Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

[pt2537]

I heard a little dickie bird tell me that MKDP LLP have said that they dont lose cases such as this one………………….. I can confirm, if the above statement is truly attributable to MKDP then its false, because their arse got well and truly spanked in Court on Tuesday. Spanked in fact is probably the […]
I heard a little dickie bird tell me that MKDP LLP have said that they dont lose cases such as this one…………………..
I can confirm, if the above statement is truly attributable to MKDP then its false, because their arse got well and truly spanked in Court on Tuesday. Spanked in fact is probably the biggest understatement going.
The Court granted a certificate of unreasonable conduct against them, ordered them to pay costs in a small claims case, and dismissed their claim against the Defendant pointing out that they hadnt even established the right to be in the Court room let alone the right to the Debt.
The credit agreement they had was declared unenforceable (irredeemably) and their whole case savaged by the Judge. In truth however, it was more due to the preparation that when into the case to set it up that brought the win to the table.
I willl post the Judgment when i can, but the case is identical to HFO Capital v Wegmuller.



More...

[Amethyst]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Funnily enough I was talking about this case earlier - nice work xxx Look forwards to the judgment.

[pt2537]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

LOL They got their butt kicked hard let me tell you lol

[cozza]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

I defended a claim from them as an LIP and their claim was dismissed yesterday. Judgement very similar to HFO v Wegmuller too.

[mystery1]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Nice one. Can you elaborate for the benefit of others ?

M1

[pt2537]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

I defended a claim from them as an LIP and their claim was dismissed yesterday. Judgement very similar to HFO v Wegmuller too.

Well done, they are poor at litigating and seem not to learn from their mistakes, much like HFO Capital when i spanked them on Wegmuller

[Nibbler]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

I defended a claim from them as an LIP and their claim was dismissed yesterday. Judgement very similar to HFO v Wegmuller too.

Excellent. Always warms my heart to hear of them getting some comeuppance.

[cozza]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

At work at the moment so will update with a bit more info later

[cozza]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

They replied to a s78 with a very brief page of t's and c's (incomplete ie missing default charges for one thing) and then much more detailed ones which I understood to be from then the account closed- these had my current address on. After initiating Court proceedings they sent me a application form which was illegible (the worse case that I have seen). I kept writing to get a better copy - they even sent back to Bcard for a better copy but the one sent was even worse than the first.
I went into the Court hearing expecting it to be adjourned for them to bring a better copy Judge wouldn't have it though as he said that their case didn't rest on this doc. He was right actually as he said in his judgement that they had not knitted the t's and c's and the app form together in any way... i.e here is an application form and here are some t's and c's.

I had prepared a skeleton argument about failure to comply with s78 first and then I had included the Section 60,61 argument and said that the agreement was not properly executed. He said there was no evidence that the t's and c's presented had ever been signed, no linkage between the signed application form and those t's and c's given in the MKDP witness statement so the case just had not been set out correctly from the start. Their barrister mentioned 65 and he came back on 127 (3) - that the Court could not enforce as they had failed on 61.

They did not play the game fairly and I can elaborate on that by DM but one instance was pointed out to the Judge and he was very cross about this.

Their barrister went down the track of I had had the money and spent it and I did not deny it I said that my argument was about the enforceability of the agreement. I did say that over time I had paid a lot of interest to the original lender though and they had continued to charge interest even after I entered a payment plan with them. Also the fact that there were no default charges on the original t's and c's would mean I would have a substantial counterclaim ( I did not enter one at the beginning though as I did not have the statements to do so.

As part of the Judgment The Judge made a point of saying he wasn't happy finding this way (ie I was getting away without paying money owed) but it was absolutely my right as part of the Law to challenge in this way and he did not mean any disrespect to me. He acknowledged the work I had done as an LIP to get to grips with the law in this area in a short space of time.

[nemesis45]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Very well done!!
MKDP always tries to manipulate the statutes to suit it's often warped
theories on what is enforceable!!

Good to see them beaten, and to see a judge acting exactly as the law requires.

nem

[pt2537]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

heres the Court order from my most recent escapade with MKDP

http://prntscr.com/6x0vkw

[Nibbler]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Short and very very sweet.

[nemesis45]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

I wonder if MKDP will try to flog the debt to some other pond life further down the
food chain??

nem

[Mrs c]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Just had a letter from hph2 Ltd saying mkdp is assigning a debt to them.. A debt that was dismissed in court a year ago as mkdp failed to appear or to supply orders by the judge prior to the hearing... Not sure how hph2 Ltd think they can supply the relevant info?? They are applying to the court to have the name of the claimant changed from mkdp to hph2 Ltd....

[nemesis45]

Re: Bad day at the office for MKDP LLP

Just had a letter from hph2 Ltd saying mkdp is assigning a debt to them.. A debt that was dismissed in court a year ago as mkdp failed to appear or to supply orders by the judge prior to the hearing... Not sure how hph2 Ltd think they can supply the relevant info?? They are applying to the court to have the name of the claimant changed from mkdp to hph2 Ltd....

As predicted!!

nem