MKPD--I made a mistake?

haribocrazy

hi
first time here. Please help. My sil has been chased by these people for a debt he does not own. He DID have a lot of debt and that has all been sorted. MKDP sent him a letter without saying what the debt was. We sent a letter asking for copies of the credit agreement. They said that as this was a bank account there was no ca. We have now sent a prove it letter which they have ignored.. Have we messed up? Could they say that the request for a ca was acknowledging the debt? Theyare now saying they will go to court.

What to do next please? They have never sent anything to show who the debt belongs to. If it was his (which it is not) it would be statute barred because he has not had a bank account with the hsbc for over 10 years. It was all put into an iva which he failed 8 years ago. All the other debt in it was chased by another company which has said that they cannot find any proof of ownership and has closed the debt.
thanks for any help

fermi

Follow up letter here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57703407&postcount=3

I would add that you will be defending any court action in full.

sourcrates

They may of sold on the debt, not unusual, provit letter was correct way to go, you MUST. Chase it up in writing, straight away, they have to respond, remind them of there obligation, otherwise you will report them to FOS, FCA, etc.

fermi

Also interesting to read.

MKDP / MKDR lose in court - certificate of 'unreasonable conduct' granted by judge

haribocrazy

Fermi---thankyou very much. We will send that. They also told him to get the copies of any documents from the bank himself! As I am sure everybody else who deals with this company knows they never send any proof just lots of threats.

But have we messed up by asking for a credit agreement? I am worried about this now!

thanks in advance!

haribocrazy

sourcrates--wow, such speedy help, wish I had come on here before! We have done that (this all started a few months ago) but apart from telling us they did not need to supply a credit agreement they have given us nothing.

I think that court might be next. It is not a huge amount Only £500 and tbh I am thinking of paying so that they don't worry any more. What do you think will happen next? We have just had a court threat letter from Keynes.

thanks so much

fermi

Not really messed up. Just was not the best thing to do as tends to give debt collectors the impression it is your debt and that you are looking get out of it.

As long as from now on you dispute liability properly should be OK.

If they do go to court there are several legal forums that can help you defend and refute any claim.

haribocrazy

Thanks for the help so far.
What should we be expecting to see as proof? If there is no credit agreement because this is a current account what should MKDP send us as proof that my sil is owner of the debt? They seem to be saying that they don't need to send anything. Is that right? They have sent no statements etc and only say that he should contact hsbc.
thanks again!

sourcrates

haribocrazy wrote: »

Thanks for the help so far.
What should we be expecting to see as proof? If there is no credit agreement because this is a current account what should MKDP send us as proof that my sil is owner of the debt? They seem to be saying that they don't need to send anything. Is that right? They have sent no statements etc and only say that he should contact hsbc.
thanks again!

For a bank account, proof would be in the form of statements.

They have an obligation to provide proof when asked to do so, it's up to the DCA to do the legwork, not you, they are talking !!!!!!!! !!!!

fermi

FCA rules. These are not optional.

http://fshandbook.info/FS/print/FCA/CONC

CONC 7.5.3
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.

CONC 7.14.1
01/04/2014
FCA

(1) A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds.

CONC 7.14.2
01/04/2014
FCA

Valid grounds for disputing a debt include that

(1) the individual being pursued for the debt is not the true borrower or hirer under the agreement in question; or
(2) the debt does not exist; or
(3) the amount of the debt being pursued is incorrect.

CONC 7.14.3
01/04/2014
FCA

Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.

CONC 7.14.4
01/04/2014
FCA

Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.

CONC 7.14.5
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds.