Howard Cohen-Discussion thread.

[Mightyacorn]

don't know if anyone has heard of Coward doing this before- might be a new ploy to watch out for...

I recently had a directions hearing after HC had finally disclosed documents. As well as a "reconstructed" DN (which a few others have received lately) HC had also supplied a Notice Of Assignment.

At the hearing the judge asked what the issues with it were. I replied by saying I'd never seen it before and that any NoA should have been sent by recorded delivery. The judge seemed to agree while HC's rep was scribbling this all down.

Just over a week later I was awoken one Saturday morning by the postman who had a letter from Cowards that needed signing for. I was surprised to find that it wasn't a notice of discontinuence but the NoA that I said I'd never received

 

This is not a new ploy from Cohen's they do it all the time, they (Lewis Group) allegedly buy a debt, and Cohen's take the claim route straight away, you only have to have a look on the threads on here, usual letter is, "CL Finance been assigned your debt, oh and by the way we have made a claim at Northampton". You can guarentee that they have not had any sight of any of the paperwork, they use it to pressurise the debtor into paying. You can tell by the number of cases either discontinued or struck out, that this is the case. This is blatant misuse of the Court system and is one of the complaints I have made to the SRA and the Courts Service. The trouble is many debtors pay up as the mere threat of court action is enough, others are so relieved that the proceedings are discontiued or struk out that they are glad to see the back of it, therefore complains to the relevant authorities are few and far between. We need to compplai about these tactics.

[DonkeyB]

Oh dear... taking court action when the defendant hasn't been informed of the assignment?

 

You should invite them to discontinue as they are clearly in breach of CPR.

[Mightyacorn]

Oh dear... taking court action when the defendant hasn't been informed of the assignment?

 

You should invite them to discontinue as they are clearly in breach of CPR.

 

 

This is the letter DB:-

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/Howard%20Cohen%20One/Image0001.jpg

 

You suggest this is breach of CPR?

[DonkeyB]

In the sense that a letter before action has not been issued.

 

To lump it with a notification that action HAS (not may) been taken prejudices the defendant in that Cohen's have added court and solicitor costs without giving the debtor a chance to settle the account first. Because of this, they should never be awarded costs in such a case.

 

My issue with the case above is that they can't go issuing NoAs after the fact once a claim has been lodged - if the judge accepts that there is no proof that the debtor was informed of the assignment before a claim was issued (and that's my interpretation of what happened, hence the recorded delivery letter), then there is no cause of action, in my very humble opinion! The defendant has not been informed of a change of ownership and therefore cannot plead.

[Mightyacorn]

I see where you're coming from DB, I have actually complained to SRA that I see this as vexatious litigation and misuse of Court procedures.

[DonkeyB]

In another case (here) Cohen has stated in its witness statement that the letter above does count as a letter before action! That is clearly absurd.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/257191-cohen-hearing-tuesday-3.html

 

Unfortunately the OP has edited out the WS, but the WS said this:

 

"The defendant alleges in his defence that the Claimant has failed to follow the pre-action protocols as they did not send any letters before action as required by paragraph 4.3 of the Practice Directions Protocols. We refer the court to Exhibit [XXX] confirming notice of the claim to be issued."

 

And guess what that exhibit was? Yup, just like the letter above - a statement that a claim HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, not "to be issued".

 

So another blatant fib in a WS from Cohen's. What a surprise. I'm sure a judge will see through this disingenuity and economy with the actualité.

Edited April 28, 2010 by DonkeyB

[DonkeyB]

I see where you're coming from DB, I have actually complained to SRA that I see this as vexatious litigation and misuse of Court procedures.

 

Couldn't agree more, MA. This is an insidious practice which I believe is a way of lining the pockets of the solicitor - adding the costs without warning, and before they could possibly have any documents relating to the account.

[Mightyacorn]

For anyone not sure on Court Procedures the following is an excellent site:-

 

Just Claim :: Civil Procedures Index

[diddydicky]

rather than alert them to the fact of the failure to notify assignment- thus giving them the opportunity to rectify it and start again

 

i think i would be inclined to let the proceedings commence as far as possible and disclose it in the defence at the latest possible opportunity in order to rack up their costs

[letsgetitsorted]

that tack worked for me DiddyDick the issue of no notice of assignment was one of the defence points i pointed out, so after they recieved my court bundle last week, the discontinued and confirmed on monday by the court. if they havent let you know they have been assigned mack sure its mentioned in the defence, it does help

[letsgetitsorted]

just had a letter from them saying i am not entitled to costs under cpr 27.14.

[Mightyacorn]

just had a letter from them saying i am not entitled to costs under cpr 27.14.

 

Sorry, LGIS, a letter from who, Cohen's or the Court?

[letsgetitsorted]

hi Mighty

the letter I had says

 

"further to your letter 28th april the contents we note, we can confirm that under CPR 27.14 you are not entitled to costs.

we trust this concludes the matter."

 

and that came from cohen

[Mightyacorn]

hi Mighty

the letter I had says

 

"further to your letter 28th april the contents we note, we can confirm that under CPR 27.14 you are not entitled to costs.

we trust this concludes the matter."

 

and that came from cohen

 

In that case I would check with the Court, as Cohen's discontinued with mine, and I was awarded costs.

 

And if, having checked with the Court, that you are entitled to costs, then I would report Cohen's to SRA again.

[hillards]

Howard Cohen is a person - he is the senior partner of Cohen Cramer Solicitors. Howard Cohen Solicitors is a trading name of Cohen Cramer Solicitiors. Howard Cohen Solicitors operation is run from Lewis DCA offices; the phone numbers and email addresses on HC letters all belong to Lewis.

And it's very possible that Howard himself does not realise just how muddy his name has become over the years with staff of Lewis Group churning out thousands of documents in his name. It is also very possible that he is paid a handsome sum for the use of his name, but it's not for me to suggest he would turn a blind eye to the activities of Lewis Group, aka CL Finance, because of this ongoing arrangement.

 

The information we have on this operation is that Lewis Group, as CL Finance, buy in thousands of debts at a time. Their method is to submit a claim to Northampton Court, usually without a LBA or any prior communication. If you are lucky, you will get a NOA and that should alert you to do something, before they pass your details to Northampton, in the hope of a default judgement.

 

Many people will simply pay up, as they don't understand what is going on and any thought of a court order is enough to have them reach for their purse/wallet. People using CAG have come to realise what the game is, and that 'Cohen' (department of Lewis, not the man himself) are abusing the court system.

 

They send in a couple of thousand claims at a time, which are linked to the case numbers and their own reference on an electronic spreadsheet. They claim that when the court returns the data, they have to check it manually, and this is where errors occur - they say... What a load of bovine excrement!

 

Lewis Group have been trading for many years, they have computer systems galore. They should receive notifications from the court in a form that allows them to update their systems automatically. This situation comes up too many times to be blamed on 'human error', loads of threads here on CAG to say it's happened to them too.

 

It has been shown that they send out these notices, suggesting that the court case is over and you must pay £xx, even when these cases have been defended. It's just part of their ancient process and the payment amount is probably not that set by the court, but their own calculation on how much they want.

 

The problem we have is that there is no official body to take action against this disregard for the legal system. Complaints to the OFT, SRA, local MP's, various BBC programmes and my uncle Jack have all failed to gain any more than an apology, and blame placed on human error.

 

It's time this lot were stopped from treating alleged debtors this way. I'm dealing with one matter at present where a NOA has been sent but the matter is still disputed with the OC and the first DCA to take this up, so Cohen/Lewis/CL Finance should not be dealing with it at all. They gave just one day to 'pay up or else' and that meant a letter had to be sent, fast, to stop them in their tracks.

 

I'm not a fan of DCA's anyway, both Cohen and Carter have used sneaky tactics to try and get a CCJ without allowing the person concerned sufficient time to lodge a defence, if one was even required. As far as I am concerned,. they have failed to give the alleged debtor the opportunity to come to any arrangement for repayment with them, even if the debtor had no intention of doing so, before taking court action, and that's where the abuse of process comes in.

 

Just to add little:

the letter I had says

 

"further to your letter 28th april the contents we note, we can confirm that under CPR 27.14 you are not entitled to costs.

we trust this concludes the matter."

 

and that came from cohen

and that came from cohen - and you simply take their word for it? Always check with the court, the DCA will happily tell you you can't claim, as they think that will put you off even trying - a very similar tactic to getting people to pay them in the first place.

 

Many moons ago, I posted some pictures of Lewis Group staff at work - see for yourselves... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/245609-lewis-group-cohens.html#post2747503 - I notye that the Facebook page has vanished, but the piccies are still available

[littlebert8]

Unfortunately, letsgetitsorted's case is a small claim, so cohens wernt trying it on by citing CPR 27.14. Good point though, I wouldn't take their word for anything.

[DonkeyB]

Even if it is small claims, CPR 27.14 does not specifically exclude costs being awarded. If it can be proved that the claimant has acted unreasonably, costs can still be awarded against them - for example, if they could be shown to recklessly continue a claim in the full knowledge that they would lose due to evidence already presented to them.

[JonCris]

Its always possible to ask a firm to reveal how many judgments by default they obtain in any year. Even if they refuse to say it places them on notice that you know their game

[Mightyacorn]

The below is copied from my thread:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/175074-mbna-let-battle-commence-6.html

 

 

"This one deals with Lip Costs and the Case History to support the potentially capped Time Costs v uncapped Disbursement issues:

 

Quote:

One good tip on Litigant in Person Costs, is to know that the 2/3 Cap only applies to your Time Costs. IOW, the LiP Rate of £9.25 an hour.

 

Thus, when drawing up your Bill of Costs, always split it into two main sections, i.e. Time Costs and then Disbursements.

 

There are no limits on Disbursements, provided they are clearly reasonable and in keeping with the work done.

 

Disbursements are things like Postage, Carrier Costs, Printing, Paper, Ink, telephone calls, Car Fuel & Car Running Costs (to get to/from anywhere as part of the work done), Photocopying, Scanning, Accommodation, Travel & Subsistence, i.e. anything where you can substantiate a reasonable Disbursement.

 

Thus, it is quite conceivable that a Litigant in Person's costs could exceed that of a Lawyer, because a Lawyer is not allowed to include routine items like Paper and Ink etc. This is because it is assumed they include that as part of their fees, and have Gofer Staff to do the Menial Tasks for them. By comparison, the Court knows that a Litigant in Person would have to do everything themselves, and those tasks usually have a cost.

 

For example, if you use a Car or Bike to get to Court, then establish the mileage to Court and double it (because you also have to get back). Then find out a reasonable average for the cost of Fuel in your area. Then establish a reasonable Miles per Gallon, say, 30mpg for an average vehicle and, from that you can submit a Fuel Cost. Then add a reasonable running cost per mile for a vehicle, perhaps 10p or even 20p a mile, all is OK provided you can argue it. It could be higher if you factor in Road Tax, Depreciation, Running Costs, work out the annual cost, and divide that by 10,000 Miles average, and it may well work out at 50p a mile. Multiply that by the round trip mileage to Court, and that's the Disbursement for that!

 

IOW, if a Lawyer's fees would've been £1,200 and you claim £1,000 for your Time, then the 2/3 Cap would limit you to £800, that being 2/3 of the £1,200 a Lawyer would charge.

 

However, if you can show £600 in Disbursements, then your total fees would exceed the Lawyers, i.e. £800 allowed on Time Costs, and £600 for Disbursements, makes £1,400 in total, and that could be allowed because you are not getting more than the 2/3 Cap on your time.

 

So, make sure anything that is a Disbursement is removed from your Time Costs, and make sure you do charge for every second of your time at £9.25 an hour...the Court will limit you to 2/3 of a Lawyer's fees, but better that than under-claim and get less than you deserve.

 

Finally, there is Case History to support this:

 

Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250 (8 February 2002)

 

Also...

 

Mealing-McLeod v The Common Professional Examination Board 2000 All ER D 436.pdf

The second one deals with the issue of getting full costs on what would have been a Small Claims Track, where the case never got as far as Allocation stage! I think from a quick glance, that may apply to you, anyway, here's the 2nd Thread Dump:

 

Quote:

Quote:

Is there any case law or CPR where cases are multi-track before allocation?

I regret I can't point you to where it lives, but it'll be buried in CPR somewhere. Try here:

 

Part 44 GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS

 

This bit may help, i.e. 44.11(1):

 

Quote:

Costs following allocation and re-allocation

44.11

 

(1) Any costs orders made before a claim is allocated will not be affected by allocation.

 

(2) Where -

 

(a) a claim is allocated to a track; and

 

(b) the court subsequently re-allocates that claim to a different track,

 

then unless the court orders otherwise, any special rules about costs applying -

 

(i) to the first track, will apply to the claim up to the date of re-allocation; and

 

(ii) to the second track, will apply from the date of re-allocation.

 

(Part 26 deals with the allocation and re-allocation of claims between tracks)

See also the related Practice Directions here:

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION ABOUT COSTS

SUPPLEMENTING PARTS 43 TO 48 OF THE Civil Procedure RULES

 

Also, Judge Patricia Pearl mentions this on page 124 of the Fourth Edition of her excellent book...

 

Quote:

Small Claims Procedure:

A Practical Guide

 

Fourth Edition

 

ISBN 978 1 85811 394 4

This is what she says:

 

Quote:

(2) What happens if there is a hearing on a case which qualifies for the Small Claims track before allocation? (for example the hearing for a summary judgment)

 

The District Judge is not restricted by the no costs rule when deciding how to deal with the costs (rule 44.9 and PD 44 para 5.1(1)) but will be concious of the discretion guidelines (see page 117).

CPR Rule 44.9 is below:

 

Quote:

Costs on the small claims track and fast track

 

44.9

 

( 1) Part 27 (small claims) and Part 46 (fast track trial costs) contain special rules about -

 

(a) liability for costs;

 

(b) the amount of costs which the court may award; and

 

© the procedure for assessing costs.

 

( 2) Once a claim is allocated to a particular track, those special rules shall apply to the period before, as well as after, allocation except where the court or a practice direction provides otherwise.

I can't see a clear match for the "PD 44 Para 5.1(1)" that she mentions, so that could be a typo in the book, or CPR has changed since the book was written. There does not seem to be a Para 5.1(1), just a 5.1 and a 5.11, neither of which have a (1) linked to them!

I've had full costs awarded on a Summary Judgment Application that I made before Allocation, i.e. where the issue was otherwise heading for Small Claims Track. Because Track had not actually been Allocated when I won the issue, I received full costs...no question. Judge was quite aware, and I hardly needed to point out this was the case.

I hope some of the above is of use"

 

 

Have a good read of the blue Section

 

All the above courtesy of BankerRhymeswith.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Mightyacorn

[letsgetitsorted]

i didnt respond to the letter saying i wasnt entitled, after all i gave them until 25th of this month to cough up not to mention the default they registered against me....thanks all for your comments on this bunch.

[sharpie1]

Hi there not sure if this is the right place to post, aplogies if not.

Last year my debt of £500 with Next was passed to Howard Cohen. I began paying £20 per month. 6 months down the line i defaulted and they passed a county court judgement. I continued to pay until i missed again in December. They then passed it on to the local county court and i was sent a letter saying that i had to pay immediately all outstanding amounts or a bailiff from the court will visit. I paid the toal that they had requested before the deadline and i received a receipt from the court for my payment. This was in February and i thought was the end of the matter. Today i have received another letter from HC saying that i owe £89.92 and must pay immediately. I have telephoned them and explained that i paid the outstanding amount as requested. They said that they received the payment but there was still £89.92 outstanding??? I dont understand as i thought they had requested the full amonut be paid which is what i did?? They have said that they have put the debt on hold for 10 days while i send them a copy of the receipt, however they are acknowledging the payment just saying that there was still moreoutstanding?? What do i do from here im totally confused and feel like they are just trying to get more money out of me?? thanks

[Mightyacorn]

Hi there not sure if this is the right place to post, aplogies if not.

Last year my debt of £500 with Next was passed to Howard Cohen. I began paying £20 per month. 6 months down the line i defaulted and they passed a county court judgement. I continued to pay until i missed again in December. They then passed it on to the local county court and i was sent a letter saying that i had to pay immediately all outstanding amounts or a bailiff from the court will visit. I paid the toal that they had requested before the deadline and i received a receipt from the court for my payment. This was in February and i thought was the end of the matter. Today i have received another letter from HC saying that i owe £89.92 and must pay immediately. I have telephoned them and explained that i paid the outstanding amount as requested. They said that they received the payment but there was still £89.92 outstanding??? I dont understand as i thought they had requested the full amonut be paid which is what i did?? They have said that they have put the debt on hold for 10 days while i send them a copy of the receipt, however they are acknowledging the payment just saying that there was still moreoutstanding?? What do i do from here im totally confused and feel like they are just trying to get more money out of me?? thanks

 

No problem. Send them a Subject Access Request, and make sure you ask for ALL statements of Account, Notice of Assignment, Default Notice and Agreement, etc. I think you'll find that the debt was unenforceable in the first place.

 

If you've paid what was on the CCJ then they will have to go to Court again for the extra.

[MandM]

Subbing

 

M

[bino]

Hello all I am not sure wear to post this, but I hope it ok in here!

 

I have a problem with Howard cohen/Cl finance , the lewis group whatever they call themselves!!

 

My situation started in 2003 when I was unable to pay my loan and credit card with HSBC. I joined up with payplan in a dept management plan to help me pay my debts. Hsbc agreed reduced payments with me, then they passed on to metropolitan collections. All was well for many years then one day in 2008 I recived court action from howard cohen. I did not even know who they were. They demanded the £3k i owed.

 

I panicked and contacted payplan. They told me to sign the papers and send to them. I never heard anything again on the matter.

 

Last month I decided to see if my credit was getting better and to my horror I realised that the had filed a CCJ in my name. Problem for me was that I did not even know they had taken over the debt and I had never missed a payment. I contacted the court and they gave me their details. I called Howard cohen and they told me that I had missed payments in 2008 march, april and may. But told them that I have a record of all the money I paid to payplan and payplan have a record of all the money they were paying to my creditors. Both myself and payplan fowarded this info. to them.

 

I decided to contact metropolitain and it turns out that they sold the debt to cl/howard cohen in sept 2007 and metropolitain were taking my money and passing it on to howard cohen until feb 2008. then howard cohen were supposed to be getting the money from payplan after that time. CONFUSED YES I WAS... but because the money for the 3 months after went missing the filed in court for the whole amount. Now I want this removed or set aside as I have done nothing wrong. I call them each week and they say that they have sent my information off and are waiting for acknowedgment of proof of payment from metropolitain or hsbc for the months in question.

 

I did call metropolitain again myself and they say that the last money they had from me was 2008 feb. Im going nuts and just want to free myself from this pain.

 

Please Please help me

[Mightyacorn]

Hello all I am not sure wear to post this, but I hope it ok in here!

 

I have a problem with Howard cohen/Cl finance , the lewis group whatever they call themselves!!

 

My situation started in 2003 when I was unable to pay my loan and credit card with HSBC. I joined up with payplan in a dept management plan to help me pay my debts. Hsbc agreed reduced payments with me, then they passed on to metropolitan collections. All was well for many years then one day in 2008 I recived court action from howard cohen. I did not even know who they were. They demanded the £3k i owed.

 

I panicked and contacted payplan. They told me to sign the papers and send to them. I never heard anything again on the matter.

 

Last month I decided to see if my credit was getting better and to my horror I realised that the had filed a CCJ in my name. Problem for me was that I did not even know they had taken over the debt and I had never missed a payment. I contacted the court and they gave me their details. I called Howard cohen and they told me that I had missed payments in 2008 march, april and may. But told them that I have a record of all the money I paid to payplan and payplan have a record of all the money they were paying to my creditors. Both myself and payplan fowarded this info. to them.

 

I decided to contact metropolitain and it turns out that they sold the debt to cl/howard cohen in sept 2007 and metropolitain were taking my money and passing it on to howard cohen until feb 2008. then howard cohen were supposed to be getting the money from payplan after that time. CONFUSED YES I WAS... but because the money for the 3 months after went missing the filed in court for the whole amount. Now I want this removed or set aside as I have done nothing wrong. I call them each week and they say that they have sent my information off and are waiting for acknowedgment of proof of payment from metropolitain or hsbc for the months in question.

 

I did call metropolitain again myself and they say that the last money they had from me was 2008 feb. Im going nuts and just want to free myself from this pain.

 

Please Please help me

 

Right, don't panic, we have the wherewithall to help you. Firstly so you don't get swallowed up in this thread you need to start your own thread. It's not as complicated as it seems.

 

Go to the top of this page and you will see a banner which looks like this :-

The Consumer Forums > The Consumer ForumsDebt Action Group > Debt Collection Industry Howard Cohen-Discussion thread. Welcome, bino.

You last visited: Today at Private Messages: Unread 0, Total .

 

Double click on Debt Collection Industry, when that page opens scroll down a couple of inches and you should see a tab which says NEW THREAD. Click on that and copy all you have written above into it. Next post a link on this thread to it.

 

That way any advice given to you does't get mixed up with someone else's advice.