MKDP- Barclaycard due in COURT- ***Claim Dismissed***

[Lilythepink]

I know MKDP look in on this group so I'm nervous about putting up too much in case it gives anyone a heads up- but I should probably say I'm in Court very, very, very soon

 

Watching this thread very closely, I am in the same position, and very nervous about the whole thing.

[AndyOrch]

"I guess if I need to show my section 78 request, the Claimant might object as it wasn't served/filed with the papers. I'm hoping my reference to it in my Defence will give some grace with the Judge."

 

Well yes thats one document you should have disclosed...but its already in my defence that you used:wink:

[clarity99]

"I guess if I need to show my section 78 request, the Claimant might object as it wasn't served/filed with the papers. I'm hoping my reference to it in my Defence will give some grace with the Judge."

 

Well yes thats one document you should have disclosed...but its already in my defence that you used:wink:

oh er great piece of writing Andy- credit where it is due though, thank you

[clarity99]

"Failure to give notice of sums in arrears"

 

Is this applicable to a credit card agreement or only for fixed sum agreements?

 

Or is the assignment of this credit card debt effectively transferring it to a fixed sum?

 

C

 

[AndyOrch]

"Failure to give notice of sums in arrears"

 

Is this applicable to a credit card agreement or only for fixed sum agreements?Both

 

Or is the assignment of this credit card debt effectively transferring it to a fixed sum? No cant change the type of agreement

 

C

 

 

 

Andy

[clarity99]

thanks Andy- I think I have my bases covered, will see how tomorrow turns out.

 

Any final pointers you care to share- not that you haven't shared enough already

 

C

[AndyOrch]

Just stick to the facts of your defence.......pre 2007 agreement...claimant cant comply and therefore in default of your request CCA1974.......Carey has nothing to do with enforcement.....the claimant attempt at a reconstituted version is still invalid (wrong address)...neither OC or Assignee have complied with the CCA 2006 amendments re Notice of Sums in Arrears... therefore unable to enforce pursuant to the CCA1974 (86C)

 

 

And lastly don't let the claimants representatives miss lead the court...every point raised refer to the list above.

 

Best of luck

[clarity99]

Thanks Andy, your help is gratefully received and truly appreciated.

 

Will update tomorrow.

 

All the best

 

C

[AndyOrch]

Well ...how did this go Clarity ?

[clarity99]

Well ...how did this go Clarity ?

 

 

Judge took a dim view of the Claimants late filing but considered their evidence anyway, I referred to Mitchell v News of the World as they hadn't asked for relief from sanctions in advance.

 

Several elements of their claim were defective and as a result .....

 

CASE DISMISSED

 

Thanks Andy and DX, I came in here last minute and asked for your help and you delivered. Top marks.

[AndyOrch]

Excellent.....well done Clarity...if you would care to expand on the several elements of their claim which were defective for the benefit of readers ?

 

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Lilythepink]

Brilliant mine is to happen soon

[clarity99]

Brilliant mine is to happen soon

 

I wish you well with your case Lily.

 

Please remember MKDP are a professional debt purchasing company and the bar should be set VERY high when they bring these matters to court. They have paid "pennies on the pound" for their assets and whilst you can't make them produce any commercially sensitive documents, the courts do expect evidence.

 

Paying 'pennies on the pound' for toxic assets that 1st party creditors can't or won't enforce is a compelling arguement. Why sell off at a fraction of book value when they can process it through the court and seek to recover the full value? OK, some won't because it may damage reputation and confidence, but very often the main reason is they have little prospect of success and they have nowhere to hide; debt purchasers use smoke and mirrors blaming 1st party failings to supply documents, or 'they aren't legally permitted to reproduce them'. Some Judges overlook this, others won't budge.

'pennies on the pound' people, 'pennies on the pound'

 

C

[DonkeyB]

Well done. Did anyone show up for MKDP?

[clarity99]

Well done. Did anyone show up for MKDP?

 

Yes, they used a local agent. So I suppose my victory should be all the sweeter

[WindySock]

Well done.

[tigger74]

Awaiting further witness statement from MKDP at the moment so very please to read this one well done

[Dot1]

Well done. Job well done.

[clarity99]

Awaiting further witness statement from MKDP at the moment so very please to read this one well done

 

thank you and I wish you well with yours Tigger.

 

Bear in mind that they are a professional firm of debt purchasers so if ANY of their evidence is defective, remind the Judge of this and that they've paid 'pennies on the pound'. They cannot hide behind 1st party failure to supply documents- if they don't have it but need it, they shouldn't have brought your case to court

 

C

[AndyOrch]

Excellent.....well done Clarity...if you would care to expand on the several elements of their claim which were defective for the benefit of readers ?

 

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Would you mind Clarity...we know all the above already through 1000s of claims.......but what were the several elements?

 

Andy

[clarity99]

Would you mind Clarity...we know all the above already through 1000s of claims.......but what were the several elements?

 

Andy

Sorry Andy, it was my first post after yours, but I see it's missing

 

So.......The Claimant failed to file and serve in accordance with Orders and the Judge had serious concerns resulting in the evidence being EXCLUDED for that reason, BUT it was considered ANYWAY and found that even if it had been allowed, the Claimant's case failed all the same, as they were in default of my S78 request, their Claim lacked evidence in the form of a Default Notice, Letter before Action, Assignment, Statement of Arrears (thanks Andy:thumb:), Reconstituted Agreement and probably more, but I couldn't keep up with the Judge's summation. Their argument that they hadn't been supplied these by the 1st party (Barclaycard) was rejected as they are a 'professional debt purchasing company' and there is no excuse for bringing a claim unless ready!!!

 

My references in previous posts to 1st party and high standard and pennies on the pound assumed my post was read- sorry everyone

 

...we know all the above already through 1000s of claims.......

 

Fair point Andy, but nevertheless this was my first experience of MKDP and of their insatiable appetite for bringing cases through MCOL (they issue 1000s and only a few appear here). I hope there are many on your excellent forum who find themselves in a similar situation to where I was a week ago and who will take great comfort in the fact that MKDP failed.

 

It was suggested that CAREY v HSBC does not apply to pre-2007 agreements or that it only applies to S78 requests and that turned out not to be the case- at least that was so in my instance and it remains for the Judge to decide on a case by case basis. MKDP also appeared to try their chances with CAREY v HSBC for many other bits of evidence which were reconstituted documents and that will be useful for others I'm sure. CAREY v HSBC appears to give some entities the impression that if they don't have the originals, they can cobble something together with Photoshop.

 

What is needed is the opposite of CAREY v HSBC perhaps an MKDP v Clarity99 ruling that would render MKDP or any other debt purchasing carpet-baggers' evidence inadmissible if reconstituted or if it failed to include any original documents from 1st parties or if it failed to file on time, period! The standard should be VERY HIGH indeed and if the 1st party creditor doesn't bring a claim (that in itself begs the question why) then carpet-baggers should be subject to extra scrutiny- that's my case anyway.

 

Thanks again Andy and DX100UK for being there when I needed you. It is a great comfort knowing you're not alone against these faceless parasitical organisations and that there are genuine people, willing to give their time and expertise freely to others.

 

Oh, and if MKDP are looking in- shame on you.

 

C

[AndyOrch]

Many thanks clarity

 

Regards

 

Andy