Tweet
MKDP LLP Claim dismissed
Following on from the last blog article i have now had the chance to sit down and type up some more info about the most recent case as it seems many people are being troubled by this company.
Sooo, what happened, well MDKP brought a claim against Mr A for a Barclaycard credit agreement. Mr A had wisely made a section 78(1) CCA 1974 request and the response was laughable, not least because the document provided was an illegible application form for a visa and mastercard. Now not withstanding the illegibility issues, which agreement were they suing for? well we just didnt know because the claim form never stated!!!.
Also, there was no detail of the assignment of this account, if it was the mastercard, so again they were in difficulty.
Soo, Mr A contacted me and i agreed to prepared his defence on a fixed fee. Mr A had asked me to look after his case if MKDP continued the Claim, and i agreed, Mr A was happy with the charging structure that i put in place.
Anyway, MKDP failed to agree to mediation, or at least they failed to put forward dates of availability.
MKDP failed to put in their witness statement, we complied fully with the Courts order and wrote to MKDP placing them on notice that we intended to raise this with the Court ( a good tip to have an exhibit to put before the judge ” Look judge weve even told them……”)
The trial arrived and the Claimant tried to introduce a witness statement on the day of the trial , silly beggars.
They also sought a stay in proceedings but had no reason for such a stay being granted, indeed the witness statement which was filed clearly gave no reasoning for such a stay.. Mistake no 2.
Sadly for MKDP they hadnt read Fitzroy Robinson v Mentmore* Towers 2009 EWHC 3070 TCC, we on the other hand had and had a copy for the Judge.
So the trial commenced, and MKDP tried to submit their evidence, but they failed,* the Judge wasnt having any of it, our barrister slaughtered them so did the Judge.
The Judge was happy that they had no provided on the balance of probabilities that the account had been assigned, and that the credit agreement was illegible and unenforceable. The judgment will be on this post shortly.
MKDP were also subject to an order of the Court that their conduct was unreasonable and therefore per CPR 27.14(2)(g) We were allowed to recover full costs of the case too which meant the client wasnt out of pocket at all.
More...
Sooo, what happened, well MDKP brought a claim against Mr A for a Barclaycard credit agreement. Mr A had wisely made a section 78(1) CCA 1974 request and the response was laughable, not least because the document provided was an illegible application form for a visa and mastercard. Now not withstanding the illegibility issues, which agreement were they suing for? well we just didnt know because the claim form never stated!!!.
Also, there was no detail of the assignment of this account, if it was the mastercard, so again they were in difficulty.
Soo, Mr A contacted me and i agreed to prepared his defence on a fixed fee. Mr A had asked me to look after his case if MKDP continued the Claim, and i agreed, Mr A was happy with the charging structure that i put in place.
Anyway, MKDP failed to agree to mediation, or at least they failed to put forward dates of availability.
MKDP failed to put in their witness statement, we complied fully with the Courts order and wrote to MKDP placing them on notice that we intended to raise this with the Court ( a good tip to have an exhibit to put before the judge ” Look judge weve even told them……”)
The trial arrived and the Claimant tried to introduce a witness statement on the day of the trial , silly beggars.
They also sought a stay in proceedings but had no reason for such a stay being granted, indeed the witness statement which was filed clearly gave no reasoning for such a stay.. Mistake no 2.
Sadly for MKDP they hadnt read Fitzroy Robinson v Mentmore* Towers 2009 EWHC 3070 TCC, we on the other hand had and had a copy for the Judge.
So the trial commenced, and MKDP tried to submit their evidence, but they failed,* the Judge wasnt having any of it, our barrister slaughtered them so did the Judge.
The Judge was happy that they had no provided on the balance of probabilities that the account had been assigned, and that the credit agreement was illegible and unenforceable. The judgment will be on this post shortly.
MKDP were also subject to an order of the Court that their conduct was unreasonable and therefore per CPR 27.14(2)(g) We were allowed to recover full costs of the case too which meant the client wasnt out of pocket at all.
More...
Comment