As the title suggests, we can report another successful outcome involving a debt purchaser. In this case, the Defendant had tried to litigate the Claim properly, but due to the lack of legal training and experience there were numerous errors in the case. These errors are the type which litigants in person make, they arent trained in the legal world, they dont have legal knowledge yet are expected to litigate to the level of a skilled lawyer.
In this case, the Defendant had taken out a citi card, and also had PPI, when the Defendant fell into difficulty the PPI was relied upon but didnt pay out. A dispute arose, and Citi wouldnt act reasonably and refused to refund the useless PPI.
The Defendants account was sold to MKDP in the end, and they took the case to Court. The Defendant lodged a Defence , however the key issues werent pleaded and the issues which were werent strong enough to succeed at trial. Clearly those representing MKDP would have known this and i would expect they were looking at this case as a banker.
When we were instructed, we applied under CPR 17 to amend the Defence. A draft amended Defence was pleaded, and the Claimant invited to consent to the Defence. They did consent in the end. However, we were less than 4 weeks before trial and the Claimant served a notice of discontinuance on us.
A good result for the Defendant in a case that could have turned out so different had the Claim gone to trial.