MKRR Claimform - HSBC managed Loan ***Claim Struck Out***

[Guest]

seems so, an o/d is running a/c credit. and an assertion of exemption re an executed agreement? which then they would need to show compliance with the OFT determination re such exemption?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

Not sure what kind of agreement this is, so the claim needs to be queried. If it is an overdraft there should be annual statements since Feb 2012 under the Eu amendments to the CCA, in any case the OP should have been receiving section 86 notices of arrears.

 

Problem with a section 78 request is that creditors have a habit of not complying anyway if the agreement has been terminated, although strictly speaking they should( many quote Rainkine in this).

 

If a claim has been issued I would want to know exactly what is was for. I think since it has gone this far the right step is via CPR

[Guest]

yes, clarification needed. the poc are in #20, and just say re a cca regulated 'bank a/c facility' involving a default notice! (a def notice is not usually associated with an o/d)

unfortunately, with cpr 31.14 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?159445-Getting-Them-To-Reveal-Their-Vitals.-Using-CPR-31.14-to-Your-Advantage there is no strict requirement to comply with it, but representations could be made re any non compliance? but, 31.14 worth a try? otherwise, would have to wait for normal disclosure if nothing before.

there could though also be cpr 18? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here(1-Viewing)-nbsp

but, anyway, it seems that the defence has already been submitted?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

yes, clarification needed. the poc are in #20, and just say re a cca regulated 'bank a/c facility' involving a default notice! (a def notice is not usually associated with an o/d)

unfortunately, with cpr 31.14 there is no strict requirement to comply with it, but representations could be made re any non compliance? but, 31.14 worth a try? otherwise, would have to wait for normal disclosure if nothing before. there could though also be cpr 18?

but, anyway, it seems that the defence has already been submitted?

 

I only ever use CPRs if and when and once I have used them I tend to forget what one does which, so I left that to someone who is more familiar with their use, 31.14 isn't that anything mentioned so couldn't the OP query the agreement and the DN.

 

It is a strange one because as said it is over the limit for a regulated agreement unless there are default charges.

[Guest]

I only ever use CPRs if and when and once I have used them I tend to forget what one does which, so I left that to someone who is more familiar with their use, 31.14 isn't that anything mentioned so couldn't the OP query the agreement and the DN.

 

.

 

no doubt you are aware. see eg sticky link additions in #28. yes, 31.14 'disclosure' re 'docs' mentioned in a statement of case. cpr 18 for any further info?

but, has defence already gone in? is barred anyway?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Ford

[Josie8]

Might be an idea to send a subject access request as well . Totally different department and they have to disclose all transaction histories etc.

[Guest]

can do, but takes 40 days so might be too late, but can do anyway. also, they might refuse a dsar as there is litigation referring to the normal disclosure rules. ie the disclosure rules would take precedent.

[jhill]

Hi,

 

I'm sorry to hijack this thread although I am desperately trying to contact Josie8 since I think she may well have some extremely useful information relating to Northern Rock Together Mortgages with Loans in excess of £25,000. Josie8, if you are reading this can you please visit the thread -Do-you-have-a-Northern-Rock-Together-Mortgage-Read-This./page8

 

Petebeds I think maybe able to help too...I am right it seems you have successfully argued in court that a loan in excess of the £25,000 CCA limit (prior to 2008) should be treated as a regualted argeement since it was executed on regulated paperwork. If there is a recorded judgement on this then you could help hundreds of people (if not thousands) who are being stiffed by NRAM and not getting anywhere with the FOS

 

Thanks and sorry for hijacking

[borisbeaver]

Thought I give you all an update. After having to submit several forms including a N171 in december, it turns out that MKDP LLP failed to return their N171 by the date and then by the extension given them.

 

She has now received a letter from the court stating "Upon the claimant having failed to comply with the courts order dated 18 December 2013, the Claim has automatically been struck out".

 

She's buying me lunch today as a thank you.

 

Boris.

[AndyOrch]

Well done Boris

 

 

I will amend your thread to reflect the outcome.

 

 

Delighted for you.

 

 

Multi track ...so wasted costs?

 

 

Regards

 

 

Andy

[sequenci]

Great news, congrats

[Guest]

nice one

[citizenB]

Well done

[borisbeaver]

A little update. We're now going to try to send in a claim to HSBC for the PPI on the loans that got consolidated. Wouldn't it be nice to stick one on them.

[citizenB]

Boris, if I recall correctly these loans were the subject of the claim, were they not ?

 

They were statute barred and had been assigned to MKDP.

 

Just because they were statute barred, it does not mean that the debt no longer exists. Just that it can never be pursued via the court.

 

In theory, having sold the "debt", HSBC should not have any interest in the account. However, do be aware when submitting your claim for the PPI, that HSBC might want to try and apply it to the SB account.

 

Don't let that put you off attempting to reclaim.

[AndyOrch]

Well done Boris

 

 

I will amend your thread to reflect the outcome.

 

 

Delighted for you.

 

 

Multi track ...so wasted costs?

 

 

Regards

 

 

Andy

 

Wasted costs would have been easier:madgrin: