplied, or application forms at all for 1999,2000,2001.

 

 

The Agreement supplied for 2002 which refs back to apr price match coupon and previous 1999 in that these are modified terms and conditions ( on page 4 as pdf) 2 page document..

 

 

Non of the documents tie up to the account number they claim the monies owed on, par for the Barclays letter under cca request with different Monies now owed to the claim ( inflated it by court cost).

 

 

 

 

I accepted that I have had a relationship with Barclays, in they did my banking , mortgage and stuff.

And yes I remember filling in a magazine application (1999), and apr coupon from a magazine(2002).

 

 

What I need is case law and prove they need the signed documents?

 

 

Thank you for the help

[tigger74]

Is this still valid?

paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 of the CCA 2006 that the discretion of the court cannot be exercised when considering improperly-executed agreements under s.65(1) of the CCA 1974 in relation to agreements executed prior to the 6th of April 2007.

 

Does that mean the discretion of the court can only be exercised in this respect to improperly-executed agreements under s.65(1) of the CCA 1974 in relation to agreements executed after the 6th of April 2007

 

 

 

 

 

Spent all night looking for information still believe that the court cant enforce this due to the information not being a true copy in anyway shape nor form...

[theoldrouge]

as far as s78 is concerned

 

you need to research Carey v hsbc especially clause234 of the case summary

 

the agreement has been varied, the original agreement has been mentioned in the modifying agreement,

 

and therefore a true copy of the original must be supplied

 

you are correct with what you have stated in post#88 above as regards s61/65/127(3)

[tigger74]

Got my copy of Carey v HSBC. done a lot of reading the last couple of weeks.

 

 

 

 

But its worth it:)

 

 

So today I signed for a letter from MKDP which has a Barclays headed logo document ( nothing else on it (I.E, date, Ref, department, Address) IT confirms a link between the 2002 agreement to the current claimed debt.

 

 

It does say unfortunately as the account has been opened 16 years, do not know the correct reason the account numbers could of been changed for the following reasons:

 

 

1. Acc upgraded.

2. Acc blocked, lost, stolen, so if the case then new number issued.

 

 

 

 

The question is, now which way to go with this one.... Barclays have not covered the section 78 request as not all documents have be produced ( APR coupon, previous agreement to 2002) so that means non enforceable?

 

 

The other area is the agreement was not executed correctly ? as clearly did not supply all terms at point of the new varying agreement. more than one area for this to not be enforceable?

 

 

Any advice would be much welcomed

 

 

Tigs

[theoldrouge]

so where exactly do you now stand as regards a true copy of the original agreemnt?

 

what have they produced as their reply to your s78 request?

[tigger74]

The 2002 modified agreement copy ( supplied), that's it....

 

No 1999 agreement ( which is the original) and ref as previous earlier agreement in the 2002 modified copy.

 

no APR coupon copy ref in the 2002 modified copy.

 

If I understand the replying s78 request from Barclays. It clearly states the creditor shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement(and any document referred to in it) and a statement of account.

 

 

So as they have now nicely linked the ACC from 2002 to the claim as linked accounts, that would mean that they have not complied with the section 78 request?

 

 

Am I right in this thinking ?

 

 

 

 

Also as they ref back to my previous 2002 modified agreement as basis, it seems that they didn't execute the modified agreement correctly. As they didn't supply another at the time but referred to the earlier agreement and I should keep copies...

 

 

tigs

[theoldrouge]

they need to supply a true copy of the original agreement (1999)

along with the t&cs at time of inception, and the t&cs at closure, together with a simple statement of ac(just balance owing)

in order to comply with s78(1)

 

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/CONC/13/1

[theoldrouge]

what they have produced even states that "you should keep copies of the earlier agreement to read in conjunction with this agreement"

 

couldnt be any plainer really

[tigger74]

Planner for who,lol?

[AndyOrch]

Plainer...obvious

[tigger74]

Sorry having a blond moment. im nearly bald, rofl plainer as it confirms my thoughts that this is unenforceable of planner as it is ?

[tigger74]

Does anyone know what happens if a company are in default of a CCA78 request for 7months,rofl?

 

 

Is there a time limit anymore to this one, or is it open ended?

 

 

Im trying to understand a lot of this, so much information to take in.

 

 

Tigs

Edited March 10, 2015 by tigger74
sensative information, may tip the claimant off

[theoldrouge]

if they are in default of your s78 request,

 

the court has no discretion on enforcement(granting ccj),,

 

its statutory s78(6)

 

(6)If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a)he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

[tigger74]

Must laugh after what is 8 months and all communications being snail mail no tracked, and lost postal service.

 

 

The claimant has tried sending 2 recorded delivery letters last week. The only conclusion I have,is it was in the vain hope of getting a signature.

 

 

And an X isn't going to help them much unless they trying to do scrabble....

 

 

Tigs

[tigger74]

Have been looking at the further witness statement & documents, I have received from Mkdp.

 

And I must say that this lot really do try it on, They have produced an internal set of emails from their system. And it contains a conversation/ Notes confirming the required missing information.

 

Going back through this lot again, more I look, more I see.

 

At this moment they have broken the FCA guide lines, they have not met my CPR31.14, nor my CPR.PD16 para 7.3. And in relation to CCA s78 they still have not got a clue what they have sent me....

 

Managed to find a case pretty much identical I think to mine while looking on another site...

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2012/19.html&query=wegmuller&method=Boolean

 

Worth a read, and laid out in an informative way to me..

 

As my agreement does not contain all the required terms and conditions in the form presented, then it was not correctly executed at the time.....

 

What is the best way to get the judge to listen to this, and look at the relevant areas.

 

 

My defence clearly raises cpr and s78 non compliance. And CPR.PD16 para 7.3.

 

 

My response to the late statements from MKDP raises 61/65/127(3).

 

Now I know the agreement isn't executed correctly, do I draw the judges eyes to the relevant areas?

 

Looking at the recon agreement and terms. the cover sheet says

 

 

" you will have for a short time a right to cancel it"

 

 

this is in conflict with the agreement which states that at any time I have a right to settle this agreement at any time" so this is isn't correct?

 

 

Tigs

[tigger74]

Can anyone help me with understanding the modified agreement , and acts that the modified agreements come under. trying to understand a bit more about this area?

 

 

 

 

Also had an offer for settlement at a 15 percent discount.

 

 

Tigs

[dx100uk]

as far as s78 is concerned

 

you need to research Carey v hsbc especially clause234 of the case summary

 

the agreement has been varied, the original agreement has been mentioned in the modifying agreement,

 

and therefore a true copy of the original must be supplied

you are correct with what you have stated in post#88 above as regards s61/65/127(3)

 

 

 

 

matters not really the above hi lighted statement kills any effect it has or may have

[tigger74]

Thank you for the response, im just getting the nervous twitch about making sure stuff is right.

 

 

What should I do about the offer? tell em to stick it and why? Basically to me they have a duff case and are playing bluff with a shark at the card tables and I have won some monies, as well as a lot of pints in my younger days lol

 

 

Do I have to declare the issues to them on turning the offer down, or before the next hearing, or wait and notify them on the day?

 

 

tigs

[dx100uk]

you do stuff all

 

 

the ball is in their court

[pun intended]

 

 

dx