Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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 - claimform - 1st direct Credit Card - help


CathW
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2997 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

dunno p'haps andy will clarify?

 

 

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

You should have already received General Order Notice of Judgment...that's why you made application to set a side...the payment details will be on there....just add their costs now from the set a side hearing and that's what you have to pay.

 

Check to see if its forthwith.

 

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

Hi,

Today my husband received N24 (dated 18 Feb).

 

 

which said

 

It Is Ordered that :-

 

 

1. The application to set judgment aside be dismissed.

2. The Defendant do pay the costs of today assessed at £75- Dated 5 Feb (date of Court hearing).

 

There is no mention of who to pay the £75- to

 

 

and also no mention of any money which is owing to MKDP.

 

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wont that's in connection of the set side hearing....read my post #29 ...again...slowly

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

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

My husband wrote a letter to MKDP with a Income and Expenses Statement saying that he could only pay £5-00 per month

 

 

then today both myself and husband received a Statement from MKDP headed Statement in relation to the below Agreement

which is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

As my only husband was taken to Court 5 Feb for only his account

(but the copy of the New Application Form that was sent and used as evidence was for both accounts)

 

 

can MKDP claim the payments for both accounts.

 

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

No only the agreement referred to within the judgment.

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

  • 7 months later...

Hi,

16 March 2015 MKDP's debt started out at £1126-89

where my husband has been paying MKDP £5- per month

(keeping a copy of the cheque and noting the date that cashed)

and as of today's date the balance is £1081-89.

 

Today he has received a letter from MKDP saying, Due to MKDP LLP (Ex HSBC), Our reference ......., Account number ...... and Amount due £1116-89

 

We are writing to let you know that, in accordance with our rights your account referenced above has been sold to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited on 26 October 2015.

 

You will shortly receive a Notice of Assignment from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited.

This will confirm your new account reference number, together with details of who to contact about your account.

 

Any payments made towards your account after 26 October 2015 have been forwarded to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited.

We set a cheque to MKDP 3 Nov 2015.

 

Can MKDP now sell the debt over to another company when the Court case was with MKDP and nobody else.

 

Thank you

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

HOIST have purchased the cappello group [MKDP/MKRR etc etc]

 

 

no change

 

 

simply pay them the same

 

 

and don't fall for any increase they want

nor new financial details.

 

 

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

Well this just gets even better.

 

Today my husband has received a Notice of Assignment from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

saying that MKDP have assigned the rights, title and interest to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited,

balance £1116-89 (they seem to have lost £35- worth of payments that were paid to MKDP

and I kept copies of the cheques)

 

 

and that HPH2 Ltd have appointed Robinson Way Limited to manage the account

and they would like my husband to contact them by 11 Nov 2015

to let them know which payment option he will choose.

 

 

Option 1- Pay £7-16 per week for 3 years to clear the balance in full.

Option 2 - Pay £4-30 per week for 5 years,

Option 3 - Pay £3-07 per week for 7 years and

Option 4 Tell them what he can afford.

 

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore totally

pay what the court ordered

they cant change anything

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Just to confuse matters,

we have a Joint Bank Account with First Direct (which we don't use anymore)

 

 

we received a letter 11 Nov 2015 from Robinson Way (dated 6 Nov 2015) saying

that our Joint Account £1438-16 had been passed to them from HPH2 Ltd

(last company was MKDP and letter 27 Oct 2015 from them saying that the Joint Account had been sold to Hoist).

 

 

They appear to be trying to tie in both my husband's First Direct credit card account and the Joint Bank Account.

 

We sent a CCA request form to Robinson Way with a postal order for £1

- and I wrote on the back "for statutory consumer credit act agreement copy £1- fee only not to be used as any payment against any alleged debt.

 

Today (2 Dec) we received the postal order back from Robinson Way with a compliment slip saying

"Please find enclosed returned £1- CCA fee, Kinds Regards J ????.

 

Should we do anything else or wait to see what Robinson Way do next.

Thank you

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

let it run..

 

 

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

Today we received a letter from Robinson Way regarding our First Direct Joint Account saying

 

 

"Thank you for your recent contact, the balance relates to a current account and as such is exempt from part V of the CCA act 1974.

There is therefore no requirement to produce a copy agreement".

 

They said that the postal order will be returned and they also enclosed a financial statement for us to fill in with our affordable proposal for payment

and return it within 14 days.

 

This bank account was opened in October 1996

 

 

what action should I take from here.

Thank you

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

so this is a sep issue to this court thread

not covered by the judgement you tried to set aside and failed

and are paying them on through the judgement already?

 

 

or is it the same account ?

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

This is a seperate issue to the court thread

but as MKDP/Robinson Way have linked them both together

and we are still paying £5

- cheque payment to Robinson Way and keeping a copy of the cheques.

 

Although it is a seperate issue the 2 accounts were linked together on the paperwork that went to the Court

because the application for the credit card was attached to the application for the joint bank account and it

was only my husband who was taken to court for the sum outstanding on his credit card.

 

Cath

Link to post
Share on other sites

you certainly know how to confuse people.

 

so your OH was taken to court for the Credit Card

 

so this is nothing to do with that.

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Re my husbands first direct credit card.

 

 

We are paying £5- per month to Robinson Way (previously MKDP) who sent him a Income & Expenditure form to fill in which he hasn't done.

 

Yesterday he received a letter from Howard Cohen & Co. Solicitors saying that Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited

are the legal owners of the debt and Howard Cohen submitted application form to the Court to substitute the Claimants details from MKDP LLP to HPH2,

he also received a copy of the Apploication which reads

 

In the high Court of Justice Claim Nos: Mulitple

Chancery Division

Mr Justice Henderson

18 December 2015 (with a date stamp High Court Of Justice 21 Dec 2015 Chancery Chambers)

Between MKDP LLP Claimant

and

Multiple Defendants

Order

Upon the Application of the proposed new claimant by notice dated 24 November 2015 And Upon Reading the evidence in support of the application

Without Notice to the parties in the cases conatained in the Schedule which forms exhibit JPM1

to the Witness Statement of John-Paul Murphy dated 25 November 2015 ("the Schedule")

 

 

It Is Ordered That 1. In respect of all Claims in the Schedule with the Claimant as MKDP LLP, there be substituted, as the new Claimant,

Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited ("HPH2"), on the basis that the benefit of the Claims has been assigned by MKDP LLP to HPH2.

 

And then today he received a letter from Robinson Way saying they do not have a payment plan in place on the account

and it is importnat that we agree a payment plan to prevent further action and to contact them by 20/01/16.

 

What should he do next

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing I suspect

hoist [hph2 ltc-robbersway]

simply purchased MKDP group recently.

 

 

ita all simply paperwork.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...