Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

No, the N1 doesn't detail those dates, just the date of assignment as you've pointed out. It does worry me that I'd need some representation though to push a case similar to the one in the post. Particularly as things seem to be stacking in MKDP's favour at the moment with regard to compliance. Or at least that's how it seems to me at this point. :noidea:

I am aware that the 33 days are up this coming Monday (22nd) and I have still not received a reply to the CCA or CPR requests. What do you think would be the best course of action at this stage please? I assume that this deadline date still applies even though I have requested these documents from MKDP?

If they have not responded to any of your requests, what makes you think things seem to be stacking up in their favour with regards to compliance? They've not complied with either request.

You need to chase up the CPR request and ask them to agree to a 28 day extension to file your defence. I believe they agreed to one in a case that recently lost in court. If they agree, you need to forward the letter or email to the court before the Monday deadline. Failing that, you need to submit a generic defence based around them not supplying documents before the deadline, otherwise they can request judgment. :scared:

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

If they have not responded to any of your requests, what makes you think things seem to be stacking up in their favour with regards to compliance? They've not complied with either request.

I suppose I'm just feeling really paranoid now and getting really worried as the deadline is pretty much here and I really don't know how this is going to pan out. I'm really grateful for all the support I've received so far but I really don't feel that I have the knowledge or skills to be able to fight this. I haven't got the money to get proper representation if it did end up going to court and I just feel that it's just going to end up in a judgement against me despite all the efforts..

You need to chase up the CPR request and ask them to agree to a 28 day extension to file your defence. I believe they agreed to one in a case that recently lost in court. If they agree, you need to forward the letter or email to the court before the Monday deadline.

If I sent it first class mail in the morning (Friday 19th), it would still only be delivered on Monday and that's already too late. I could send an email right now and request the extension but do you think there's any realistic chance that they'll respond and agree the extension before close of business tomorrow? I'd like to think that they would but I really can't see them going out of their way to help me.

Failing that, you need to submit a generic defence based around them not supplying documents before the deadline, otherwise they can request judgment. :scared:

Would I have to send this defence to the court or to MKDP themselves? Is there any guidance available to help me submit a suitable defence? I really wouldn't have a clue where to start. :tinysmile_cry_t:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

I suppose I'm just feeling really paranoid now and getting really worried as the deadline is pretty much here and I really don't know how this is going to pan out. I'm really grateful for all the support I've received so far but I really don't feel that I have the knowledge or skills to be able to fight this. I haven't got the money to get proper representation if it did end up going to court and I just feel that it's just going to end up in a judgement against me despite all the efforts..

There is no need to panic, it can be stressful thinking about going to court, etc. but there is always a solution. If it came to the point where it looks like they are going to win, you could always settle via a Tomlin order, which has the effect of staying proceedings as long as you keep to the terms of the order (the agreed repayments). This would be intended to avoid having a CCJ on record. :thumb:

If I sent it first class mail in the morning (Friday 19th), it would still only be delivered on Monday and that's already too late. I could send an email right now and request the extension but do you think there's any realistic chance that they'll respond and agree the extension before close of business tomorrow? I'd like to think that they would but I really can't see them going out of their way to help me.

You've got nothing to lose...

Would I have to send this defence to the court or to MKDP themselves? Is there any guidance available to help me submit a suitable defence? I really wouldn't have a clue where to start. :tinysmile_cry_t:

You would submit your defence to the court online. :typing: If they have not sent you any documents, you'd be looking at a generic 'holding' defence based around non-compliance with your requests. An example can be found here: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...t-Court-Claims

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015 URGENT ACTION REQUIRED (Please!!!)

If they have not sent you any documents, you'd be looking at a generic 'holding' defence based around non-compliance with your requests.

Ok. I've have had a go drafting a 'holding' defence using the template from the link and the thumbnail attached to that link that shows an example layout.

I just have a few questions with regard to some of the points if you don't mind helping me with these before I finalise it?

1. There was not a solicitor listed on the claim form served by MKDP so I sent the CPR request directly to them.. Is that ok? Just that I noticed that point 8 suggests that this should have been requested from their solicitor so I've just inserted MKDP in its place. :noidea:

2. There is no mention in the claim form of the agreement type they're referring to even though I know that it's for a credit card. I have got to choose one type so I can delete the s77/78 parts as appropriate. What shall I do here? Won't the fact that I've chosen one in particular look like some kind of admission?

3. Point 7 refers to the Default Notice. I am planning to remove that paragraph (hence why it's in red) as that is not true in my case. I did receive a Default Notice as discussed previously.

4. Point 11 - A minor point perhaps but does the grammar sound right? I'm not sure but I don't want to amend it in case it should be worded like that.

5. Point 2, 12 and 15 - Can these be included in full if I have knowledge of and do actually 'admit' the debt I'm defending?

Many thanks in advance.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015 URGENT ACTION REQUIRED (Please!!!)

Ok. I've have had a go drafting a 'holding' defence using the template from the link and the thumbnail attached to that link that shows an example layout.

I just have a few questions with regard to some of the points if you don't mind helping me with these before I finalise it?

1. There was not a solicitor listed on the claim form served by MKDP so I sent the CPR request directly to them.. Is that ok? Just that I noticed that point 8 suggests that this should have been requested from their solicitor so I've just inserted MKDP in its place. :noidea:

In most cases the claimant will be using a firm of solicitors to represent them but MKDP use their own in-house legal team so that's OK.

2. There is no mention in the claim form of the agreement type they're referring to even though I know that it's for a credit card. I have got to choose one type so I can delete the s77/78 parts as appropriate. What shall I do here? Won't the fact that I've chosen one in particular look like some kind of admission?

You are already saying it appears to be for a credit card under item 3 so you it's OK to remove all references to 77 and leave just 78.

3. Point 7 refers to the Default Notice. I am planning to remove that paragraph (hence why it's in red) as that is not true in my case. I did receive a Default Notice as discussed previously.

Fair enough, if the DN wasn't compliant then you could say "it is denied that the Claimant served a Default Notice that complied with the
requirements of section 88 of the Act", obviously don't say that if it was compliant, i.e. it gave you at least 14 days + service and only required payment of the arrears, etc.

4. Point 11 - A minor point perhaps but does the grammar sound right? I'm not sure but I don't want to amend it in case it should be worded like that.

It's OK to insert the missing words to read: "11. The Claimant has failed to comply with s. 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s. 78 (6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement"

5. Point 2, 12 and 15 - Can these be included in full if I have knowledge of and do actually 'admit' the debt I'm defending?

Many thanks in advance.

You are not denying having the card, you are just denying having received any paperwork from them about it. In principle they should have the documents they intend to rely on before issuing a claim. They are taking advantage of the fact that, when claims are issued electronically, there is no requirement to attach them to the particulars of claim.

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015 URGENT ACTION REQUIRED (Please!!!)

Thanks so much for your prompt reply FP. It really is much appreciated.

You are already saying it appears to be for a credit card under item 3 so you it's OK to remove all references to 77 and leave just 78.

Yes, I just used that under item 3 as I wasn't sure what else I could put in its place. Is there anything else I could put there so it doesn't look so obvious that I know what debt they're referring to?

You are not denying having the card, you are just denying having received any paperwork from them about it.

Don't items 2, 12 and 15 imply that I do not admit the allegation made against me? i.e. that I do not believe that I owe the money? I understand the objective with regard to receiving the proper paperwork from the claimant (proof of the debt) but I'm scared to commit these particular items to paper if they relate to a general admission of the debt itself. I hope that makes sense?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015 URGENT ACTION REQUIRED (Please!!!)

Thanks so much for your prompt reply FP. It really is much appreciated.

Yes, I just used that under item 3 as I wasn't sure what else I could put in its place. Is there anything else I could put there so it doesn't look so obvious that I know what debt they're referring to?

Don't items 2, 12 and 15 imply that I do not admit the allegation made against me? i.e. that I do not believe that I owe the money? I understand the objective with regard to receiving the proper paperwork from the claimant (proof of the debt) but I'm scared to commit these particular items to paper if they relate to a general admission of the debt itself. I hope that makes sense?

It isn't a question of whether you had the card and used it, it's a matter of whether they are entitled to recover the money through the courts. In civil litigation, the burden of proof is on the claimant. They have to show that certain things were complied with such as there having been a properly executed agreement with all the prescribed terms and a compliant DN in accordance with the CCA. Because they are not the original creditor, they also have to show they are the legal owners of the account through assignment.

A defence containing similar items was used by someone I know who beat MKDP in court a few weeks ago, in that case the defence was drafted by a solicitor. :thumb:

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Ok, great. Well I've filed my defence now so I can do is wait and see what happens. Thanks so much for all your guidance and reassurance. I'll update the thread as soon as I receive a response. :behindsofa:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Ok, great. Well I've filed my defence now so I can do is wait and see what happens. Thanks so much for all your guidance and reassurance. I'll update the thread as soon as I receive a response. :behindsofa:

Once the court sends your defence to MDKP they have 28 days to respond and say whether they wish to proceed with the case, if they don't respond the claim will be stayed (you won't be notified if this is the case). If they decide to proceed, you will hear from the court and receive a directions questionnaire. For now all you can do is wait. :ranger: Do post up as soon as you hear anything. :typing:

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Thank you for that. I wasn't sure what to expect so that's good to hear.

I have just received a letter from MKDP. I'm not sure if this is a standard response but it basically says that they are writing with reference to the recent request for documents relating to the claim and unfortunately they are unable to fulfil my request at this time as they need to liaise with the original creditor to request the appropriate documents.

They go on to state that these will be forwarded to me on receipt and that this may take up to 8 weeks.

It then says 'for the avoidance of doubt it is our contention that you are in a position whereby you can respond to the claim form to the extent that you can admit or deny both liability and quantum without sight of any documents'.

What are your thoughts?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Thank you for that. I wasn't sure what to expect so that's good to hear.

I have just received a letter from MKDP. I'm not sure if this is a standard response but it basically says that they are writing with reference to the recent request for documents relating to the claim and unfortunately they are unable to fulfil my request at this time as they need to liaise with the original creditor to request the appropriate documents.

They go on to state that these will be forwarded to me on receipt and that this may take up to 8 weeks.

It then says 'for the avoidance of doubt it is our contention that you are in a position whereby you can respond to the claim form to the extent that you can admit or deny both liability and quantum without sight of any documents'.

What are your thoughts?

It's neither here nor there and sounds like it was drafted before receiving your defence so I'd just ignore it, you have already responded to the claim by filing a defence and now the ball is back in their court as they have to respond to the court once they receive it, stating whether they wish to proceed.

Have I said that they hardly ever win? :grin: :grin: :grin:

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Hi there,

Well, I was taking a little strength from the fact that things had gone quiet since filing my defence but my bubble has been burst. I have received a letter from MKDP stating that they do not accept the contents of my defence and have therefore informed Northampton County Court that they intend to proceed with the claim..

The letter goes on to say however that they "..are mindful of the uncertainty and expense associated with legal action therefore we are willing to offer you a 20% discount on the outstanding balance in full and final settlement of our claim." They go into say that this can be paid in full or by instalments and have attached a consent order for this purpose.

What are your thoughts please?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Hi there,

Well, I was taking a little strength from the fact that things had gone quiet since filing my defence but my bubble has been burst. I have received a letter from MKDP stating that they do not accept the contents of my defence and have therefore informed Northampton County Court that they intend to proceed with the claim..

So they have taken their time to respond to your defence but the question is, have they provided you with any documents? If not, nothing has basically changed.

The letter goes on to say however that they "..are mindful of the uncertainty and expense associated with legal action therefore we are willing to offer you a 20% discount on the outstanding balance in full and final settlement of our claim." They go into say that this can be paid in full or by instalments and have attached a consent order for this purpose.

What are your thoughts please?

If they are so sure they can win and get a CCJ against you for the full amount why offer a discount and a consent order? :noidea:

Bear in mind even if this proceeds to court, you'd still have the opportunity to settle via a Tomlin order (a type of consent order) to avoid a CCJ on record in the unlikely event they provided you with compliant documents so I see no reason to fall for it at this stage. :nono:

The court will ask them to supply you with the documents at least 14 days prior to the hearing date and they may well stumble and have to discontinue. ray:

[Inthemire]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Thank you so much again for your kind response. Your help and reassurance is so comforting.

Well, as you may remember, I put both the CCA and CPR requests in early and although I've received something which they might want to pass off as a valid document I am not so sure if it would qualify for the fulfillment of those requests? The letter that accompanies the document simply states "Please find enclosed a proof of service of the Default Notice supplied by the original lender in relation to the above claim." The document itself is what appears to be a screen print of a system that they must use in house - 'Fair Isaac' software? This simply shows some basic details about me (name, address & DOB) and some details about the card such as the balance, last payment, Default Notice service date etc. Is this a compliant response to the CCA and CPR requests do you think?

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - MKDP LLP / Lloyds - 20-5-2015

Thank you so much again for your kind response. Your help and reassurance is so comforting.

Well, as you may remember, I put both the CCA and CPR requests in early and although I've received something which they might want to pass off as a valid document I am not so sure if it would qualify for the fulfillment of those requests? The letter that accompanies the document simply states "Please find enclosed a proof of service of the Default Notice supplied by the original lender in relation to the above claim." The document itself is what appears to be a screen print of a system that they must use in house - 'Fair Isaac' software? This simply shows some basic details about me (name, address & DOB) and some details about the card such as the balance, last payment, Default Notice service date etc. Is this a compliant response to the CCA and CPR requests do you think?

Hi, can you post up a redacted copy of what you have received please.
Doesn't sound like it meets a CCA request.
nem