So it seems that MKDP have stopped issuing claims, and instead have transferred their portfolio over to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited.
This is not unsurprising as all the MKDP cases i have dealt with were appallingly bad and really poorly prepared. I suppose it must be a good business move for MKDP as all of the cases that landed on my desk ended up with a win for our clients and a loss for MKDP, however it seems from the paperwork thats been passed to me recently that even though these cases have been transferred, Hoist still havent addressed the fundamental problems that MKDP had.
So perhaps before they issue any old MKDP cases they may wish to think about the following.
MKDP v Ali
MKDP v Sejpal
MKDP v Paul
MKDP v Springate
MKDP v Beaumont-hayes
MKDP v Hillier
The list goes on and on, and all of the above were cases that we won on behalf of our clients.
In January 2016, the County Court heard a trial in a case involving Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 limited. The issues in the case were:-
- The Defendants account had been assigned to Hoist but the validity of the assignment was disputed
- The Default notice issued by Cahoot was materially defective as it failed to allow the statutory time for compliance
- The Creditor had failed to comply with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.
- The terms of the contract were unfair per UTCCR 1999
The Claimant made a real mess of the proceedings, indeed the trial bundle didnt arrive as a hard copy until the morning of the trial, the Claimant applied to introduce new evidence on the morning of the trial. The Claimant also changed their stance in respect of their witness, they were sending the witness, then they werent, then they were!!
Any way, we represented the Defendant on a no win no fee basis, we also secured a barrister (Mr Thomas Brennan) also on a no win no fee basis.
The case came before DDJ Campbell, who after listening to the evidence, and hearing submissions, reserved her Judgment.
The Judgment was handed down little over 10 days ago, and the Court ruled that
- the Default notice did not comply with the requirements of s88 Consumer Credit Act 1974; and
- The Claimant had failed to come close to complying with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act.
Accordingly the Judge dismissed the Claim and ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendants costs.