**Discontinued** Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Received these today by Special Delivery. I most definitely have never received that Notice of Assignment. I am quite confused as to why it isn't on headed paper!
Can anyone help with my defence please?

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Bump

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone look over this defence and tell me if it's ok? I didn't know whether to put in there that I was required to open an account with them as part of my contract of employment with them. Also, there was no overdraft when it was first opened. The overdraft was put on and never had an affordability check done on it, they just kept increasing it.

1: The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the Northampton County Court on 12 March 2015


3: This claim is for a debt resulting from a Current Account agreement with Lloyds Bank Plc.


3: It is denied the Defendant is indebted to the Claimants as claimed or at all.


4: The Defendant contends that terms of the agreement between herself and Lloyds Bank Plc were unfair pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


6: It is admitted that the Defendant held a Current Account with Lloyds Bank from around 2001


5. The Current Account had no overdraft when opened.


6. The Defendant suffered from a period of financial difficulty in the Summer of 2009 due to ill health and having to give up work and subsequently incurred charges.


7. The last payments made using the account were in 09 February 2010 when the Defendant stopped putting money into the account as it was being swallowed up by the charges and fees being added to the account and she was left in a position of extreme financial difficulty. Also, the bank were debiting the account to make payments to a credit card.


8. The Defendant has had no contact with Lloyds Bank Plc, or the Claimant in this case, since at the latest, March 2010.


9. The Claimant is claiming £7309.47 yet the Claimants have not provided the Defendant with any information showing how that sum has been calculated.


10. 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, that they have the right to claim, and that it is not time barred under s.5 Limitations Act 1980.


11. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Lloyds Bank Plc to MKDP LLP on 20 June 2014 The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.


12: On the 18 March 2015 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to MKDP LLP. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment and copy of First demand asking for full payment.


13. MKDP LLPhas has only sent an ambiguous copy of the Notice of Assignment. The Defendant requires a copy of the agreement and terms and conditions applicable to the account to assess her position with regards the charges and fees disputed and with regards how the account sum has increased since February 2010.


14. In order to try and find out more information regarding the operation of the account the Defendant has sent a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to Lloyds Bank Plc to obtain copies of agreements and transaction lists applicable to the account. The request was sent on 10 April 2015and the Data Controller of Lloyds Bank Plc has 40 days to respond to the Defendant with all relevant information. Once this information is received the Claimant may further add to or amend her defence.


15. 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.


16. The Claimant request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for her to fully plead her case, that being the Agreement, the Terms of the Account at inception and as varied, the Assignment Notice, the Default Notice and a full statement of the account, else the Claim should stand struck out.


17. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.


Statement of Truth


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






Signed …………………………………………


Dated .................................................. ....
edit note

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

bump

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Can someone help me with this please, I have to upload it on Monday?
Thanks

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Yes the requirement to open accounts as a condition of service should be mentioned, the terms of such an account could be important.

Para #13. Two matters should be separated, the NOA, and T& C's.
Otherwise good to go.

nem

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Thank you Nem, much appreciated.

Thanks
Christine

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Thank you Nem, much appreciated.

Thanks
Christine

Good morning,

I've been talking to my nephew an exec. with a major high street bank, he tells me that " in the past" (his words) banks insisted employees had accounts with the banks and at the first sign of a potential cash flow problem added an OD without notice to the employee or increased an OD limit considerably.
If you have any documents it's worth checking them carefully.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you Nem, much appreciated.

Thanks
Christine

Good morning,

I've been talking to my nephew an exec. with a major high street bank, he tells me that " in the past" (his words) banks insisted employees had accounts with the banks and at the first sign of a potential cash flow problem added an OD without notice to the employee or increased an OD limit considerably.
If you have any documents it's worth checking them carefully.

nem

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Hi Nem,

Well, with me when I worked there, I just went to the advisers and asked them if they could increase the OD. They just increased it, there wasn't any paperwork to sign, so I have no paperwork but neither will they! That's how I managed to get the OD to 7K. Not too sure how I will stand with that?

Christine

[christinez]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

RESULT,

Just received this today.

I want to thank everyone for their help, as always fantastic support.

Regards

Christine

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Congratulations Christine xx

[pt2537]

Re: **Discontinued** Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Congrats

[christinez]

Re: **Discontinued** Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Of course, I won't be contacting them or arranging to pay them anything and the only people with costs are them.
:beagle2222:

[christinez]

Re: **Discontinued** Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Hi,
So after this case being discontinued I have today received notice of assignment stating that Hoist Portfolio are now holding the debt. Can they do this when the case has been dropped. Also, how do I stand with this now as it is actually Statute barred but it wasn't when the previous company instigated proceedings?

Thanks in advance
Christine

[charitynjw]

Re: **Discontinued** Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds OVERDRAFT - 12-3-2015

Hi,
So after this case being discontinued I have today received notice of assignment stating that Hoist Portfolio are now holding the debt. Can they do this when the case has been dropped. Also, how do I stand with this now as it is actually Statute barred but it wasn't when the previous company instigated proceedings?

Thanks in advance
Christine

Hoist Portfolio are part of Jersey Finance

https://www.jerseyfinance.je/member-...o-holding-ltd.

https://www.jerseyfinance.je/meet-the-board

Unlike Scotland, in England & Wales the debt still exists even if SB - it just can't be enforced through court, so no judgement, no bailiffs, no CCJ.

You could always contact the above board and direct them towards FCA guidance

CONC 7.15.8
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

CONC 7.15.9
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm must identify for prospective purchasers of debts arising under credit agreements or consumer hire agreements or P2P agreements those debts which it knows or ought reasonably to know are statute barred, so as to avoid a firm taking inappropriate action against customers in relation to such debts.