SaltnVinegar v MKDP

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I would never tell a creditor what they've got wrong in a CCA response. Thank goodness they failed to put it right after you told them

Well they certainly can't argue that they weren't informed now! The last time I brought it to their attention the returning letter referred me back to their 'Final Response', which did nothing to address any of the points of my complaint, but instead told me to contact Barclaycard and report a case of identify fraud, which is nowhere close to what my complaint was about (if they had bothered to read it).

Thinking more on this now, I won't resend the CCA request, just incase they do put it right, and as they have issued their 'Final Response', and are sticking with that, suits me perfectly. I will though send the MPT letter which is sufficiently vague, and also gives them more opportunity to take some rope.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I never replied to that-I figured £3K going SB was worth more than £150 - and it quietly slid past the SB date last December. Phew!

Definately worth it! I can only hope mine will go the same way

- - - Updated - - -

Barclaycard have a dedicated email address for debt purchasers to contact them for agreements if the debtor queries the recon. That's when they start to dig deeper. I was thinking of spamming that email address

That, if nothing else, shows the extent of the problem they have!

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Just another thought on this.......

I did not receive a DN, and subsequently did not receive a termination notice, as a result, no doubt, of the account details and address they have sent me, belonging to someone else.

Can't imagine this is going to help MKDP one bit either

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I did not receive a DN, and subsequently did not receive a termination notice, as a result, no doubt, of the account details and address they have sent me, belonging to someone else.

Are you saying that MKDP have sent you a CCA belonging to someone else with a dfferent name at a different address?
Or they've got the name correct but it's a random address to which you have no connection and never had any connection?

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Or they've got the name correct but it's a random address to which you have no connection and never had any connection?

Yup this one.

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Yup this one.

In which case you don't want them to put that right by sending a new CCA in case they get lucky second time.

Plan B x

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

In which case you don't want them to put that right by sending a new CCA in case they get lucky second time.

Plan B x

Certainly don't want to give them another bite at the cherry!

Just looked through my emails, and I did ping the agreement over to Niddy last year so have given him a nudge to have another look.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Just another twist on this. Looking on Noddle, Barclaycard recorded an account as 'settled' at the incorrect address in Oct 2011.

However MKDP have entered a new record against my correct address with a defaut date of Oct 2011.

Not sure whether this helps the catalog of evidence against MKDP and that it can be shown their records are all over the place.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Latest missive from MKDP - they seem certain that they have fulfilled the requirements of the Act. What they fail to mention is that they have to provide a true copy, and that they have missed this point as there is no way it can be a true copy if it has a wrong address, and the address on the t&c's do not match either...

[Pixie]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

As you know, DCAs/OCs always say that what they've sent complies with CCA 1974. Barclaycard will have said that it's a true copy and MKDP will have accepted that what they've said is correct. Just keep quiet about the agreement having the wrong address and the address on the T&Cs not matching just in case MKDP take this further. I know you know this but I'm stating the obvious for other readers

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

As you know, DCAs/OCs always say that what they've sent complies with CCA 1974. Barclaycard will have said that it's a true copy and MKDP will have accepted that what they've said is correct. Just keep quiet about the agreement having the wrong address and the address on the T&Cs not matching just in case MKDP take this further. I know you know this but I'm stating the obvious for other readers

Even when presented with irrefutable evidence that they have not complied MKDP modus operandi seems to be to proceed regardless. I suspect from the numerous cases we're seeing on here that they have made a business decision to progress most to the point of issuing a claim, on the basis that most will pay up at that point rather than defend.

I'm afraid I may have some business for our preferred solicitor in the near future

[Pixie]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I fear you're right SnV

However they can be beaten

[nanna58]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Wouldn't it be great if these guys were put out of business, even better if it was AAD that did it , they really are vile, trading on peoples misery.xx

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

However they can be beaten

Absolutely - I would like to think this could be the case in my circumstances, not the least because they have behaved like arses, and also not complied with the CCA

Wouldn't it be great if these guys were put out of business, even better if it was AAD that did it , they really are vile, trading on peoples misery.xx

Its not just that Nanna, they are deliberately issuing claims, knowing full well their paperwork is not in order, and also abusing the legal system, knowing that most people will either fold, or, acting as LiP's be walked over.

[nanna58]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

So the justice system should always see through them shouldn't they ? something's wrong somewhere .