MKDP

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Thanks Amethyst, Yep nothing from CCA either and absolutely no response to emails, emailed Sarah Lambert who is on the claim form and Lucy Brown, plus 2 other emails. Should I do an unless order as well do you think?

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Well, well, after sending 6 emails to all and sundry, I was getting a bit frustrated to say the least. However, someone from the legal dept did email me back today around 4.30 and I have an extension on submitting my defence until 26th June. I shall notify the court of this. They say they will submit my request of my CPR to me asap.

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Yep, email the court giving the date they confirmed and attach a copy of their email It is unlikely they will come up with the documents within that time period but at least you have another couple of weeks to decide whether to defend or enter an application for an unless order.

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Hmm don't know! But reading from others, MKDP don't even bother putting in a defence! So go for a defence and have it stayed or pay and have it struck out??!

[UKBear]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Hi Kandis,

Are you having any luck?

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Er nope! My defence is due in 26th June, go for that or an unless order. Will badger them this week re my CPR request as without that, they are stuffed!

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Defence due in tmw.

Working on it with Kandis.

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

sooo we've had some decent orders lately off applications under cpr 31.14 and we know the courts are psihed off with MKDP so.... application or defence?

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Thanks Ame, I'm such a numpty thinking it was next week! Just to confirm I've heard zilch back re CCA AND CPR! Only communication is re extension!
Xx

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

1. The Claimants statement of case fails to adequately set out the nature of the Claim.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimants pleadings are an abuse of process. The Claimants pleadings are lacking detail, there are no details as to what the debt relates excepting that the original debt is alleged to be owed under an agreement between the Defendant and Barclaycard under account reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3. Despite requests for information from the Defendant, the Claimant has not provided any details as to how the sums claimed have accrued.

4. No date of inception of the account has been given.

5. The particulars of claim state that the account was assigned from Barclaycard to MKDP LLP on 16/01/2012. The Defendant has not received any notification of this assignment

6: The Defendant received no communication from the Claimant until receipt of this claim and therefore it is denied that the Claimants have complied with the pre-action conduct rules.

6. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974 was served upon the Defendant.

7: On XXXXXXXXXXXX the Defendant wrote to the Claimants requesting inspection of documents disclosed in its statement of case under CPR 31.14 - being the agreement, terms, assignment and default notice.

8: Had the claim not been issued through CCBC the Claimant would have been obliged to attach copies of the documentation upon which it relies to the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant is entitled to see the documents on which the Claimant relies and which they will have to produce at trial. Inspection of disclosed documents at this stage will enable the Defendant to fully plead the case and further the Overriding Objective.

9: On xxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Defendant also wrote to the Claimant pursuant to s77 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ascertain that the agreement, which the Claimant was demanding payment under and to obtain further information about the terms of the contract.

10. The Claimant has failed to disclose any documents relating to their claim to the Defendant.

11. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

12. The Claimants have also failed to comply with a reasonable request for inspection of documents made under CPR 31.14.

13. The Defendant admits having held credit accounts with Barclaycard historically however is unaware of any debt owing. The Defendant is unable to identify to which account the claim refers to as he does not recognise the account number given in the claim.

14. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore It is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

15. Should the Claimant evidence their claim properly the Defendant reserves the right to plead further.

Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Right that's a defence.... I think it covers everything, if someone can check it over that would be brilliant please.

Have you got £50 to punt on an application, though really I think the defence should be enough to get a decent order out of the court.

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Kandis - can you check through and take out anything that doesn't apply - MKDP reckon they have sent letters prior to the court claim (from the email you sent me) - is that right or not as far as you recall ?

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Hi thanks so much Ame,
No they haven't sent me any letters whatsoever. Nor have they complied with my CCA or CPR. The first communication I had with them was via email re the extension
Xx

[Kandis]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

I have sent the above defence, thanks so much Ame. Do I need to send MKDP the defence or is that up to the Court?
Xx

[Amethyst]

Re: MKDP v Kandis

Court will send it on, well done xx