Jump to content


mkdp claim form hsbc bank account combined with loan***Claim Discontinued***


hicab
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3021 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

Okay many thanks and lastly what was your authorised overdraft limit ?

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

originally 100 but they raised it every time they took loan payments out without there being funds to cover payment then added charges each time final overdraft limit on statements listed at 527

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay....considering all the above...I think this is better defended as admitting the overdraft of £100 and the rest as a personal loan which is statute barred...they have tried to hide the personal loan...a) because it statute barred and b) its far simpler to push the overdraft without having to disclose and verify it.

 

As such I will draft a defence which will basically tie them in knots were they will have to disclose and account for the personal loan to quantify the amount that they claim.

 

Woud you be happy and agree to proceed on that basis?

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

Okay give me 20mins and be ready to copy and paste into MCOL...have your tab ready and open to get it in for 4.00pm

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

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims sum of xxxx being monies due from the defendant(s) to HSBC bank plc under a bank account facility regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. The defendant(s) s account number was xxxxxxxxx.

 

2. And assigned to the claimant on 08/12/011.

 

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 xxxxxxx and costs . The claimant has complied , as far as is necessary , with the pre-action connduct practice direction.

 

What is the value of the claim? 1,761.70

 

####Proposed Defence####

 

 

1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant having had use in the past of a facility to overdraw with HSBC Bank PLC.My overdraft limit was set and authorised up to the value of £100.

 

The defendant denies that the alleged amount claimed is connected to the current account but a personal loan under account number xxxxxxxxxxx with same Bank that is now statute barred and has been amalgamated and covered by the claimant to inflate the amount claimed and any alleged residue accounted to unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have never been served a Notices of Assignment in accordance with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925.

 

3.Paragraph 3 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.

 

4.Paragraph 4 is denied.The claimant is misleading the court by inflating the alleged debt by amalgamating a different debt which is covered by the CCA1974 and section 78.It is denied the claimant has complied with the Pre Action Conduct practice direction.

 

5. 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) Proved a copy of the personal loan agreement pursuant to section 78 CCA1974

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

(d) Provide a copy of any default Notice in connection to the personal loan pursuant to sec88 of the CCA1974

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

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

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

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

 

6. 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 XX XXXXX 2015. 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.

 

7. I have also made a section 78 request in connection to this claim being aware that I have never had an overdraft of this amount in connection to the personal loan that is hidden within the alleged amount claimed.The claimant has yet to respond or comply and is therefore in default of said request.

 

8.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.

 

 

Check and edit to suit.

 

Regards

 

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

Well many thanks for that Andy you are brilliant .

 

 

MCOL site threw back an error number stating technical problems , so i emailed defence over explaining what happened quoting error number ,

as of yet i await their reply .

Is that sufficient or should i do something else

 

Many thanks for your help .

 

Thanks again Andyorch called the court and defence safely delivered via email .

I really appreciate you rushing to sort that for me ,

we are extremely lucky that there are people like yourself out there willing to help .

 

 

So to you andyorch a very big thankyou and to my daughter who is responsible for this mess and stress a kick up the backside .

 

 

Will keep you updated of any progress .

 

 

Will also get some money off my daughter to donate to this site shortly .

 

Thanks all and especially Andyorch

Link to post
Share on other sites

:yo: You are most welcome...lets see how they wish to respond to that.

 

Regards

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Good day to you all received very quick response from MKDP regarding the defence that andyorchs compiled for me . Would be good to get your veiws hopefully andyorchs can look in .

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think of their response hicab ?

 

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 andy thanks for looking in .

 

first thoughts were that they had no idea that the loan was amalgamated within the current account , and my feeling is they believe if they can get copy of loan agreement that all is good for them to continue on with the claim .

 

Also feel that the offer of discount means they desperate to get something . Would i be right in thinking the sending of the consent form for signing is them hoping to secure payment .

 

Unsure as to where we stand regarding the £10 paid in 2013 as stated previously this was paid as purely relating to current account only never a mention of loan,

 

 

with this in mind i still say the loan is statute barred and that payment can only have been applied to the current account as that is the only number they until now ever used .

 

 

however as loan is amalgamated with current account im assuming they believe the payment to apply to the loan also thus preventing it from being statute barred .

 

As for documents they list as sent default notice is the one they sent previously relating to loan account (before they mentioned anything about amalgamation ) terms and conditions same as before from 2007 so not Terms from inception of account which was 2004

And notice of assignment went to previous address .

 

Should receive SAR details from HSBC shortly so might find out more info then .

 

Your thoughts on where to go from here would be much appreciated .

 

Hi Donkeyb thanks for looking in . I thought that was odd also as am i right in thinking without prejudice means it couldnt be used in court even if i wanted it to be .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the onus is on them to prove that.....

 

A. Its all one debt...which they cant.

B. They can actually get a copy of the FL agreement...I doubt.

B. Payment was credited to FL and not the current...which they cant.

C. Whether the court would accept that its all one debt now...and therefore payment would interfere with the statute of limitations.

 

The discount does suggest that they are prepared to come to some arrangement...hence the Consent....but there is a glaring error contained in the draft Consent so dont agree that unless addressed.

 

Its your choice in the end hicab...whether to tough it out and see if they wish to proceed....the consent is still on the table so don't be rushed into making a decision just yet.

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

the onus is on them to prove that.....

 

A. Its all one debt...which they cant.

B. They can actually get a copy of the FL agreement...I doubt.

B. Payment was credited to FL and not the current...which they cant.

C. Whether the court would accept that its all one debt now...and therefore payment would interfere with the statute of limitations.

 

Thanks for your input Andy .

A. Does this not depend on the legalities regarding whether HSBC can amalgamate two different accounts into one without permission of the account holders .

 

B. Should they succeed in getting the original signed loan agreement ( as account pre April 2007 ) this would show they are indeed two seperate debts .

 

B. As payment was made with reference solely to current account (hoping SAR will show that MKDP purchased debts from HSBC with current account number only ) hard to see how they can claim payment went to some unmentioned account .

 

C.Who knows what decisions judges can come to , surely they have to comply with the laws relating to the issues . I have searched around to see if i can find info on account amalgamation , not much out there regarding legalities of this . Also cant find anything conclusive as to whether payments made relating to a single account number can then be applied to another account due to account amalgamation without any specific mention of that account ( or as in this case MKDP seemingly having no knowledge of it ) .

 

Andy i cant see any errors in consent form , but then ive never seen one before :-) any ckue as to the error and how it might affect things . Also as this consent form is signed by MKDP already what would prevent me from putting a seriously low monthly payment say 10 pence , would this be deemed as unreasonable and therefore not acted on or would it just be accepted as its already signed . Just a thought i had .

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to send advanced SAR to HSBC so you can establish the facts but it is regulated as HSBC usually merge toxic debts into a "managed loan" which you both agree to (assuming you're going to repay it).

 

If however they've just lumped the two accounts together purely to sell them as a package (to a dca) then each account would be split at the dca into regulated/unregulated.

 

A SAR will solve the queries. Oh by the way, the dca is talking **** if you have a overdraft (not the bank account) IS regulated so regardless they need to address the cca request but for now and SAR HSBC.

 

is my thoughts?

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input MIKE770 any hep is greatly appreciated .

 

Have done SAR to HSBC already 40 days up this saturday so hoping that arrives without having to chase it up .

 

Daughter refused offer of managed loan as repayments were too high . so assuming they lumped together to sell .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legalities are quite complex with regards to amalgamated debts...as stated its a question of agreements and what turns up...at the end of the day they are litigating on one account number for a current account...you can prove that you never had an overdraft of that limit...unless they come clean to court and state that the debt is mixed debts ...then they will need the relevant paperwork to support that.You have not given authority to amalgamate so its still 2 debts with different account numbers....your liabilities are only responsible to each individual account number and agreement.

 

With regards to the consent ...the error is point 1

 

Judgment will not be entered...it should state the claim will be stayed.

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

Many thanks for that Andy .

 

 

For now i think ill wait on the SAR 40 days up saturday to see what i can get from that ,

dont think i will be returning the consent order ( or maybe i will with my offer of 10 pence a month :wink:)

with the accidental mistake you highlighted :shock:

 

 

Will wait to see if they comply fully with previous requests and will read up some more,

no doubt will be back here for further assistance from you good folk .

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi again all, thought id update .

 

 

I think due to Andys defence they had second thoughts (thanks again for that Andy )

and decided to leave the claim stayed for a while before admitting defeat and discontinuing just recently .

 

 

They have now decided to sell it on to Hoist and Robbing way , who have now begun with their begging letters etc .

 

 

No doubt they will soon realise they have purchased a dud and sell it on . And so here we go again .

 

 

So a positive result regarding the Mkdp claim form . Many thanks again .

 

 

Andy may i re,use the defence (updated to take into account previous events )

 

 

you kindly provided if any of the other DCAs decide to issue claim form .

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great result

 

they've not sold it on

hoist [hph2 ltd] recently purchased the MKDP group

 

loads of people have had letters on things.

even debts from 15yrs ago.

 

safe to ignore the begging letter

 

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 done hicab

 

Delighted for you...thread title amended to reflect the outcome

 

Regards

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...