I have been following this thread as I am in a similar position

- old Mastercard debt

now at the stage of it being allocated a small claims track.

It does state that if struck out the claimant (HPH2/H&C) has to pay my costs, as the debt is £11k+ with their interest, fees etc, i.e. over the £10k level.

my defence was the total lack of any acknowledgment of my request for info regarding s77a/s78 and 86B.

When it went south and M/card closed my account the rate had gone to either 19.9% or 29.9% (latter I think) and heaps of late payment/non-payment type £50ers added to their party trick.

I was living abroad and so got any info well after the usual 30 statement, which stopped completely when they closed the account as I was paperless and no longer got access to what was happening.

I first got this card about 35 years ago.

Applied for the standard CCA and made the CPR31.14 request too.

Nothing so far in return.

Just wondering, in the absence of almost everything I have read on here and other similar sites (excellent service BTW), if the s77/78 86B claim has any merit whatsoever.

Also, as we have to produce evidence, aside from a witness statement, what else do defendants typically produce in court from their own records?

I have perhaps one or two old M/card statements, but nothing else really.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, I did as requested and started a new thread. Nothing to add really.

thank you

when was the last time you paid anything on it?

So if its at allocation stage have you actually submitted your Directions Questionnaire ?

Rather than asking 20 questions probably wise to read and copy and paste the Qs and your responses back here from the following link...then we have all the information in 1 post.

Also a copy of the defence you submitted would be helpful.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-2016**(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Regards

Andy

Here we go.

If it appears twice, its

because I posted it twice,

maybe because I had links in it.

Anyway, waffle aside...

Name of the Claimant ? HPH2 Ltd via H&C

Date of issue – 10 Jan 2017

What is the claim for –

1. The claim is for the sum of $8489.40 in respect of monies owing under an agreement with the account no. 1234567890 pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The debt was legally assigned by MKDP LLP (ex Barclaycard) to the Claimant and notice has been served.

2.The defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement.

A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

The Claimant claims.

1. £8449.40

2. Interest pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from 22/05/13 to the date hereof 1324 days is the sum of £2463.57

3. Future interest accruing at the daily rate of £1.86

4. Costs

What is the value of the claim? £11545.85

Is the claim for a current (Overdraft) or credit card /loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit card

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? Before, c1990.

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned to HPH2 Ltd

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Possible, but not seen it. Was living abroad. A lot of mail got binned as it was always c3 months old.

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? As above. I don't honestly recall the default notice being received

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

Why did you cease payments? Financial difficulties. Min payment to BC was the same as interest and charges. I was also getting no response to my question over the charging of interest without due notification and annual statements. We had an agreement, they unilaterally closed the account, which was then paperless.

What was the date of your last payment? Probably 2012

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Yes

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?Yes

My defence verbatim as follows;

The claim is denied in full.

I have no debt with Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd.

I previously held a credit card with Barclaycard (Mastercard), which the claimant advises they an assigned the debt.

I have no evidence of that.

Historically, there have been several collection agencies enquire as to the status of the account No. 1234567890 and all have been advised the same information as below.

During certain periods when the account was open,

the credit provider - Barclaycard - often made changes to the contractual arrangements without advising me, as required by the Consumer Credit Act.

The offence under the Act prevents the credit provider charging any interest or fees until the information and advice has been provided.

As the offences commenced prior to and subsequent to the 2006 Act, the accumulated interest is considerable.

I have pursued Barclaycard for the calculation and their offer of recompense since this became known but to date, I have not received one single response.

Further, I sought to reach agreement with Barclaycard to close the account, making several lump sum payments after Barclaycard unilaterally ceased an arrangement of monthly repayments, thereby entering in to a breach of contract on their behalf, once assumes immediately prior to selling any purported debt to a collection company.

The fact is that approximately £6,000 is the value of incorrectly applied interest.

Other charges had also been applied.

Accordingly, I made several payments to Barclaycard in full and final settlement when considering the amounts incorrectly applied to the account.

Therefore, as there is no debt any further claim for interest is wholly denied. any interest rate charge, even the non-commercial 8% referred to in the claim by Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd, multiplied by nil, is nil.

Likewise, any and all claims for costs, fees, charges etc are denied in full.

At this point, I shall not be seeking to make any counterclaim as Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd may be unaware of the facts that Barclaycard have assigned my closed account on several occasions and on each such occasion it gets referred back to Barclaycard when the facts are presented.

However, in the event that this proceeds, I advise that any and all time I spend on this issue from this point onwards shall warrant a claim of £100 per hour.

The case has been allocated to Small Claims track due for hearing on 7 July. They have until 9 June to pay the £115 fee, usual provide docs 14 days before the hearing

Thanks.

Forgot to add.

On their DQ, section C Pre-action protocols they wrote they had not complied with the explanation " There are no applicable to regulated Consumer Credit claims".

I know, it doesn't make any sense so I emailed H&C and asked what it was supposed to mean and the actually, this is specifically a regulated CC claim issue in case they are suggesting it is not.

No reply from them yet, one week old.

To confirm, I have requested the copy CA and made a CPR31:14 request.

Cheers

where the beep did you get that defence from...?

if you've been following threads here as you say????

then that's nowhere on cag in any form

and neither is anything in it mentioned by cag nor would it be...

I have "recently" been following the threads. I'd done the defence, DQ etc before venturing on here.

opps

ok well theres a bit of bailing out to do then..

but we have big buckets....

await andy to pop in

Hi...and many thanks for providing all the relevant background history and your defence.

Just a few points to initially point out.

As the claim will be allocated to Small Claims Track...the claimant is not liable for your costs or you theirs apart from fixed costs to the successor of the claim...being above 10K is irrelevant if allocated SCT unless its being treated as FT with regards to Costs only?

Secondly your query with regards to Pre Action Protocol ...the claimant is correct that Pre Action Protocol is not applicable to a money claim ...at the moment.The fact that its a regulated CCA1974 debt is irrelevant to PAP.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol

Lastly with regards to the claimant failing to comply with a section 77/78 request..their whole claim relies on compliance...they must disclose the agreement to enforce the agreement.

And on an agreement that is 35 years old and even worse a BC agreement...its simply not going to happen.

Regards

Andy

Thanks Andy. The last letter from the court specifically states they will be liable for my costs if struck out. Are you saying, if I go to court. (I.e. Not struck out before) I wouldn't get costs if successful?

Thanks for your second point. Clear to me now.

Should I now request the court to reallocate this to Fast Track?

Thanks

Forget costs...keep it in SCT...as you are afforded more protection should you lose.

Costs are only awarded if either you win or the claim is discontinued in FT.....not usually if its struck out unless the DJ sees fit to award them

Thank you.

If I understand my position now, I am waiting on a copy CA from HPH2 ltd, or not as the case might be, and a response to the CPR request.

What dates are you working towards to submit disclosure and witness statement ?

Court date is 7 July and the requirement is 14 days prior to that, so 23 June would be the deadline. CA and CPR requests are early as so any docs should be with me a month prior to that date.

See if the claimant complies and files and serves their disclosure and witness statement by that date...normally they fail and you ask it be struck out for failing to comply with directions.

Standard fare I am sure but H&C very kindly asked if I was willing to make an offer to their client.

None that was pleasant sprung to mind, so I haven't engaged on that issue.

Standard fare I am sure but H&C very kindly asked if I was willing to make an offer to their client.

 

None that was pleasant sprung to mind, so I haven't engaged on that issue.

Hardly surprising on a agreement thats 35 years old

Hardly surprising on a agreement thats 35 years old

shame though a cag defence wasn't used. prob wld've been a discon by now

I hear you.

Wasn't aware of it until I started looking once the DQ stuff arrived.

That said, I have always drawn a blank from BC when asking for the annual statement and/or the reduction in interest they weren't supposed to have charged,

so every time the claims chasers came along I gave the same reply,

"it's in dispute, refer to the people who appointed you", then it went quiet again.

I had also read that the original CA didn't have to be produced if it's an old debt,

but I'm guessing that was incorrect info, hence not really chasing that avenue.

Anyway, see how we go. Thanks for the guidance, we will donate regardless.

no worries.

their non compliance re s78 etc can hopefully be mentioned later if necessary, eg witness statement, mediation

Hi. Just a quick update.

Received a letter from Robinson Way that reads

"We write to confirm that we have noted the dispute/query that you have raised.

We will make the necessary enquiries and let you know the outcome in due course.

In the meantime we will stop all collection activity on this account.

Please let us know if we can assist further"

Standard BS I assume and if it was from HC or HPH2 I guess one could use the "stop all collection activity" in my favour.

I have never communicated with Robinson Way.

Wont start now.

Collection activity already stopped the day they submitted the claim ....

I share your chuckle. Odd though, as I never raised any query with RW. Does that suggest HC and/or HPH2 passing my data without permission?

No....I understand they are all one and the same...different desks huddled together in a prefab up some back alley

Hi.

Update on this is HPH2 have paid the £115 trial fee.

Trial date is 7 July so have about 10 days to submit evidence. To date, no reply from my CPR 31 and CCA requests BTW.

I am guessing that even if they use that as evidence (if it exists) their breach in non-compliance wont do them many favours.

Thanks