MKDP issued county court claim for HSBC overdraft

[chris223b]

Hi,

 

I had a previous bank account (but not old enough to be SB) with HSBC which was overdrawn by a large amount.

 

Negotiations to sort things out with HSBC broke down and I've not heard anything from them for 3 years, and have since moved.

 

I came home yesterday to a claim form (dated 29th August) from MKDP LLP who now appear to own the account.

 

I presume they have traced me, but I have had no prior correspondence from them.

 

The amount claimed is a lot higher than the overdraft was, so will doubtless include countless fees.

 

The particulars of claim are

 

'The Claimant claims the sum of being monies due from the defendant(s)

to under a bank account facility regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

and assigned to the claimant on .

 

The defendant(s) account number was .

 

It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable in full on demand.

The defendant(s) has failed to make payment as required by the demand for payment sent by .

 

The claimant claims the sum of and costs.

 

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

 

No other supporting documents are included, which I suspect is because there aren't any

- the overdraft was originally agreed back in 2001 entirely over the phone

and I never signed anything or was sent any specific terms before having it.

 

I'm think defend is the way forward as I definitely do not owe the figure claimed,

but I don't know what the actual figure should be so I can't really claim partial admission

since I don't know how much to admit, which leaves full defence as the only option, and if they don't back down, a full & final settlement offer to try and avoid a CCJ being issued.

 

I understand that section 77 requests are not relevant to an overdraft,

but do I have any other rights under the CCA to demand supporting documentation

for the claim and would I be able to use failure to supply this as a defence as you can with a failed section 77 request?

 

Some advice on the best way to approach this would be appreciated!

[AndyOrch]

Hi Chris

 

Send the following ....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387483-LEGAL-CPR-31.14-Request-when-Claim-is-being-made-for-a-Current-Account

 

Stick to your time table you have 33 days in total if defending the claim....19 days to acknowledge.....I would do that straight away once you have registered to use MCOL...password is on your summons.You then have another 14 days to submit a defence which will be the 30th September.

 

Have you received termination recall notice for the OD?

 

Send the above off preferable rec del or registered ASAP.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[chris223b]

Thanks for the advice, acknowledged with the court and got the letter to MKDP printed and ready to send.

 

Firstly, Should I sign it or should I leave it unsigned as is recommended for section 77 requests?

 

Also the template letter says I am 'defending and counter claiming' the claim.

 

What would the counter claim be in my case, or should I take that bit out and leave it at defending only

 

With the termination recall notice,

one may have been sent as I have since moved,

but I haven't got one,

and continued to live at the same address after the breakdown of negotiations with them happened.

 

This court claim is the first I've heard on the matter in 3 years.

 

Whilst at the same address I still got statements and nasty letters about needing to make payment into the account, but I have never received a terminal recall notice.

[AndyOrch]

This claim is for a current account overdraft chris....section 77 is not applicable...just send the CPR 31.14.

 

You are defending only.

 

Andy

[chris223b]

MKDP signed for the letters last Monday, so unless they miraculously turn up with something tomorrow, I'm now thinking about the defence. I've pulled the below together from looking at other posts, could someone look and advise?

 

In the County Court Business Centre

 

Claim No:

 

Between

 

MKDP LLP

 

and

 

– Defendant

 

CLAIM

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 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 .

 

2. The defendant(s) account number was

 

3. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable in full on demand.

 

The defendant(s) has failed to make payment as required by the demand for payment sent by HSBC Bank plc.

 

4. The claimant claims the sum of and costs.

 

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

 

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out their case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, the defendant neither admits nor denies any allegation made in The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and so the defendant puts The Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. Paragraph 1 is denied. The defendant acknowledges holding a bank account with HSBC Bank plc which was opened in 1998 with Midland Bank plc and the defendant further acknowledges that the said account had an overdraft facility added to it in 2001. The defendant denies the sum claimed as this is far in excess of any authorised overdraft limit agreed with HSBC bank plc. The defendant is unaware of any Notice of Assignment being made by HSBC Bank plc to the claimant.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The defendant is unaware of any demand for payment sent by HSBC Bank plc. Furthermore, as a purported Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be aware whether such a demand had been served or not.

 

5. The claimant has failed to provide any statement of account to show how they have arrived at the sum claimed.

 

6. The defendant on receipt of the claim form sent a request under CPR 31.14 for a copy of the agreement/overdraft facility confirmation, terms and conditions, the demand/termination notice, notice(s) of sums in arrears under running account credit, notice of assignment and any other documents on which the claimant intends to rely and which the defendant is entitled to inspect.

 

6. It has been confirmed via the Royal Mail website that the above request was received and signed for on 8 September 2014. The claimant has failed to respond.

 

7.It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

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

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

c) evidence any nature of breach and provide proof of any Default Notice and Notices of Sums in Arrears; and

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

8. As per CPR 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

9. On the alternative, as the Claimant purports to be 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.

 

10. 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.

 

11. The Defendant respectfully asks the permission of The Court to amend this defence if or when The Claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents and allows inspection of the original documents.

[AndyOrch]

Not really a current account defence chris..looks like you adapted a Credit card/Personal loan defence.

 

 

Example Current Account Defence

 

Defence

 

1. Paragraph 1,I accept that I have held a current account with Lloyds Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 2009 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Lloyds Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.

 

2.Paragraph 2 is denied I do not admit to defaulting on payments nor receiving Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied I have never been served a Notices of Assignment in accordance with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925.

 

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

 

The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.

 

(a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.

(b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.

© Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.

(d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

(e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

(f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.

 

5. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the 7th July 2014. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. 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.

 

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.

[chris223b]

Thanks Andy, will modify and post back.

 

Can you advise whether or not I should retain

2 (neither admit nor deny unless mentioned) and

 

11 (request to modify the defence if the documents turn up) from the original defence I drafted as to me these would seem important? Or do these things go without saying and I am over complicating it by having them?

[AndyOrch]

District judges dont really like that approach...smacks of a debt avoiders defence.So no I would lose 2 & 11 as neither are from the original defence that I drafted.

[chris223b]

Incidentally, the post has now been and nothing from MKDP, so they are now in default of my request - is this default anything I can use as with a default s. 77 request or is it irrelevant - just need to know whether I should mention this in court if they turn up with things later on.

 

 

OK so another go at the defence then. So based on your advice I should:

 

*Admit the overdraft existed

*Deny the overdraft exceeded it's limit by my actions and thus deny the agreement with HSBC was breached.

*Deny any demand was made by HSBC for the overdraft

*Deny the amount now claimed as it is in excess of the overdraft limit and MKDP cannot evidence how they have arrived at the amount claimed.

*Deny MKDP can demonstrate breach of the agreement as they cannot provide the agreement and so cannot evidence what was breached.

*Deny MKDP have any legitimate claim at all as they have provided no evidence that they were assigned the account by HSBC

 

 

DEFENCE:

1. Paragraph 1 - I accept that I have held a current account with HSBC Bank plc which was opened in 1998. I have not serviced this account since 2011 due to being in a position of financial difficulty at the time and during such financial difficulty HSBC Bank plc continued the application of punitive charges and interest which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with HSBC Bank plc. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds on my part and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I caused any breach of agreement with HSBC Bank plc and it is denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I do not admit to defaulting on payments nor receiving Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach of agreement or default.

 

 

3. The claimant purports that the account was assigned to them by HSBC Bank plc on . I have never received a Notice of Assignment in accordance with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence such an assignment exists.

 

 

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

The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.

(a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.

(b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.

© Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.

(d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

(e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

(f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.

 

 

5. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on 8 September 2014. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my request has frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

 

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.

[AndyOrch]

Thats better chris ...couple of points

 

They are not in default of a section 77...section 77/78 do not apply to overdrafts...as per my previous post#4.

On your point 2 you cant default an overdraft...there is no agreement to breach...as there is no default notices either...overdrafts are services provided by the bank a facility that is attached to your current account.....there is an understanding nothing written that you will deposit enough money per month to service the running credit...so its not a default you have not missed any payments...

 

Hence their particulars do not refer to a default or any agreements.

 

Andy

[chris223b]

Thats better chris ...couple of points

 

They are not in default of a section 77...section 77/78 do not apply to overdrafts...as per my previous post#4.

On your point 2 you cant default an overdraft...there is no agreement to breach...as there is no default notices either...overdrafts are services provided by the bank a facility that is attached to your current account.....there is an understanding nothing written that you will deposit enough money per month to service the running credit...so its not a default you have not missed any payments...

 

Hence their particulars do not refer to a default or any agreements.

 

Andy

Thanks for the further advice Andy. I understand s.77 is not relevant to an overdraft. My query was that *if* s.77 was relevant, then the timeframe to comply with the request is prescribed and failure to do that would leave them in default of the request. When the template letter specified 7 days for compliance with CPR 31.14, I wondered if this is also a statutory timeframe and so they are now in default of the CPR request...I would guess not (oh an incidentally, my query on the early post re. the signature was that *if* I was making a s.77 request, long standing advice is not to sign the letter in case they try to cut the signature out to fabricate an agreement, and whether or not I should do the same for a CPR 31.14 request - I did sign the letter, but did so over the top of my printed name just in case).

 

 

Taking on board what you've said I've had a (hopefully!) final bash at it. I've expanded point 1 to include a line that I had been servicing the overdraft for 10 years in the hope that the DJ will see that as intent to pay it off prior to entering into difficulties rather than just running it up and never paying anything - do you think that's too much/not relevant? If you can advise if all is good then I will give it another week to see if MKDP do come up with anything and if not will send it off:

 

 

Defence Is:

* Admit Overdraft exists

* Deny Amount Claimed as in excess of overdraft limit and MKDP cannot evidence where the total has come from.

* Deny Overdraft was recalled/terminated as no notice received from HSBC

* Deny account was assigned as no notice of assignment received and therefore MKDP are not entitled to claim.

 

 

DEFENCE

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 - I accept that I have held a current account with HSBC Bank plc which was opened in 1998. An overdraft facility was added to this account in 2001 and I regularly serviced the overdraft debt for the following 10 years until 2011. I have not serviced the account since then due to being in a position of financial difficulty at the time and during such financial difficulty HSBC Bank plc continued the application of punitive charges and interest which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with HSBC Bank plc. I deny that the account exceeded any agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds on my part and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue. The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence the amount claimed.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not received Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974 (Demand / Recall Notice) and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence the notice was served.

 

 

3. The claimant purports that the account was assigned to them by HSBC Bank plc on . I have never received a Notice of Assignment in accordance with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence such an assignment exists.

 

 

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

 

The claimant is therefore put to strict proof to:-

 

(a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.

(b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.

© Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.

(d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

(e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

(f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.

 

 

5. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on 8 September 2014. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my request has frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

 

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.

[AndyOrch]

Just a few tweaks but yes that's fine now.

 

To clarify a section 77/8/9 request is a legal request using the legislation pursuant to the CCA 1974 for copies of your agreement/current statement the creditor must comply with this request within 12+2 days...failure to comply negates the creditor from enforcing the agreement until compliance..

 

CPR 31.14 is a Civil request (Civil Procedure Rules) its is therefore a civil request and at the creditors discretion if they wish to comply.

[chris223b]

MKDP have now replied with this:

 

 

"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.

 

 

However we draw your attention to the fact that this claim is for a balance less than 10,000.00 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 31.13(2). It is not our intention to obstruct proceedings, on the contrary it is our view that the early disclosure of documents assists in reaching settlement. It is also worth nothing that we are required to file and 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 judgment 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".

Obviously a standard response, but any ideas on how I should modify my defence in light of this? Is it in any way a factor that they have admitted not having the documents necessary to enforce the claim but have issued it any way, or that they haven't given me an extension to file my defence until they have complied? Should I send anything back to MKDP?

[AndyOrch]

No need to modify or respond...the above changes nothing....lets see if they wish to proceed and if in fact the relevant documents do materialise at Standard Disclosure.

[chris223b]

Defence was submitted through MCOL, when I first submitted it I could view it and the previous AOS submitted, but once it was accepted only the AOS is still listed, the defence is no longer a document I can view (although the recent activity bit at the top still lists it as being submitted and later accepted). Is this normal?

[chris223b]

I've received two documents in the post this morning, one from the court and the other from MKDP.

 

 

THE COURT

--- -----

The court has send me a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track and given me a date at the end of the month by which I need to fill out an enclosed directions questionnaire and file (which I need to file with the court office 'and serve copies on all other parties' - so I need to send a copy to the court and a copy to MKDP, and this can't be done through MCOL?).

 

 

What's a bit odd is the form says 'This is now a defended claim' and underneath the line 'The defendant has file a defence, a copy of which is enclosed' is crossed through. As I said in my last post, I also can't view the defence on MCOL.

 

 

The directions questionnaire also seems to be written from the point of view of the claimant rather than the defendant - have I got the right form? It also offers to refer the case to mediation.

 

 

Does this then mean that MKDP are intending to proceed or is this just the court's wheels turning?

 

 

MKDP

----

Their letter reads:

 

 

"We write with reference to your defence to the claim above.

 

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the overdraft agreement, statements and demand for payment. Please be advised that as this balance related to a current account there is no default notice, however the original lender would hvae sent to you the demand for payment instead.

 

 

If you wish to discuss this matter further please call 0800 019 2816 or email [email protected]"

 

 

and is signed 'Legal Department'.

 

 

What they have enclosed is an 82 page printout predominantly made up of transaction history from late 2008 until the account was closed. The agreement and demand for payments are text from HSBC's system, showing what was supposed to be in the letters but are not actual copies of letters.

 

 

The agreement is from 2010 and is neither the original agreement from when an overdraft was first added to the account nor the final one in force when the account was closed - they were reviewing it annually. It refers me to their standard terms and conditions but a copy of these is not included. The agreement supplied does not even cover the majority of the included statements.

 

 

The demand notice is headed 'Final Demand' and refers to 'previous communication concerning [my] debt', which is not included. It gives me 18 days to repay the full balance (which is the same as MKDP claim) but does not mention any legislation. It does not mention assigning the account to MKDP.

 

 

MKDP have provided no separate notice of assignment nor have they even mentioned the issue in their letter - they also refer to there being no default notice as if I'd asked for one when I took that bit out of my defence - the whole thing just looks like a standard response they send when a claim is defended without them having actually read my defence.

 

 

Where should I go from here?

[AndyOrch]

I've received two documents in the post this morning, one from the court and the other from MKDP.

 

 

THE COURT

--- -----

The court has send me a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track and given me a date at the end of the month by which I need to fill out an enclosed directions questionnaire and file (which I need to file with the court office 'and serve copies on all other parties' - so I need to send a copy to the court and a copy to MKDP, and this can't be done through MCOL?). No

 

 

What's a bit odd is the form says 'This is now a defended claim' and underneath the line 'The defendant has file a defence, a copy of which is enclosed' is crossed through. As I said in my last post, I also can't view the defence on MCOL. Thats because its addressed to you (defendant)..it wont be on their copy and a copy of the defence would be attached and the line not scratched out.

 

The directions questionnaire also seems to be written from the point of view of the claimant rather than the defendant - have I got the right form? It also offers to refer the case to mediation.All DQs are the same Claimants and Defendants versions.

 

 

Does this then mean that MKDP are intending to proceed or is this just the court's wheels turning? Yes they have informed the court they wish to proceed...hence the DQ,s being served

 

 

MKDP

----

Their letter reads:

 

 

"We write with reference to your defence to the claim above.

 

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the overdraft agreement, statements and demand for payment. Please be advised that as this balance related to a current account there is no default notice, however the original lender would hvae sent to you the demand for payment instead.

 

 

If you wish to discuss this matter further please call 0800 019 2816 or email [email protected]"

 

 

and is signed 'Legal Department'.

 

 

What they have enclosed is an 82 page printout predominantly made up of transaction history from late 2008 until the account was closed. The agreement and demand for payments are text from HSBC's system, showing what was supposed to be in the letters but are not actual copies of letters. Then they have not complied this is for your benefit in an attempt to make you back down

 

 

The agreement is from 2010 and is neither the original agreement from when an overdraft was first added to the account nor the final one in force when the account was closed - they were reviewing it annually. It refers me to their standard terms and conditions but a copy of these is not included. The agreement supplied does not even cover the majority of the included statements.See above

 

 

The demand notice is headed 'Final Demand' and refers to 'previous communication concerning [my] debt', which is not included. It gives me 18 days to repay the full balance (which is the same as MKDP claim) but does not mention any legislation. It does not mention assigning the account to MKDP. Final demands and termination notices have nothing to do with debt assignments..

 

 

MKDP have provided no separate notice of assignment nor have they even mentioned the issue in their letter - they also refer to there being no default notice as if I'd asked for one when I took that bit out of my defence - the whole thing just looks like a standard response they send when a claim is defended without them having actually read my defence. Probably is

 

 

Where should I go from here?

Complete and submit the DQ by the stated date and then wait to see if they submit theirs.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[chris223b]

My DQ has gone in the post today, MKDP have already submitted theirs and my copy landed on my doorstep today. They propose a transfer to Milton Keynes County Court, I live 250 miles away from there and so obviously will propose my own local county court. Would it normally be the case that the court goes with my proposal or theirs? And if I end up having to trek up to MK could I issue a counterclaim for travel costs if I win?

 

 

They do agree to mediation, which I will also do. I was thinking at mediation of offering the amount claimed minus all charges on the bank statements they have sent (which is still cutting out an awful lot since they only go back to 2008 and I was battling HSBC on charges from within a couple of years of having the account) which reduces the balance to just over half of what it is now, then offer to repay that over 24 monthly instalments (it'll be about £1000) but that would all be dependant on them proving that they have a legal right to collect the debt, which so far they have failed to do. Without proof (and/or if they play hard balls on the figure) then I proceed to court - does that seem the right way to go?

[AndyOrch]

My DQ has gone in the post today, MKDP have already submitted theirs and my copy landed on my doorstep today. They propose a transfer to Milton Keynes County Court, I live 250 miles away from there and so obviously will propose my own local county court. Would it normally be the case that the court goes with my proposal or theirs? And if I end up having to trek up to MK could I issue a counter for travel costs if I win?

 

It goes to yours ...you are the litigant...have they completed theirs in crayon ?

 

 

They do agree to mediation, which I will also do. I was thinking at mediation of offering the amount claimed minus all charges on the bank statements they have sent (which is still cutting out an awful lot since they only go back to 2008 and I was battling HSBC on charges from within a couple of years of having the account) which reduces the balance to just over half of what it is now, then offer to repay that over 24 monthly instalments (it'll be about £1000) but that would all be dependant on them proving that they have a legal right to collect the debt, which so far they have failed to do. Without proof (and/or if they play hard balls on the figure) then I proceed to court - does that seem the right way to go?

Yes

 

Regards

 

Andy

[chris223b]

Getting a little concerned now...both MKDP's and the courts DQ were sent first class recorded delivery. MKDP's was signed for, the courts is still 'being progressed through the delivery network'...and today is the last day!

[SabreSheep]

Dont panic, it could be that the posties gun wouldnt download.

 

Tomorrow morning at beginning of opening hours phone the court and ask if they have received it.

 

IF NOT

 

Ask them for a fax number or email address you can send a copy to.

[chris223b]

Latest update to this, the court have sent a notice of transfer of proceedings to my local court.

 

 

However, both myself and MKDP agreed to mediation, but no contact regarding mediation has happened, which I thought would have happened before proceedings progressed.

 

 

Is this normal or should I be concerned?

[AndyOrch]

The details of how to arrange mediation are in the Notice of Allocation...you or the claimant must arrange it.

 

Andy

[chris223b]

Thanks Andy,

 

 

The DQ is a bit misleading then, it says 'if all parties agree to mediation your details will be passed to the small claims mediation team who will contact you to arrange an appointment'...I assumed this wording meant mediation would be arranged for me.

 

 

So the notice of allocation will come from the local court the case has been transferred to once a track has been allocated and then I arrange mediation at that point? Unless I've missed something none of the paperwork so far including the notice of proposed allocation mentions how to arrange mediation, only that it exists and what it is.

[AndyOrch]

If you have only had the Notice of Transfer ..then it should be followed by the Notice of Allocation which will confirm trial dates and Directions and also mediation.

 

Andy