Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Actually just looked again at the Ts & Cs which MKDP have marked in pen as "current terms" and they are dated on the bottom of each page 13/08/08..............

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry getting confused - the "current terms" would be the terms in use when the account defaulted right? The default date is october 2008..

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Also doing some web searching and a few articles have stated that Recons aren't generally accepted in court for accounts opened before 2007. Does this ring true as my account was opened in 2000...

[nemesis45]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Yes correct the original or a proper copy is needed ( not a true copy = recon agreement,)

nem

- - - Updated - - -

Actually just looked again at the Ts & Cs which MKDP have marked in pen as "current terms" and they are dated on the bottom of each page 13/08/08..............

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry getting confused - the "current terms" would be the terms in use when the account defaulted right? The default date is october 2008..

Current "terms" those in force when the account was terminated. I doubt those at 2008 are the same today.

nem

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Ok so my main point will be the fact that they have not been able to provide an original or proper copy of the credit agreement.

Thanks Nem.

I was going to say:

The agreement supplied is covered by the CCA (1974) and it retains the benefit of S127 (3-5) which stipulates that the original is needed for re-enforcement through the courts. Carey V HSBC concerned providing reconstituted agreements for satisfying section 77-79 CCA request NOT documents to be used in court and I believe that the Claimant quoting Casey V HSBC in relation to this case is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.

What do you think?

Getting really nervous now!

[nemesis45]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

I think so too, the recon may satisfy CCA '74 requirements but this does not mean that the debt is enforceable.

nem

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Ok will give it a go!

Leaving at 12:30pm to make my way to court so if anyone has any last minute tips/ advice let me know - otherwise wish me luck :fear:

[nemesis45]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Make sure you have a list of bullet points regarding the recon ( 3 copies) so you can " lead" the judge through this.

nem

[stigger74]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

sounds like same as me, seems new tactic file late. and carey v hsbc they forget to include the rest of the findings under 234....

slippery lot this lot.

[nemesis45]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Any news Mayflower?

nem

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Hi Guys,

Apologies for my delay in updating - I don't seem to be getting notifications when people comment on this thread and I have been trying to get my head around what happened!

On the day as I was waiting to go into court I was soo nervous and the MKDP representative approached me to ask if I had received the Witness Statement etc. I replied that I had and he asked why I hadn't responded with a defence and I answered that it was because I hadn't had time! He asked if I had any questions about the witness statement and I mentioned that there were errors and he replied that the person who wrote the witness statement wasn't here so I couldn't ask her. He showed me some bank print outs and asked if I had received them which I hadn't. He asked if I was interested in settling the case and brought up Carey V HSBC - I said no and that I was confident that my agreement was still covered by CCA (1974) (afterwards I felt pretty stupid because I felt that I had given away my defence). He then went off to sit elsewhere and we were called in 10 minutes later.

Well to say the judge was furious was an understatement. She said that she would not be hearing the case that day and gave him a real telling off as they had submitted their evidence so late giving me no time to evaluate it and respond accordingly. She was also really annoyed that the person who completed the witness statement wasn't there. I mentioned that there was further evidence they had brought to court which I had not been supplied with and she really went off the deep end - It was pretty magnificent! She glared at him and said "MKDP will comply with the orders of this court". She said that she could have stuck the case out there and then (unfortunately she didn't). She did ask me if I had incurred and costs that day and told me to bring my parking receipt to the next hearing.

Her orders were that the case would be adjourned to the first available date after 1st May - preferably with her residing over it (her words!)

MKDP had until noon 13th April to file their evidence upon which it intended to rely with both the court and me otherwise the claim would be struck out without further order

I would then have until 4pm 27th April to file my evidence in response.

Well I haven't received anything so do I send a letter to the court asking for the claim to be struck out as the Claimant has not complied with the court order?

Can't believe that it may actually be almost over..............

[stigger74]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Jump in as quick as you can let the court know , this slippery lot will try and drop it in 5 days before the next hearing if they can.

I would bet the member of staff is of ill!!! That's what they told the judge when it was raised in my case,and he let em off!!

If the rest of us tried that one, we would get a CCJ.

Stigs.


But they have upset the judge don't think they will get let off this time...

[nemesis45]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Have you checked with the court yet? Phone tomorrow.
You should have received their documents at latest 14 April.

nem

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Yes I called the court today Nem and they said that they hadn't received anything....

[Mayflower21]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Right have just received the evidence pack. So new twist.

When we were at court the judge gave us the dates that the evidence had to be filed by and as I was leaving I asked if we would get it in writing and she said yes and told me the dates again - which I noted down.

evidence to be sent to me and court by 13th April and I have until the 27th April to reply.

the order that was sent out was dated the 14th April so MKDP have sent a supplemental witness statement saying that as the order was drawn up a day after the deadline to send the evidence they were unable to comply with the order and respectfully request that they are not penalised by the delay caused by the court by having the claim struck out.

what now?

[Amethyst]

Re: Mayflower21 v MKDP LLP

Annoyingly I'd have to agree with them. That is a bit shoddy of the court though. Is there a court date for the next hearing yet?